A Reality Check on FAFICS: UN retirees deserve better, August 4, 2026

Who does FAFICS really represent?

The Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants (FAFICS) is trying to recruit UN retirees on Facebook. That's fair enough.

But it's also a good reason, and a good time considering current challenges to UN staff and retiree interests, to ask a simple question: what exactly are prospective members signing up for?

Current members of local FAFICS associations should be asking a different question: is my local FAFICS association actually representing my interests?

FAFICS is a 50-year-old federation of some 60 retiree associations worldwide. It claims to represent all UN retirees. In reality, its membership amounts to only about 20 percent of the global retiree population.

A mandate without an election

It's important to note that FAFICS did not gain its representative role through a vote of UN retirees. Instead, the UN Pension Board gradually recognized it as the body representing retirees, and that arrangement became accepted practice without ever being endorsed through a retiree-wide election.

That matters because FAFICS is involved in issues that affect every retiree and, indirectly, every current UN staff member, especially pensions and health insurance.

A weak system of representation

It also matters because FAFICS' system of representation is indirect and weak. Members elect representatives to their local associations. Those representatives sit on the FAFICS Council, which elects the organization's officers.

The President then plays the leading role in selecting the FAFICS delegation to the UN Pension Board, subject to formal appointment by the Council.

In 2009, FAFICS adopted reforms intended to make the selection process more representative by inviting nominations from all member associations.

In 2022, it amended those rules, giving the President, in consultation with the Bureau, greater discretion in selecting the Pension Board delegation, subject to Council approval.

If AFICS/NY is typical, its Governing Board does not consult the membership. There’s an annual meeting, featuring a long list of speakers and perfunctory reports, with little opportunity for members to ask questions or influence policy.

Centralized leadership culture

FAFICS' leadership culture is highly centralized and hierarchical.

I can't speak for every FAFICS local association, but members of the New York and Geneva associations have long dominated the federation’s leadership.

AFICS/NY, in particular, has largely been shaped by former UN administrators who brought with them the same top-down, managerial culture they practiced during their careers—in which the organization is always right.

There are honorable exceptions, including former staff union leaders who tried to reform AFICS/NY from within, only to become frustrated and eventually give up.

Pattern of accommodation

FAFICS representatives on the Pension Board have non-voting status but tend to punch far above their weight.

Over the eleven years I've written the UN Pension Blog, FAFICS—with four representatives and two alternates on the Pension Board, as well as representation on the Standing Committee—has repeatedly sided with the Pension Fund establishment on key issues affecting retirees rather than with retirees themselves.

Some of the highlights:

• FAFICS actively discouraged an OIOS (UN Office of Internal Oversight Services) audit during the worst pension backlog in the Fund's history.
• It systematically defended Fund leaders criticized by UN oversight bodies.
• It advocated for shelving a General Assembly-mandated governance review that found shortcomings in transparency and the training of Pension Board members, many of whom lacked a cohesive understanding of their fiduciary responsibility.
• It attacked retirees (dues-paying members) who demanded accountability.
• It helped impose sweeping confidentiality rules on Pension Board members, resulting in the suspension of staff representatives and threats of suspension against staff representative groups.
• It remained silent when whistleblowers in the Office of Investment Management were dismissed.
• Most recently, faced with a General Assembly-mandated review of the pension system and public calls by the US Government for rapid UN reforms, including pension reform, the FAFICS President reassured member associations in a letter last January that there is little to worry about. Any changes, he suggested, would likely affect only new Fund members—even implying that the only significant change might be the loss of COLA (cost-of-living adjustment), as though that were not an accrued right worth defending.
• 
  

What about health insurance?

Meanwhile, what has FAFICS accomplished for retirees?

Health insurance premiums for UN retirees continue to soar. Aetna premiums increased by 16 percent in 2025 and another 35 percent in 2026.

A memo from HLIS (UN Health and Life Insurance Service) dated 30 July states that the 2026 premium increases were driven by rising healthcare costs, an aging retiree population, greater use of expensive drugs and complex treatments, increased post-pandemic healthcare utilization, and more advanced illnesses resulting from delayed care during COVID-19.

Why, then, have retirees been hearing for years from AFICS/NY representatives that the main causes are increasing out-of-network medical services and abuse of physical therapy services?

What has FAFICS done to help address these soaring healthcare costs? And if it has little ability to influence them, what exactly is it doing to represent retirees' concerns?

Meanwhile, HLIS/ASHI (After-Service Health Insurance) telephone service is effectively non-existent, relying on a single hotline. Email service is slow, and in-person access in New York has never fully recovered since COVID-19.

