WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE BOARD 105th Session Provisional agenda item 6 EB105/17 Add.2 17 January 2000
Implementation of budget resolutions Resolutions EB103.R6 and WHA52.20 Report by the Office of Internal Audit and Oversight
PART 4: “providing an evaluation of the new management support units, comparing their performance with that of the previous system” (resolution EB103.R6)
BACKGROUND 1. The Office of Internal Audit and Oversight directed the evaluation of the Management Support Units (MSUs) at the request of the management in order to ensure objectivity and independence. The project was a joint effort between the General Management cluster, an outside consulting firm and the Office, which maintained control of the work and is the authority on the report.1 2. The Office independently selected Arthur Andersen Business Consulting to undertake a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The contracts committee confirmed the selection through established procedure. 3. The evaluation compared the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the MSUs with the previous centralized system. It comprised a review of the cost implication of the new structure; a quantitative analysis of common performance indicators; and a qualitative assessment. 4. In order to comply with the Executive Board’s request, the evaluation had to begin when the MSUs had been functional only for about six months. The short period for which data were available inhibited a solid evidence-based comparison and analysis. Fragmented control over specific activities in the MSUs further complicated the comparison with the centralized approach.
COST IMPLICATION 5. The Office reviewed the cost implication of the establishment of the MSUs and audited the information previously reported by the Secretariat as showing cost neutrality for the regular budget and general administration of WHO (document EB103/INF.DOC./1).
1
The complete report is available upon request, in English only.
EB105/17 Add.2
6. The Office agrees with the information presented in this document and believes that it accurately depicts the effects on the regular budget. The Office further believes that the information is not complete without indicating the impact of some US$ 3.3 million on other funds, primarily from the creation of MSU manager posts. The Office is satisfied, however, that this amount has been offset by other savings in general administrative costs and that the establishment of the MSUs was, in total, cost neutral.
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS - PERFORMANCE REVIEW 7. The General Management cluster developed 20 specific performance measures with target times in order to monitor progress. For the evaluation, six indicators were selected and data were collected during a three-month period. Comparative data from the previous biennium were identified. The six indicators mainly represent a measure of the time needed to process specific transactions related to expenditure and personnel and do not attempt to assess either cost or quality of the services provided. 8. The performance data collected did not cover all the responsibilities and objectives assigned to the MSUs, nor were seasonal or other variations in workloads considered. Accordingly, these results should be considered only as an initial indication of the performance of MSUs. 9. Analysis of the data collected showed that all indicators relating to the processing of various contracts and travel authorizations were within the established target times as were those for recruitment. However, processing of contract extensions and functions related to the classification of posts exceeded the target times. 10. A comparison of the number of days required for processing with data for the previous biennium showed substantial improvement for all indicators. 11. Although the overall results showed a positive trend, there were significant differences between and within MSUs for the various performance indicators. The most significant variances were found in personnel administration.
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS - CLIENT SATISFACTION REVIEW 12. MSU clients, in general, welcomed the objectives of the new system but expressed some dissatisfaction with the support functions as currently provided. 13. Staff, both in technical programmes and those working on cross-cutting activities, emphasized the significant improvements resulting from the MSU structure. Specifically, the clients appreciated the service orientation of the MSUs and their customized advice and solutions. In addition, they perceived that efforts to standardize and communicate procedures were improving the level of the service provided. 14. Some departmental directors, however, described a degree of dissatisfaction and did not see added value for certain activities under the MSU structure. For example, a general attitude was identified which suggested that the MSUs lack an understanding of the technical programmes’ specific needs and expectations. Concern was expressed that some MSUs lacked consistency in performance. Further, there was a general complaint of excessive control as opposed to service-orientation, and a disappointment at the lack of progress toward simplified procedures.
