16th Meeting of Senior Fellowships Officers of the ... - Development

22
16th Meeting of Senior Fellowships Officers of the United Nations System and Host Country Agencies
rity in the Field. Mr. De Tomassi clarified that the Advanced Security in the Field was
for all duty stations which had a declared Phase I and above. It was up to the agencies
to check if the host country had a declared phase, and if so, to assure that the fellow
took the Advanced Security Training prior to departure.
76. The adequacy of stipend rates and the modality of calculating them continued to be a
burning issue. Dr. Gbary of WHO Africa expressed concern that there was a tangible
inconsistency in the determination of stipend rates for African countries. According to
him, there were neighboring countries with similar conditions of living that had three
or four times the rates of the others. Mr. De Tomassi commented that it was the UN
Conditions of Service Section which determined the stipend rates based on the review
of the conditions of living in each country by the respective UNDP country offices. A
global review of stipend rates was underway but not all UNDP offices had responded.
Therefore, some countries had been reviewed and some had not. The countries with
low rates were most likely those that had not been reviewed yet.
77. Another issue that drew attention was the financial contribution of the donors and
some fellowship entitlements as defined or requested by them on behalf of fellows,
especially when the fellows came from the donor countries. Dr. Gbary questioned the
UN rules which did not provide travel for dependents, as some donors did. Mr. De
Tomassi recognized that it was possible that some donors were generous on a bilateral
level. However, if they went through the multilateral channels, they had to comply
with the UN rules which did not provide travel for spouse and children.
78. The representative of UNEP, Mr. Heileman, raised the issue of the return rate of fellows
after completion of their studies abroad. He wondered if any statistics were available on
the number of fellows who returned or did not return to their home countries to work.
One of the problems that some countries were faced with was brain drain. Mr. Heileman
wanted to know about the experience of the agencies in this matter. Mr. Rudi pointed
out that there were no inter-agency statistics per se but agencies did keep records of their
own. DESA, for example, had not had the problem of brain drain for the last ten years.
All fellows returned to their home countries. Mr. Ali Zaid of UNESCO admitted that his
organization did encounter some problems with brain drain even though its regulations
stipulated that a fellow should go back home on completion of studies abroad. UNES-
CO combined the study abroad with the study at home in order to oblige the fellows to
return. Furthermore, it withheld payment of a portion of the stipends for two months
until fellows sent in their final reports originating from their home countries, not from
the countries of study. The representative of WMO, Mr. Momadou Saho, underlined
that his organization had in place a comprehensive monitoring procedure which called
on the host institution to submit a termination report, co-signed by the fellow, at the end
of the fellowship award. Three months after the fellow’s return home, the parent institution
or the Permanent Representative of that country to UNO Geneva, had to send a
report to WMO confirming the return of the fellow and the new assignment. Since the
introduction of that procedure WMO had not seen any sign of brain drain.