What are members paying for?

In short, membership dues for local FAFICS associations finance meetings and travel for Governing Board members, but the federation continues to deliver few tangible improvements on the issues retirees care about most.

To be fair, AFICS/NY has committed volunteers who produce an excellent journal and organize lectures, lunches, and social activities. Those are worthwhile contributions.

But social activities are not the same as effective advocacy.

A critical moment for UN staff and retirees

Given the upcoming General Assembly-mandated review of the UN pension system, and the stated intention of the US Government to link payment of US assessed contributions to reform of the UN pension system, this is precisely the moment when retirees need an independent, knowledgeable, and fearless organization prepared to defend their interests.

Instead, we have FAFICS and its President's letter appearing to accept the outcome of the pension review before the debate has even begun.

Call for accountability

None of this is to say retirees shouldn't have a representative organization. We should.

But representation requires more than collecting dues and issuing less-than-reassuring statements. It requires expertise, transparency, participation, independence, and the willingness to challenge the system when retirees' interests are at stake.

If you're already a member of a local FAFICS association, hold your leaders accountable. Ask questions. Demand transparency. Insist on genuine representation.

If you're thinking of joining, ask yourself whether this is the organization you want speaking in your name.

UN retirees deserve better. 

Quick-Wins and Slow Erosion – What’s at Stake for UN Pensions - May 1, 2026

As noted in Passblue last January (link to article below), the UN General Assembly’s resolution, adopted at the end of last year, invites the UN Pension Board to carry out a full review of the pension system, with the aim of cutting costs, including consideration of defined-contribution and hybrid models and exploring ways to “lower contributions.” 

In the latest developments, a recent Devex article (link below) reports that the United States is calling for a number of “quick-win” reforms as conditions for paying its UN dues, including “overhauling the UN pension fund.”

As of now, there is a three-year time frame for the GA-mandated review of pension design and recommendations by the Pension Board on any changes. This does not mean a future GA resolution might not call for a quicker turnaround. In any case, fund members need to be alert in the shorter term to what might be meant by “quick wins” and how they could be achieved.

These may include pushing for changes in senior management of the Fund (although a new Representative of the Secretary-General for Investments was only recently installed), or exerting influence through membership on investment and audit committees to shape asset allocation, increase outsourcing and external management, deprioritize ESG (environmental, social, and governance factors), make staffing cuts, and pursue other ways to lower administrative costs.

That’s for the shorter term.

With longer-term goals in mind, pressure could be increased on the Pension Board, a notably opaque body, with the aim of steering members toward recommending radical changes to the design of the Fund that lower costs while eroding benefits for current and future UN retirees.

Of course, should the Pension Board be influenced to make such recommendations, they would face legal and structural constraints and would require agreement by all GA members. Still, in a world where very little can be taken for granted, there is no way to predict how this will unfold.

A major concern all along has been that the Pension Board must arm itself with the required expertise and fortitude to withstand not only short-term changes that could impact the Fund in terms of investment allocation, outsourcing, ESG, and staff cuts, but also longer-term impacts by recommending a change in the Fund’s design from the current defined-benefit to a defined-contribution system—one that could mean lower costs and reduced benefits for both current and future UN retirees.

Again, any change in the overall design of the Fund would require agreement by all GA members, and one would hope it would be a hard sell—but who knows in the current political environment.

If a change to a defined-contribution system were recommended and approved, or if a hybrid system were introduced with one set of rules for current retirees and another for future participants, accrued rights could come under pressure.

As I noted in the Passblue article, it is crucial that legally binding safeguards be put in place to protect those rights. COLA (cost-of-living adjustments to offset inflation) is part of those accrued rights, embedded in the Fund’s regulations (see paras. 1–3, page 60, of the Fund’s regulations covering pension adjustment benefit, JPB/G.4.Rev.17; link below).

And there’s the rub.

As noted in a Facebook post some weeks ago, it's concerning when the President of FAFICS (Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants)—an organization that purports to represent all UN retirees but in fact represents around 20 percent of them worldwide, and holds four non-voting seats on the Pension Board, where it exercises influence well beyond its formal role—writes to its 60-plus associations in a way that appears to rush to accommodate Member State financial concerns while seemingly unaware of the scope of accrued rights—what I described as “complying in advance.”

Here’s what he effectively said, not in so many words (see the actual text of his letter at the link below): “Some Member States think the compensation package for UN staff is too high and want to change the pension design. Those of us who already have a pension should be okay. And anyway, we won’t lose any benefits until there’s a final report to the GA. But if the GA approves a change in the future, we could lose our pension adjustment payment (COLA), or maybe the rules will only cover new staff. I’ll keep you posted.”