2
EB105/17 Add.2
QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS - OPERATIONAL REVIEW 15. The limited scope of the performance indicators necessitated further analysis of MSU operations in order to assess more comprehensively the effectiveness of the MSU model. The operational review addressed areas that influenced the effectiveness of the reorganization, including the devolution strategy, the current accountability structure and the revised procedures. 16. As opposed to the improvements outlined in the performance review, the operational review also disclosed weaknesses in the manner in which the MSUs were established and continue to function. The following main issues were identified: • Devolution strategy. Although devolution changed the organizational structure, line managers have been given no greater decision-making authority. The moving of administrative functions physically closer to clients can improve performance, but more significant improvements could be achieved through a revision of the overall framework. • Added value of MSUs. The added value of the MSU concept has not been clearly perceived by the technical programmes. Conflict continues to exist on the balance between the control function that MSUs view as a key responsibility and the streamlined processing of transactions wanted by the programmes. • Responsibility and accountability. The implementation of the MSU concept did not clearly identify reporting lines and accountabilities within the Organization. Although the MSUs clearly report to the Executive Directors, there has been little to define how they can also effectively be accountable to various units in line with the functions they perform. • Technical programme expectations. The current framework does not ensure that the expectations and needs of clients for support in the technical programmes are effectively identified and addressed. • Work processes. There was no systematic review of procedures in order to align them with the new framework and clients’ needs. Many processes continue to be characterized by control-oriented complex processes, with broken flows of activities and duplicated tasks. • Information systems not aligned with the needs of the decentralized structure. Major information systems were conceived to meet the needs of the previous system. Although these systems are under active review, the needs of the new organizational framework have not yet been met.
CONTROL SELF-ASSESSMENT 17. Complementary to the evaluation, the Office led each MSU through a self-assessment which examined the internal control structure necessary to accomplish the MSU’s objectives. The results of the exercise revealed several weak areas, some of which were common to many MSUs and had global implications. Some of these weaknesses were also confirmed by the operational review during the evaluation. The Secretariat has initiated remedial action at all levels and the Office will continue to consult on the project until its conclusion.
3
EB105/17 Add.2
CONCLUSION 18. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis indicate that the devolution of certain support functions is a viable strategy. Service provision in general has improved, with some exceptions, when compared with the targets and performance of the previous system. Departmental clients welcomed the objectives of the new system but did not yet perceive added value in all instances. However, the weaknesses brought out by the operational review will need to be addressed. This evaluation should be considered as an integral part of a continuous improvement process.
=
=
=
4
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE BOARD 105th Session Provisional agenda item 6 EB105/17 1 December 1999
Implementation of budget resolutions Resolutions EB103.R6 and WHA52.20 Report by the Secretariat
1. The Executive Board at its 103rd session adopted resolution EB103.R6 on the subject of budget presentation and process. Those operative paragraphs which related to the consideration of the programme budget at the Fifty-second World Health Assembly were responded to in an information document, A52/INF.DOC./2. In addition, the resolution requested information to be provided to the Executive Board at its 105th session, which is covered in the present document. 2. Further, the Fifty-second World Health Assembly adopted resolution WHA52.20 requesting the Director-General inter alia to report to the Board on the 2% to 3% efficiency savings identified throughout the whole Organization for reallocation to high-priority programmes. 3. The response to both of the above resolutions is provided as follows: Part 1 “an integrated plan for monitoring, evaluating and reporting results to the governing bodies” (resolution EB103.R6) and “an efficiency savings plan” (resolution EB103.R6) “additional efficiency savings in the order of 2% to 3% throughout the whole Organization” (resolution WHA52.20) are contained in the present document. “WHO’s role in working with specific partners to mobilize global support” (resolution EB103.R6) is contained in document EB105/17 Add.1, and “an evaluation of the new management support units, comparing their performance with that of the previous system” (resolution EB103.R6) is contained in document EB105/17 Add.2.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
PART 1: “an integrated plan for monitoring, evaluating and reporting results to the governing bodies” (resolution EB103.R6) Programme implementation and monitoring 4. In 1995 the Executive Board, by resolution EB95.R4, “endorsed the concept of strategic budgeting, with the understanding that detailed plans of action will be prepared nearer to the time of implementation”. Following a review in late 1998 of the status of operational planning and
EB105/17
monitoring, it was recognized that a number of shortcomings existed. On the one hand, not all programmes completed plans of action, and those that were completed were often not homogeneous. On the other, many plans also proved to be too detailed for an overall view of performance. This situation stemmed mainly from the lack of commonly shared processes and business rules between programmes at headquarters and between regional offices and headquarters. 5. Furthermore, programme budgeting had in the past been a largely isolated exercise to which technical programmes paid little attention during actual implementation. As such, detailed work plans were normally not linked to commitments and statements of intent in the programme budget. 6. In view of these problems, standardized business rules and procedures for programme implementation and monitoring have been developed as a matter of priority during 1999. As a result of extensive consultations within WHO at regional and global levels, from January 2000: • operational work plans will be in place in all clusters and regions; • work plans will be linked to expected results in the Programme budget 2000-2001; • a common minimum data set, including benchmarks and performance indicators, will be mandatory in order to ensure consistency and sharing across the Organization; • the activity management system (AMS) will be the basis for preparing and monitoring work plans. Its use is mandatory at headquarters. In cases where AMS is not available, regional offices will ensure that work plans based on the minimum data set are accessible across the Organization; • progress towards the achievement of expected results will be monitored technically and financially on a continuous basis. Monitoring reports will be prepared for Regional Directors and Executive Directors at six-month intervals. 7. A sample monitoring report on expected results for 2000-2001, based on the common minimum data set is available to members of the Board on request. Similar reports will be generated across all clusters and regions for the biennium. 8. An important feature of the new monitoring system will be the matching of expenditures against expected results – a key principle of results-based budgeting. As from January 2000, all obligating documents will require an AMS code in order to be accepted for processing, thus enabling WHO for the first time systematically to account for its financial transactions in terms of programme outputs and products. In the longer term, this is also a prerequisite for moving towards an integrated planning process for 2002-2003 which looks at total resources and allocates them in an optimal way to accomplish the Organization’s mission.
