VOL. 67, NO. 3 - AAFI-AFICS, Geneva - UNOG

THE PENSION FUND AND US
The discussion in the last session of the AAFI-AFICS General Assembly, reported upon elsewhere in the
Bulletin, leads one to think that it is helpful, from time to time, to recall just how the relationship between the
United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) and the associations of former international civil servants
has evolved since these associations constituted themselves into a Federation.
The Secretariat of the Fund
The day-to-day working relationship between the associations and the Secretariat of the Fund is good - it
always has been, even if some misunderstandings occasionally arise as was the case recently: in this case
we made sure that the dialogue was re-established as quickly as possible. There must not be any friction or
conflict between us.
Our common interest is that of safeguarding the rights of pensioners, assuring the continuity of their pension
payments and hence their financial tranquillity.
It is not simply a form of words that Bernard Cochemé, the Chief Executive Officer of the Fund uses in his
annual letter when he says: “These associations, through the experiences of their respective members,
serve as knowledgeable sources of information and advice, not only on pension-related matters but also on
the laws and other aspects of life in countries around the world. They continue to act as “partners” to the
Pension Fund secretariat and to the member organizations through their support and assistance.” In his
annual letter he also lists the addresses of all our associations and invites pensioners to contact them for
information and assistance which complements that directly available from the Fund.
This recognition of our work reassures us and strengthens our will to maintain this partnership at all costs.
The Pension Board: special status for FAFICS
At the level of relations between our associations and the governing organs of the Pension Fund - notably
the Pension Board and its Standing Committee - our work takes place within the framework of the Federation
of Associations of Former International Civil Servants (FAFICS). The relationship between FAFICS and the
Pension Board dates back to 1976, a year after FAFICS’ creation, when the President of FAFICS was invited
to attend the Board and to take the floor at the invitation of the Chairman of the Board; observer status in a
way. Nine years later, in 1985, the Pension Board formally recognised a FAFICS delegation, made up of five
chairpersons from different member associations of FAFICS. Then, in 1987, the Board, when adopting the
recommendations of its Working Group on the Size and Composition of the Board, took a major step forward
and introduced the following provision in the Rules of Procedure of the UNJSPF:
“Attendance at Board sessions shall be limited to (among other categories of persons) two representatives
and two alternates for the Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants (FAFICS)”. Later
the number of representatives was increased to four. “(These) representatives shall be accorded the rights of
members except the right to vote”. Similar provisions apply to the participation of FAFICS representation in
the Standing Committee of the Fund.
Although some continue to insist that FAFICS has only observer status, it is quite clear that the simple status
of observer had been replaced by a formal recognition of FAFICS representation. The status of observer still
exists in the Rules of Procedure for only one representative of organizations or organs invited by the Board
to attend the session who will only “have the right to speak with the permission of the Chairman.”
For sixteen years these provisions functioned normally and efficiently. Given that the Board only voted in
exceptional circumstances the position of the FAFICS representation took firm hold and retirees saw their
interests expressed in the Board in the same manner as those of active staff represented by the participants.
They took the floor whenever they wished and participated in all official consultations between the groups.
The retirees’ representative and the participants group worked closely together as their mandates frequently
coincided.
43