Far from demonstrating resolve to defend hard-won rights, the FAFICS president appears ready to entertain unfounded claims of UN staff overcompensation, downplays real risks, seems unaware that COLA is part of accrued rights, and expects retirees to be reassured simply because changes are not immediate or may affect only others.

So again, competence and resolve are the central issues here. The Pension Board needs to be able to hold the line in the short term and over the longer haul. 

The idea that a group of retirees explored seeking independent legal advice proved to be a non-starter, given that no external opinion has much chance of influencing Board deliberations. Offered here not as consolation or strategy but as a last resort, there remains the possibility of a class action in the UN internal justice system should recommendations be made and implemented that run counter to our interests.

So our only real hope is that those on the Board entrusted with this review will rise to the occasion, bringing the necessary expertise (imported as needed), judgment, and determination to carry out their responsibilities and safeguard our pension rights.

https://passblue.com/2026/01/19/un-pension-review-raises-concerns-among-staff-and-retirees/

https://www.devex.com/news/devex-newswire-us-demands-un-adopt-quick-win-conditions-to-get-paid-112399?fbclid=IwY2xjawRhvo1leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE5MHNoeGlMSXhuYUx0RDV2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgDsbB4QZl0X-VKZdhsQgx9Jz9qBi5OFYIuegbGEOEf8ZEmqXLK-lBuyHN1z_aem_DDYb4n0B3FrgW95rYyipIQ

  https://xunicefnewsandviews.blogspot.com/2026/01/comprehensive-review-of-un-pension.html?m=1&fbclid=IwY2xjawRhvgpleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE5MHNoeGlMSXhuYUx0RDV2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHvYVLHSC7m5SskjCrFnny6-nc4mDaN1wsuI32I6FlfH-JDGEE5-hvStGi1_a_aem_LVueYsrtoRe8obFkn1A7YA#more

https://www.unjspf.org/.../01/JSPB-G4-Rev-17_2010-E.pdf...

PASSBLUE: UN Pension Review Raises Concerns Among Staff and Retirees. January 19, 2026

• 
  Opinion by Loraine Rickard-Martin
• • January 19, 2026

The United Nations General Assembly’s latest pension fund resolution — adopted at the end of December 2025 — has triggered concerns among current and former staff members of the organization that their retirement security may be at risk.  The resolution invites the UN Pension Board to carry out a full review of the pension system, including consideration of defined-contribution and hybrid models and exploring ways to “lower contributions.”

That last phrase signals the review’s underlying intent: cost reduction rather than benefit enhancement. While framed as an “invitation,” the directive leaves the Pension Board with limited room to decline.

The current reported market value of the UN pension fund is $108.2 billion.

Initial readings of the resolution’s language about “respect for accrued rights” suggest that changes would affect only future UN employees. However, pension experts and staff representatives say that assumption may be misplaced.…"

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE ON PASSBLUE: 

https://passblue.com/2026/01/19/un-pension-review-raises-concerns-among-staff-and-retirees/

UN Pension Fund - UN staff pension fund investment chief’s jump to contractor sparks ethics concerns. August 10, 2025

 The sudden departure of the UN staff pension fund’s head of investment office to a firm contracted by the organisation has triggered concerns over potential violations of UN employment rules.

On 25 June, a notice appeared on the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund’s (UNJSPF) website announcing that the head of its office of investment management (OIM), Pedro Guazo, was stepping down as of 15 August, praising “his exemplary service, unwavering integrity, and visionary leadership”. The same day, the US-based Northern Trust Asset Management – the fund’s master record keeper – issued a press release naming Guazo as its new head of international and responsible investing, starting in August.

The UN's original announcement was quietly taken down that day, only to be reissued three weeks later with a much drier statement, indicating that Guazo had already left his post the day before. The timing and nature of his departure have raised eyebrows among staff. UN rules require a cooling-off period of one year before former employees may join vendors or contractors with whom they were involved in procurement matters during the previous three years.

Laura Johnson, executive secretary of the UN Staff Union in Geneva, alleges Guazo’s appointment while still in his UN role constitutes a “clear breach of the rules”. Northern Trust has been listed as the UN Pension Fund’s official master record keeper in documents dating as far back as 2018. While it isn’t clear whether Guazo interacted directly with Northern Trust, his senior role would typically entail oversight of key contracts.

Neither Guazo, Northern Trust nor the fund’s board respond to repeated requests for comment.