Evaluation 9. WHO assesses and evaluates its programme through several means, such as: audit and oversight, preparation of financial reports, review of operational plans through a regular monitoring mechanism, internal programme assessments, and internal and external evaluations of special projects, selected departments and regional programmes.
2
EB105/17
10. Examples of such assessments and evaluations for several headquarters programmes were included in document A52/INF.DOC./2. An Organization-wide evaluation of overall corporate performance, however, has not so far been carried out. 11. Having completed the first priority linked to operational planning for the 2000-2001 biennium as outlined above, the next step will therefore be to develop a unified system of programme evaluation, firmly anchored in the overall planning, programming and budgeting cycle of the Organization. A project to develop such a system has been initiated.
Proposed plan for evaluation in 2000 12. In the meantime, and so that some programmes are systematically evaluated during 2000, the Director-General has decided that in-depth evaluations will be conducted next year in the following areas: poliomyelitis immunization, Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI), and strategic budgeting and operational planning process. 13. Having considered the time and cost involved, it is proposed to conduct the evaluations of poliomyelitis immunization and IMCI together. In addition, until the unified system of programme evaluation, which is expected to provide guidance on the type and nature of future evaluations (e.g. external or internal), has been finalized, members of evaluation teams will be recruited from both within and outside the Organization.
PART 2: “an efficiency savings plan” (resolution EB103.R6) “additional efficiency savings in the order of 2% to 3% throughout the whole Organization” (resolution WHA52.20) Efficiency savings plan 14. Further to adoption of resolution EB103.R6 requesting “an efficiency savings plan in nonprogramme costs”, a series of management reviews were initiated in a number of administrative areas at headquarters on the cost-effective use of resources. Carried out by both external consulting companies and in-house staff, the Organization’s direct investment in 1999 in these reviews amounted to some US$ 460 000, most of which were financed through the Director-General’s Renewal Fund. In addition, indirect costs in terms of staff time have been conservatively estimated at three work years in total. The status of the various reviews are given below. 15. Global procurement services. A review of WHO’s global procurement function at headquarters, procurement in the six regional offices, and the procurement services provided to IARC, UNAIDS and the Onchocerciasis Control Programme in West Africa, was completed in October 1999 by Deloitte Consulting. Total volume procured, including for the Regional Office for the Americas, has in recent years fluctuated around US$ 300 million per biennium. The review resulted in recommendations on maintaining the global procurement function at headquarters for the time being, keeping the relocation option open for the longer term; adopting a strategic approach to the procurement process while outsourcing commodity-type supplies; restructuring the headquarters unit and supporting it better with available technology and management information; and giving the regions a higher degree of procurement authority in the context of global procurement agreements. Implementation of these recommendations could eventually save up to 19 of 34 posts at headquarters and lead to substantial cost savings for Member States as a result of more favourable pricing arrangements. The review included consultations at headquarters and visits to the regional offices for
3
EB105/17
Europe, South-East Asia and the Western Pacific, UNICEF, and the Inter-Agency Procurement Services Office in Copenhagen. 16. WHO’s participation in the Joint Medical Service. An external consultant commenced in late November 1999 a review of WHO’s participation in the Joint Medical Service for the United Nations and Specialized Agencies at Geneva. The review will examine the medical services and occupational health needs of WHO headquarters and the regional offices with a view to provision of these services in the next decade. A key objective is to ensure that WHO, Administrator of the Service, maximizes “return on investment” in the Service: in 1998-1999, WHO contributed 21% to the Service’s budget of US$ 7.82 million. 