28 March 2001

1. The Advisory Committee on Post Adjustment Questions (ACPAQ), chaired by the Vice- Chairman of ICSC, Ambassador Eugeniusz Wyzner, is a subsidiary body of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC). It is comprised of five statistical experts, and is responsible for providing technical advice and recommendations on questions related to post adjustment.

2. ACPAQ held its twenty-fourth session in New York from 12 to 20 March 2001. The agenda included the review of the preliminary results of the place-to-place surveys for the headquarters duty stations, which had been carried out in the second half of 2000. The Committee also considered proposals for changes in the survey methodology used for Group II (field) duty stations.

3. Participants included the representatives of administrations from thirteen organizations, programmes and funds, and staff representatives from six organizations. The five independent experts who had reviewed the data on behalf of administrations and/or staff in December 2000 and January 2001 also attended the session. FICSA was represented throughout the session by its General Secretary, Mr. André Heitz, and its Research and Liaison Officer, Ms. Anne Marie Pinou. FICSA President, Mr. Bernard Grandjean, and the Regional Member for the Americas, Judey Austin, attended several parts of the session.

4. A constructive spirit prevailed throughout the session. The staff of the Cost-of-Living Division of the ICSC secretariat were commended for the work done, the assistance provided to the independent experts, and the heightened transparency of the process as compared to previous rounds. FICSA recalled that the initial phase - i.e., the price collection that took place in June in New York - had taken place without the participation of observers from the staff side, nor from organizations outside New York. Since all headquarters and field duty stations are compared with New York, that phase is the mo st crucial. FICSA was able to join in commending the Division's work during the subsequent survey steps, while also urging that the spirit of cooperation and openness be established from the outset and enhanced in future surveys. This would contribute to the credibility of he results.

5. Some aspects of the survey methodology were criticized. The Committee did not entertain any request or suggestion for deviations therefrom for this round of surveys. Instead it remained firm on the principle that the round should be completed in strict accordance with the approved methodology. Nonetheless, it noted the requests and suggestions for consideration at future sessions.

6. The general assessment was that this round of surveys had been conducted in a fair and honest manner, and that the results were reliable. By and large, despite the real or perceived shortcomings of the methodology, and some relatively minor aspects of the data collection, the results were accepted by the representatives of the various duty stations. The most serious criticism related to Washington D.C., in particular, the treatment of housing.

7. The surveys yielded the following increases in post adjustment classification:

   3.89% in Geneva in September 2000;

   9.73% in Vienna in October 2000;

   12.2% in Rome in October 2000;

   8.15% in Paris in September 2000;

   10.78% in Montreal in September 2000;

   8.39% in Washington, DC. in October 2000;

   6.92% in London in September 2000.

   The actual increases will be somewhat different when the survey results are implemented because of the need to reflect inflation and variations in exchange rates since the reference date of the survey. In addition, in the case of Geneva, the actual increase may be lower since the "freeze" that began in 1995 is not yet finished. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the results are subject to approval by ICSC at its June 2001 session.

8. There are at least two ways to read the results: while the prospect of an increase is welcome, it is regrettable that it represents a correction of the under-adjustment during the last five years.

9. In the case of Bern, for which a survey was conducted for the first time, after detailed discussion, ACPAQ recommended that the Geneva post adjustment index should continue to apply. The case of Lyons was also raised, and it was recommended that its post adjustment index be linked to that for Paris, subject to a cost-of-living differential based on data from outside sources and official national points of reference.

10. With regard to the methodology for Group II (field) duty stations, ACPAQ mainly approved modifications to the questionnaires and recommended that the weighting structure for type of housing be based on the actual distribution of staff rather than a standardized distribution. The latter decision is expected to stabilize the post adjustment indices from survey to survey.