(1) At the 12th session (April 1952: CO-ORDINATION/R.124, Section III B.13) the Committee agreed guiding principles which might bring about some uniformity as regards terms of employment of non-local staff in the General Service category.

(2) At the 19th session (March 1958: CO-ORDINATION/R.264, paras. 36-61) the Committee noted variations in practices of organizations represented in certain areas.

(3) At the first part of the 21st session (April 1960: CO-ORDINATION/R.325, paras. 47-50) CCAQ noted that some organizations paid non-resident's allowance only if the official was recruited outside the duty station. Others paid to persons recruited locally who were of "foreign" nationality. In still other cases, such "foreign" staff who were hired locally for exceptional skills were given a higher grade for those skills and not paid non-resident's allowance. In some organizations entitlement to non-resident's allowance automatically carried entitlement to all other "international" benefits such as home leave, repatriation and repatriation grant, etc., (provided, of course, that the recognized home of the person was outside the local area). In other organizations, such locally-hired "foreigners" were treated as local recruits for all purposes except non-resident's allowance. CCAQ agreed that where an organization had not assumed responsibility for recruitment travel, payment of non-resident's allowance (or its equivalent) need not necessarily carry with it entitlement to other "international" benefits.

(4) At the 23rd session (March 1962: CO-ORDINATION/R.391, para. 112) CCAQ noted that there was a wide variation of practice among organizations regarding the entitlements of non-resident General Service staff after marriage. It was agreed that uniformity was desirable and UN undertook to ascertain the facts.

(5) At its 24th session (March 1963: CO-ORDINATION/R.430, para. 27 and Appendix D), as a result of a comprehensive review (see COORD/CC/SO/34) of methods of establishing General Service conditions, CCAQ agreed on the following conditions to define a "resident" - that is, a person who should not be entitled to non-resident allowance: (a) subject to (b), non-resident's allowance should not be paid in the case of a person who, at the time of appointment: i. was a national of the host country. A person with dual nationality of which one was that of the host country, would also normally be ineligible, unless his/her connexion with that country was only a remote one; ii. was living in the country or area of the duty station and was or had been in regular gainful employment there at local salary rates; iii. though not in gainful employment, had been resident in the country or area of the duty station for a period of more than one year; iv. is the spouse of any person covered by (i), (ii) or (iii). Because local conditions at New York differ in material respects from conditions elsewhere, UN reserved its position as regards the application of the above principles there; (b) Two kinds of exceptions to (a) would be justifiable: i. an exception to (a)(ii) or (a)(iii) could be made for a person whose employment by a local concern carried the right to repatriation by the employer, or who was employed with an "international status" by an international organization or a diplomatic or a consular mission; ii. the policy was not intended for application in those countries where, exceptionally, it was local practice to pay higher rates of pay to persons recruited on the spot who would be local residents under (a)(ii) or (a)(iii) or (a)(iv), but who in fact came from an entirely different region with a totally different way of life. (c) Notwithstanding (a)(iii), some organizations would continue to schedule certain types of post as to be filled by persons already in the area of the duty station, and a recruit to such a post would be ineligible for non-resident's allowance regardless of the length of time for which he had lived in the locality. Organizations should never fill such posts from outside the local area.

(6) Also at its 24th session (March 1963), CCAQ revised its policy with respect to the effect of changes of status (of officials) on entitlement to non-resident's allowance. The Committee noted that some organizations had followed the principle that if the status of an employee was established as non-local at the time of appointment it could not thereafter be changed. CCAQ agreed that, with appropriate wording of the staff rules concerned, non-resident's allowance need not necessarily be paid after a change of status. Subject to a reservation by UN as regards New York, the Committee agreed that if an official changed his status in such a way that he would have been ineligible for the allowance had he had the new status at the time of appointment, then the allowance should be withdrawn. Accordingly, but subject to exception in those cases covered by para. (5)(b)(ii) above, the allowance should be withdrawn in the case of: (a) any official who changed his/her residential status in such a way that he/she may, in the opinion of the executive head, be deemed to be a permanent resident of the country of the duty station; (b) any official with non-resident's allowance who married a spouse who himself would be regarded as "resident" (if appointed), unless he would be regarded as a dependent spouse under the rules; (c) any official with non-resident's allowance who married an official in the Professional or higher categories (or an official in comparable "international status" outside, for example in a diplomatic mission). The reason for this exclusion was that the conditions of service of the Professional staff were such that the payment of non-resident's allowance was not necessary in terms either of retention of staff or of the financial needs of the official concerned. It was reasonable to follow the common presumption that the residence of the wife was normally the residence of the husband; in the vast majority of cases this would manifestly be the position in fact; (d) an official with non-resident's allowance who married another official with non-resident's allowance. In this case the allowance should be continued for the official who was regarded as the "head of family"; but to continue two allowances would be unjustifiable for reasons similar to those in (a).

(7) The agreement described in paras. (5) and (6) above were intended to apply to all recruits after the effective date of application. In general, this was to be 1 January 1964, but individual organizations should be free to adopt an earlier date if they wish. In the case of "existing officials", change of status should be dealt with under the rules in force at the date of the change of status itself. It was recognized by CCAQ that the agreements, which envisaged withdrawal of non-resident's allowance in certain circumstances, would necessitate re-examination of the question how far there must be a link between non-resident's allowance and other entitlements to "international" benefits. This should be done by a working party before the end of 1963.

(8) At its 25th session (April 1964: CO-ORDINATION/R.451, paras. 18-21), CCAQ confirmed that the 1963 agreement was intended to apply not only to staff appointed after the effective date, but to staff in service on that date whose status changes subsequently. UNESCO, ICAO, ITU, IAEA, GATT and the UN Geneva Office were following the agreement. With the exception of UN, which maintained its 1963 reservations, and ILO, which had not yet considered the matter, the Committee agreed on the impact of withdrawal of non-resident's allowance on entitlement to travel of dependants, removal expenses, home leave, education grant, repatriation grant and repatriation expenses.

(9) At its 31st session (March 1970: CO-ORDINATION/R.798, para. 42), CCAQ considered that there was no longer justification for the policy agreed in 1963 (see para. (5)(b)(ii) above) whereby the normal definition was not intended to apply in certain countries to locally recruited persons who came from an entirely different region with a totally different way of life. The Committee recommended that while the allowance should not be withdrawn from persons now benefitting from the 1963 exception, no further exceptions should be made. CCAQ believed that it might well be the case that the staff receiving the allowance under the exception were performing jobs for which special qualifications were required, and with appropriate grading standards it should be possible to attract them through the scale of pay without the addition of NRA. FAO disagreed with these recommendations.

(10) At its 18th session (July 1983: A/38/30, paras. 59-64), the Commission agreed with the concept that the allowance was part of a total package of expatriate allowances granted to non-resident General Service staff.