SCBF/266 - Review of IOM's decentralized structure

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND FINANCE

NINETY-FIRST SESSION

4-5 May 2004

SCBF/266RESTRICTED

29 March 2004

REVIEW OF IOM’s DECENTRALIZED STRUCTURE

Report by the External Auditorsfrom the Office of the Auditor General of Norway

SCBF/266Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………………. 1

I.1 On the diversity of MRFs ……………………………………………….….………... 1

I.2 On the location, coverage and number of MRFs ……………………………..……… 2

I.3 Other matters ………………………………………………………………….…..…. 2I.3.1 On the regional functions of the MRFs …………………………………..…. 2I.3.2 IOM reporting structure ………………………………………………..…….. 2I.3.3 The functioning of the Regional and Diplomatic Advisers ………….………. 3I.3.4 Funding of the decentralized structure ………………………………..….…. 3

I.4 Key observations and recommendations ……………………………………..…..…. 3I.4.1 Key observations …………………………………………………………….. 3I.4.2 Key recommendations ……………………………………………………….. 4

II. INTRODUCTION … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .... 4

III. MAIN ISSUES AND METHODS … … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … … .… .… … 5

III.1 Main Issues … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… ..… .. 5III.1.1 Does the organizational structure with Missions with Regional

Functions (MRFs) function efficiently? … … … … … … … … … … … .… … ..… 5III.1.2 What impact does funding from the Administrative Budget and

Discretionary Income have on the functioning of the MRFs? … … … … … … . 5

III.2 Methods … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 5III.2.1 Efficiency considered … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… .. 5III.2.2 Process … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … . 6III.2.3 Sources of information … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … 6

III.2.3.1 Documents … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… .. 6III.2.3.2 Interviews … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… ... 6III.2.3.3 Survey … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… . 7

IV. MRFs ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL IOM DOCUMENTS … … … … … … … .… .. 7

IV.1 The historical background of the MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… … 7

IV.2 IOM documents describing the role of the MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … ...… 8

SCBF/266Page ii

Page

V. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF TODAY’S ORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURE … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. 10

V.1 The diversity of MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. 10V.1.1 MRFs with a global scope … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 10V.1.2 The functions of the regular MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… . 11

V.2 The support functions provided by the MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 12V.2.1 How the Country missions assess the MRFs' support … … … … … … … .… 12

V.2.1.1 Frequency of support from MRF to Country Mission … … … … .. 12V.2.1.2 To what extent are the needs of the Country Missions met? … … 13

V.3 The general regional functions covered by the MRFs … … … … … … … … … … .… 13V.3.1 General regional functions - The MRFs own view … … … … … … … … … .. 13V.3.2 How the Country mission assess the MRFs' regional work … … … … … .… 13

V.4 Regional functions covered by Headquarters … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .. 14

V.5 Support and advice given from one MRF to other MRFs … … … … … … … … … ... 14

V.6 Assessments on efficiency - Conclusions … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ... 15V.6.1 Conclusions on the diversity of MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… .. 15V.6.2 Conclusions on general regional functions performed by the MRFs … … .. 16

VI. THE LOCATION, COVERAGE AND NUMBER OF MRFS … … … … … … … . 16

VI.1 The location of the MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 16VI.2 The coverage of the MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… .. 17VI.3 The number of MRFs … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ... 17VI.4 Assessments on the location, coverage and number of MRFs … … … … … … … .… 18

VII. OTHER MATTERS … … .… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...… … .. 18

VII.1 IOM’s reporting structure … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . 18VII.2 The functioning of the Regional and Diplomatic Advisers … … … … … … … … .… . 19VII.3 Assessments on reporting structure and the role of the Regional and

Diplomatic Advisers - Conclusions … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … 20VII.4 Conditions for Country Missions to develop new projects … … … … .… … … ..… 20VII.5 Assessment on project development - Conclusions … … … … … … … … … … .… … 21

ANNEX I - Figures based on the survey

ANNEX II - Tables based on the survey

SCBF/266Page 1

I. SUMMARY

1. The Office of the Auditor General of Norway has been appointed External Auditor ofIOM for the financial years 2001 to 2006. As an integral part of the audit work for 2003, areview of the IOM’s field structure has been carried out to review the organizational structureand to evaluate the efficiency of the decentralized MRF structure.

2. In accordance with the principles for the external audit of IOM set out in the Annex to theFinancial Regulations, this report is hereby submitted to IOM for information and consideration.

3. Below is a summary of the results, key observations and recommendations.

I.1 On the diversity of MRFs

4. One main observation is that the structure of IOM can be characterized as a mixed modelof centralization/decentralization. This means that both MRFs and Headquarters provideadministrative and operational support to the Country Missions and the demarcation line betweenwhat should be the responsibility of MRFs and Headquarters respectively may not always bevery clear. This implies a danger for duplication of functions between MRFs and Headquarters.One example that has been given by several Country Missions of such duplication is theendorsement of new projects. However, the findings also indicate that this may concern a lack ofclarity regarding the distinct roles of MRFs and Headquarters regarding such endorsement, asmuch as an actual duplication of functions.

5. A very clear-cut division of tasks between Headquarters and the MRFs may not bepossible if IOM is to remain flexible. A clear division of tasks means to introduce morestructure, and too much structure will probably lead to less flexibility. It must also be noted thatthe need for a flexible organization based on some form of decentralized structure has beenstrongly voiced throughout the organization. Accordingly, the auditors have no basis forquestioning the rationale for a mixed organizational model of centralization/decentralization.