17. Staff health insurance. An external organization commenced in early December 1999 a review of WHO’s staff health insurance plan that currently covers some 21 500 active and retired staff and their dependants located throughout the world. Among other objectives, the review seeks to identify opportunities to make the plan consistent with the aspirations and future needs of its participants and the Organization, while promoting best practice and cost containment. Any opportunity to streamline further the in-house administration of the plan and/or to outsource or relocate certain components will also be examined. 18. Headquarters and regional grievance procedures. A review of the grievance and appeal procedures in WHO is currently being conducted by a staff member. The scope of these procedures includes the headquarters and regional boards of appeal, the ombudsmen, and the Grievance Panel on Sexual Harassment. Practices in other organizations are being examined, and recommendations are expected to lead to a streamlining of procedures. 19. Secretarial/administrative and professional staffing patterns at headquarters. A review of the allocation and use of secretarial/administrative resources at headquarters by a staff member is virtually completed. Findings point to opportunities to reduce the overall level of secretarial staffing (facilitated by the mutually agreed separation process), to enhance the productivity and teamwork of secretarial and professional staff, and to improve the availability and use of information to monitor staffing levels. The findings were based on questionnaires and staffing analyses, extensive interviews and consultations with secretarial and professional staff, and the benchmarks of other organizations in both the public and private sectors. 20. Rationalization of publications practices at headquarters. A review of the publications policies and procedures at headquarters was conducted during 1999 by an internal WHO team. A preliminary report confirmed the need for a clear publications policy and identified a series of specific problems on priority-setting and cost and quality control. An information management group was established to frame and oversee implementation of a health information strategy for WHO that should lead to specific opportunities for cost savings in 2000-2001. 21. Review of WHO business practices. An external consultant was engaged in August 1999 to assist with a feasibility study for replacement of the core administrative systems of WHO. The systems currently used will not meet future needs and lack the necessary flexibility to cope with evolving requirements. The feasibility study focuses on opportunities for WHO to introduce best practice and greater administrative efficiency, while supporting the objective of working as “one WHO”.
Identification of additional efficiency savings 22. In addition to the above reviews initiated in response to resolution EB103.R6, a special task force was set up in response to resolution WHA52.20 to identify further efficiency savings in the order 4
EB105/17
of 2% to 3%, giving a target of some US$ 53.9 million from both regional offices and headquarters in the areas as set out in the table below.
EFFICIENCY MEASURES BY HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL OFFICES (US$ million) (Situation as at 10 November 1999)
Potential savings 2000-2001
Headquarters
Regional offices 9.9 0.4 11.2 11.0 1.5 34.0 34.0
Total
Total of regular budget % 23.3 3.0 17.8 22.0 0.5 6.7a 11.4a -
Travel Mix of professional and general service staff Procurement Fellowships and study leave Country programmes Restructuring of translation services Publications and documents Mergers, relocations and miscellaneous Subtotal Mutually agreed separations Total a
2.9 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 4.0 2.8 13.9 6.0 19.9
12.8 2.4 13.0 11.0 1.5 0.4 4.0 2.8 47.9 6.0 53.9
Headquarters only.
23. Approximately half of the overall amount of US$ 53.9 million will need to be applied against expected cost increases of US$ 25.3 million during the 2000-2001 biennium at global, regional and country levels.1 However, the remaining US$ 28.6 million actually exceeds the request for 2% to 3% efficiency savings. 24. Diplomatic missions in Geneva have been kept regularly informed of progress in this regard. It should be noted that the target of US$ 53.9 million represents the efficiency savings known at the time of drafting of this document and is provisional. It will be adjusted once the full impact of the mutually agreed separations is known. 25. As far as savings in the area of travel is concerned, the policy for per diem for members of the Executive Board has also been reviewed. In accordance with resolution WHA22.5 (1969) Board members receive an increment of 40% above the standard per diem, plus US$ 3 per day.
1
See document A52/INF.DOC./8.