Staff unions have called on the secretary general, António Guterres, who appointed Guazo, to investigate the context of his departure. “We're hoping that this is being investigated within the UN, and also have questions about whether the vendor, Northern Trust, will also be investigated and held to account if found to have breached the conditions of its contract with the UN,” said Johnson. She added that the staff union was told that the UN was “looking into it”, but was not given any more details about the timeline and the scope of the inquiry.

When asked whether an investigation was underway, the deputy spokesperson of the UN secretary general, Farhan Aziz Haq, declined to comment “on internal individual personnel matters”. More broadly, he said “potential concerns regarding compliance with UN staff regulations, rules and policies are assessed in accordance with the organisation’s regulatory framework”, and that any vendor conduct is reviewed in accordance with the contract and under procurement procedures and policies. He did not address potential repercussions for violations.

Sanctions for breaching post-employment restrictions, according to UN documents, can include barring, suspending or terminating a vendor contract. For staff, the violation is recorded in their official file along with a recommendation against future employment by the UN.

Read more here: https://genevasolutions.news/sustainable-business-finance/un-staff-pension-fund-investment-chief-s-move-to-contractor-sparks-ethics-concern

UN Pension Fund - They Warned of Millions Lost in the Pension Fund. The UN Fired Them. August 10,2025

Last week, the UNDT issued a damning judgment, UNDT /2025/039, Applicant vs Secretary-General which will no doubt have the UN administration pursuing them like hell at the UNAT in an effort to reverse it.

Three bombshell findings before we dive into the details:

1. A senior staff member who dared to raise the alarm about UNJSPF investment policies (policies that resulted in the loss of millions in staff pension money) was swiftly retaliated against and terminated. So even when your warning turns out to be spot on, you’re the one who gets punished for daring to speak up.
2. The very rules that require staff to uphold “the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity,” and to promptly report breaches of UN regulations and rules, are the same ones the UN uses against you when it wants to terminate you.
3. Once again, we’re reminded that OIOS considers itself above the law, routinely defying Tribunal orders for evidence disclosure under the classic pretext of “operational independence.”

But that’s not all.

In this case, we also learn that OIOS’s so-called “seizure of IT equipment”and subsequent “forensic search” was nothing more than a fishing expedition into a staff member’s most private data: personal WhatsApp messages included in a desperate attempt to fabricate misconduct when there was none.

We’re reminded yet again: the Ethics Office’s so-called “protection against retaliation” policy is worthless. It’s time to shut it down alongside the equally hollow Ombudsman’s office. And while we’re at it, the newly created anti-racism office, which excels in PR but is functionally useless.

This case exposes the brutal extent of the Secretary-General’s defense apparatus led by OIOS and the Office of the Secretary-General itself, which will go to extraordinary lengths to protect its own, even if it means destroying careers and staff members’ personal lives.

A former Senior Investment Officer for Fixed Income with the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF), holding a continuing appointment in the Office of Investment Management (OIM) and with over 17 years of UN service, was terminated shortly after raising concerns regarding potential losses of millions of dollars in UNJSPF investments.

The staff member had joined UNJSPF in 2008, right in the middle of one of the worst financial crises in modern history, and was entrusted with managing fixed-income portfolios as head portfolio manager. But things started shifting dramatically once a new Representative of the Secretary-General (RSG) came into office. Not only were the staff member’s responsibilities narrowed, but a new Director at the D-1 level was appointed, effectively sidelining his authority.

Read more here: https://certioraris.com/2025/07/03/they-warned-of-millions-lost-in-the-pension-fund-the-un-fired-them/

Read the judgment here: https://www.un.org/en/internaljustice/files/undt/judgments/undt-2025-039.pdf

UN Pension Fund: CCISUA: concerned about a lack of transparency on benefit payments, risk and outsourcing of investments and alarmed at the treatment of whistleblowers, July 25, 2024

Here's the latest evidence that there's a lot more than meets the eye in the constant stream of happy talk and self-promotion emanating from the UNJSPF management

The Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA) expresses concern about a lack of transparency on benefit payments, increased risk and outsourcing regarding investments, and alarm at the treatment of whistleblowers, in a  resolution published today and conveyed to the Secretary-General, the President of the General Assembly, and the Secretary of the Pension Board: 

• “exceedingly long” processing times for payment of survivor benefits, with no related growth in the provisional benefits safety net; 
• that the Representative of the Secretary-General has continued to increase outsourcing of the fixed income portfolio, despite promises to the contrary made to CCISUA in 2022, bringing the total of the Fund’s outsourced portfolio to 28 per cent; 
• states concern that investment in high yield bonds increased risk contrary to promises to reduce risk in line with other pension funds; 
• notes some improvement in transparency in investment reporting but not to the standard of peer public pension funds; 
• expresses alarm at the treatment of whistelblowers who resported misconduct, with a loss of 150 years of expertise in the fund in a single year; 
• and calls on the Chief Executive of the Pension Fund and the RSG to, respectively, increase transparency on outstanding survivor and separation benefits payments, and on the investments of the Fund. 