5
EB105/17
26. The practice of allowing senior staff members of WHO to claim an increment in per diem was abolished some three years ago, and as one of the travel efficiency measures, it is proposed that the increment for Board members should also be abolished. This will produce a saving of approximately US$ 50 000 per biennium, and efficiency gains from streamlining administrative procedures. 27. After consultation with the Regional Directors, the Director-General has decided that approximately US$ 15 million (50% of the identified efficiency savings)1 will, in the first instance, be channelled to the following seven priorities: blood safety, mental health, making pregnancy safer, strengthening health systems, food safety, noncommunicable diseases, and investment for change. 28. The shift of the efficiency savings will be effected proportionately from headquarters and regional offices according to predetermined criteria. An Organization-wide monitoring system will be in place as from February 2000, which will make it possible to track actual expenditures throughout 2000-2001 in all of the above intervention areas, and to match them against a 1996/1997 and a 1998/1999 baseline. The system will include nonmonetary criteria and indicators, and will permit the preparation of a comprehensive report on the subject to be submitted to the Executive Board in compliance with resolution WHA52.20, paragraph 5.
=
=
=
1
Allocation of the remaining 50% will be decided at a later date.
6
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE BOARD 105th Session Provisional agenda item 6 EB105/17 Add.1 16 December 1999
Implementation of budget resolutions Resolutions EB103.R6 and WHA52.20 Report by the Secretariat
1. By resolution EB103.R6, the Executive Board requested a more precise indication of WHO’s role in working with specific partners, with indicators of success. The information below complements that provided on the policy for extrabudgetary resources1 and on public-private partnerships.2
PART 3: “WHO’s role in working with specific partners to mobilize global support” (resolution EB103.R6) 2. Resource mobilization has to be organized to maintain existing flows of funding, secure additional support from bilateral and multilateral donors, and build up strong, long-term support from other actors, including foundations, nongovernmental organizations and the business community. The approach must aim to improve predictability and steadiness of cash flows and to be flexible enough to explore new opportunities for funding when they arise. 3. Voluntary contributions to WHO from all sources rose significantly in the 1990s, reaching roughly the level of assessed contributions (US$ 400 million) in 1999, as indicated in Figure 1. It will be important to maintain this momentum through the 2000-2001 biennium if the programme budget target of US$ 958 million is to be reached.
1 2
Document EB105/9. Document EB105/8.
EB105/17 Add.1
Figure 1. Evolution of WHO’s budget(a) In million US $ 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 19901991 19921993 19941995 19961997 1998(b) 1999 2000(b) 2001
Assessed contributions Voluntary contributions
(a) Excluding Global Programme on AIDS (b) Estimates/projections WHO 99472
4.
Donors to the Organization can be broken down by different categories: • government donors (Official Development Assistance (ODA)); • organizations of the United Nations system and other multilateral donors (Commission of the European Communities, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, International Development Research Centre, etc.); • foundations and trusts; • nongovernmental organizations and other associations; • local authorities and institutions; • private sector; • others (societies, individuals, etc.).
Relations with some of these donors are described below. 5. Official Development Assistance. WHO’s core source of extrabudgetary resources is the Member States. Contributions from donor governments have been and will continue to be crucial for all WHO’s work. ODA currently represents about 60% of voluntary contributions. 6. The strategy for mobilizing support from government agencies is (a) to maintain and increase support from existing donors, (b) to approach and develop contacts with ministries other than traditional WHO partners, (c) to seek access to bilateral, country-specific aid budgets, (d) to identify and establish contact with potential new donor governments, and (e) to organize joint resource mobilization initiatives with other partners.