Read the resolution here:

https://www.ccisua.org/wp-content/uploads/CCISUA-Resolution-on-the-United-Nations-Joint-Staff-Pension-Fund.pdf

UN Pension Fund members -CALL TO ACTION. Send your question directly to the RSG about the firing of whistleblowers from the Office of Investment Management, 3 April 2024

 

QUOTE from the Representative of the Secretary-General at today’s UNJSPF town hall,  3 April 2024:

“It was unfortunate that these four staff members were separated … [through a] complete independent investigation outside from the Pension Fund .. We have not experienced any…impact on the operations of the Fund...”

 

There's a 2-minute video (too large to post on the blog) and an unofficial transcript (below) of the RSG’s (Pedro Guazo’s response to the question submitted in advance by a number of us about the firing of four whistleblowers from the Office of Investment Management (OIM) and reportedly, indications of more terminations to come, and the impact on the Fund’s sustainability.

RECALL CCISUA’S LETTER  to the Secretary-General in which it was noted that the senior investment officers, were fired for reasons of “blowing  the whistle on what OIOS later found to be a toxic work environment”. in contravention of SG directives on “Protection against retaliation for reporting misconduct and for cooperating with duly authorized audits and investigations.” 

http://unpension.blogspot.com/2024/02/un-pension-fund-ccisua-letter-to.html

 

HERE’S THE QUESTION we posed to the RSG prior to the town hall. 

http://unpension.blogspot.com/2024/03/un-pension-fund-firing-of.html

 

If after watching the video of the RSG's response, or reading the transcript (below) you have questions, as I do about the RSG’s denial of any involvement of the Fund’s management in the firing of whistleblowers in OIM, please join me in sending the following question directly to his email inbox: Email: pedro.guazo@unoim.org

 

SEND THIS QUESTION:

 

Dear RSG,

Your response at today's town hall to the question about the firing of four whistleblowers  --OIM senior investment officers – and reported indications of more terminations to come, as stated in CCISUA’s letter to the Secretary-General, dated 21 February 2024 --both regarding your involvement, and the impact on the fund’s sustainability, raises further questions.

http://unpension.blogspot.com/2024/02/un-pension-fund-ccisua-letter-to.html

 

If, as you say, you believe that the firing of these senior investment officers is ‘unfortunate’, and you were in no way involved, then you must go on record as supporting CCISUA’s request to the Secretary-General to reconsider the decision to terminate these whistleblowers, for the sake of justice and transparency in the UN, and the sustainability of our Fund. 

 

Otherwise, your response to this issue, on its face, makes a mockery of UN values and principles and the ‘transformational’ culture that you profess to foster in the Fund. 

Signed (your name), UNJSPF member/beneficiary

. 

 ---------------------------------

. 

TRANSCRIPT OF RSG’S RESPONSE: “Let me first take the first part [of the question]. And probably, some of you that are familiar with the UN Secretariat’s working methods, you will understand. But a little bit more discreetly for some of you who are not part of the UN Secretariat. As you might know , , whenever there is a presumptive action that a staff member have misconducted or have an undisciplined event, it becomes a complete independent investigation outside from he Pension Fund. So we have an organization called the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), equivalent of internal auditors and investigators. They take control of the investigation. We, the management of the UN Pension Fund, are not involved in that. OIOS , as we call it, do their investigation and pass it to the Administrative Law Division in the UN Secretariat ,and between them, they gather all the evidence and they decide what is the sanction that they have to put to staff members. Of course , staff members ,they always have the right to appeal those decisions, and only after the whole process -- and again, it's conducted independently and externally from the Pension Fund --only when those  process is completed ,we will all know --including ourselves --we will only know what were the reasons why these four staff members were separated, not before that.

 

Now, the second part of the question is, as you can imagine,  it was unfortunate that these four staff members were separated in the process, in the period of two years, but, ah, given that we are  adequately staffed, we have  ISO certification of  business continuity, and we have not experienced any impact on the operations of the Fund ,and as I showed you in the previous slide, .the culture of the organization becomes stronger every year.”