2
EB105/17 Add.1
7. Organizations of the United Nations system and other multilateral donors. Financial support from organizations of the United Nations system has declined significantly over the past decade, largely due to changes in the procedures of funding organizations, such as national execution. Although funding has decreased, working relationships with the organizations, including the World Bank, have markedly improved. Strategic working alliances and a number of country activities have led to development of joint strategies, better coordination of activities, improved sharing of information, and, in some cases, joint fundraising efforts (for example, with UNICEF for eradication of poliomyelitis, and with UNAIDS on prevention and control of HIV/AIDS). 8. Foundations. Foundations active in the health sector have traditionally supported WHO’s work. The United Nations Foundation, Inc. and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have nevertheless changed the scope and volume of these relationships, suggesting that this category may represent the greatest growth in voluntary contributions in the immediate future. The strategy for tapping into foundation resources is (a) to expand the number of foundations contributing towards the work of WHO, through analysis and identification of potential partners, (b) to increase the volume of donations from existing foundation partners, and (c) to develop a framework for mutually benefiting collaboration with major foundations. 9. Local authorities. Local authorities have been identified as a growing but thus far relatively unexplored source of additional funding for local and regional health projects. More than 200 local governments, cities and authorities have to date contributed financially to WHO’s work. This support is to be valued even more in terms of their commitment to health at the local level. The strategy is therefore to encourage and enable WHO Representatives to promote this involvement. 10. Private sector. Current funding from the private sector is limited. Financial support to WHO from the private sector and others amounted to less than 1% of WHO’s total budget for 1998-1999. However, carefully selected companies can add value not only with financial support but also with expertise, services and donations in kind. The recent cash contribution of US$ 2.7 million from De Beers was accompanied by support for advocacy and communication, social mobilization activities and active staff participation. The Merck donation, through the United States National Committee for UNICEF, of ivermectin for the management of onchocerciasis, is the single biggest drug donation to WHO, representing over US$ 40 million annually. 11. It is expected that voluntary contributions to WHO will have amounted to nearly US$ 750 million in 1998-1999. As a result of intensified and strategic efforts to mobilize resources and the dedicated cooperation of all Member States and WHO partners, the target for extrabudgetary resources in 2000-2001 should also be reached.
3
EB105/17 Add.1
Figure 2. Sources of voluntary contributions to WHO(a) In million US $ 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
19901991
19921993
19941995
19961997
19981999(b)
20002001(b)
National and local governments
Foundations and nongovernmental (b) Estimates/projections organizations Organizations of the United Nations system Private sector and others WHO 99473
(a) Excluding Global Programme on AIDS
=
=
=
4
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE BOARD 105th Session Provisional agenda item 6 EB105/17 Add.3 4 January 2000
Implementation of budget resolutions Mutually agreed separation Submitted to the Executive Board for information
1. Further to document EB105/17, Part 2, this paper provides additional information on the mutually agreed separation conducted by the Organization in 1999. The separation exercise is an integral and major part of the efficiency savings plan. 2. WHO’s Staff Rule 1015 contains provisions for mutually agreed separations with staff. The exercise in 1999 was aimed at freeing resources that would be channelled to priority programmes, and at changing the mix of staff skills. It is part of the Organization’s response to resolution WHA52.20, which encouraged the Director-General “to continue to identify efficiency savings in the order of 2% to 3% throughout the whole Organization, for reallocation to high-priority programmes”, and of reform under way to achieve a better match of staff skills and abilities to the new organizational structure and programme goals. 3. The scheme was voluntary and staff were invited to express interest. Decisions were taken, however, in the best interest of WHO, e.g. they would lead either to abolition of posts, or to significant other savings, or to a better mix of skills. Although all staff members were invited to express their interest in the separation, the Organization retained the right to refuse any application on the grounds that it was not in the best interest of the Organization. 4. Support teams established in headquarters and in the regional offices met with interested staff members and with the Executive Directors or Regional Directors concerned to discuss individual cases based on the criteria outlined in paragraph 3 above. The support teams’ recommendations were examined by a steering committee at headquarters, which included staff representatives. The committee subsequently advised the Director-General on individual cases. 5. A total of 331 staff expressed interest in receiving a separation. The Director-General accepted 224 applications; deferred decision on 36 applications from staff in management support units in headquarters and staff in the regional offices for Europe and the Western Pacific; and decided that 71 applications were not in WHO’s interest. 6. Of the agreed separations, 86 were from headquarters and 138 from the regions. The largest number (96) were in the Regional Office for Africa, because the temporary closure of the Office facilitated the separation of staff whose services were no longer required.
EB105/17 Add.3
7. As a result of the separation agreements, the Organization will be able to redirect approximately US$ 19 million to priority areas in 2000 and US$ 22.5 million in the full biennium 2000-2001. The savings arise from the abolition of 166 posts and significant adjustments to 58 other posts. 8. Approximately US$ 20 million will be disbursed from the Terminal Payments Account to meet separation and repatriation costs. The Terminal Payments Account is financed from a levy on staff that makes it possible to cover separations and repatriation costs as required. The funds can only be used for staff purposes. The separation exercise did not draw on programme financing.
=
=
=
2