6. Further, there seem to be a need for more consistency between what IOM says about thefunctions of the MRFs in official documents, and what the MRFs actually do. This consistencyseems to some extent to be lacking. The Programme and Budget document portrays the MRFsas being rather similar, when they in reality are highly diverse. For example, MRF Manila isbecoming a worldwide support centre; MRF New York is a regional office mostly in name as itsmain tasks are liaison with the UN and responsibility for the US resettlement programmes; MRFWashington is an office whose most important task is liaising with the United States Governmentand it’s relevant departments including aid agencies such as the US Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID); and MRF Brussels is mainly a worldwide support office for EUmatters.

7. This mixed model of centralization/decentralization and the diverse nature of the MRFscall for a re-examination of the concept of “Missions with regional functions”. The role andfunctions of the MRFs should be based on clear and agreed premises and these premises shouldbe consistently applied.

SCBF/266Page 2

I.2 On the location, coverage and number of MRFs

8. As auditors the Office of the Auditor General of Norway does not see it as part of its roleto make detailed recommendations on the location of individual MRFs. However, it is clear thatthere have been substantial shifts in migration dynamics since the MRFs originally wereestablished as Sub-regional offices in 1996, from their participation in regional processes to anexpanding spectrum of services offered and provided by IOM. This development has beenfollowed by a significant growth of IOM, both in programme activity and in the number ofMember states. It is clear that these parallel processes necessitate a thorough review by theAdministration of IOM of the regional structure concerning location, geographical coverage andnumber of MRFs. The initial Council resolutions on the establishment of the Sub-regionaloffices make it quite clear that such a review should take place periodically.

9. One finding that supports the rationale for a closer review of the location of MRFs is thatseveral Country Missions state that they perform regional functions, and they do this without anyfunding from the Administrative Part of the Budget. For example, 33 per cent of the CountryMissions say they liaise regularly with regional bodies, which is a prime task for the MRFs. Oneconcrete example of a Country Mission with certain regional functions is IOM Colombia, whichis the administrative support unit for IOM Ecuador on projects implemented on the northernborder of Ecuador.

10. The need for a thorough review of the geographical coverage of the MRFs is emphasizedby the fact that nearly all MRFs believe there are Country Missions that should be linked toanother MRF than the current one. One example of a region where the coverage needs to beclarified is the Central African region where the migration challenges are huge, and where IOMin Congo and IOM in the Democratic Republic of the Congo relate to two different MRFs.

11. Concerning the number of MRFs there does not seem to be a great need for more MRFswhen the number of Country Missions increases. This is clear both from the conducted surveyand from interviews with IOM staff.

I.3 Other matters

I.3.1 On the regional functions of the MRFs

12. The findings indicate that there is room for improvement in the performance of theMRF’ s regional functions. For example, quite a number of Country Missions state that MRFshave regional responsibilities that are not performed by the MRFs. On the positive side, thisindicates that the Country Missions want more involvement from the MRFs in regional matters.

I.3.2 IOM reporting structure

13. Although the external auditors do not question the rationale of the mixed organizationalmodel of centralization/decentralization it is clear that the lack of a uniform and consistentreporting structure creates frustration in the Field. This mainly concerns the role of MRFsregarding the reporting line from Country Missions to Headquarters. For example, severalCountry Missions seem to be confused about what should be reported through their MRF, andwhat could be communicated directly to Headquarters.

SCBF/266Page 3

14. The recent review by the Administration of the coverage of the MRFs in Central andEastern Europe contained some elements intended to clarify the reporting structure in the region.The review states that the Chiefs of Mission in the region are to report to the relevant RegionalRepresentative on all matters for which the MRFs bear responsibility. However, at the same timeit is stated that the Chiefs of Mission may communicate with the Director General at any time,but are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with sound professional standards. Thismay be considered to some degree as a dual message, and may not be very clarifying.

I.3.3 The functioning of the Regional and Diplomatic Advisers

15. The Regional and Diplomatic Advisers (RDAs) are situated at Headquarters in Geneva,and are not a part of the decentralized structure. However, as they are expected to have aregional role, it is important that their role is clear and that the role is clearly communicated tothe personnel in the Field. The role of the RDAs seems not to be clearly defined at present. Thisis problematic for the Field Missions as it then becomes difficult to know what can be expectedfrom the RDAs. As a part of the support structure, their role should be reviewed in light of theadded value they represent in relation to funding, development and implementation of IOMprojects.

I.3.4 Funding of the decentralized structure

16. Finally the review addresses how the decentralized structure is funded, with focus on thefunding of project development. In a strict sense, this theme does not concern the MRF structure,but is relevant as it highlights the problems IOM has in funding important tasks in the Field.

17. Very few of the Country Missions have dedicated funds available to do projectdevelopment as the Chiefs of Mission are often fully projectized to existing projects. IOMshould consider conducting an evaluation by the Administration on the funding of projectdevelopment.

I.4 Key observations and recommendations

I.4.1 Key observations

18. � The shifts in migration dynamics and the growth of IOM call for a re-examination ofthe MRF structure.

� The flexible organization of IOM seems by and large to function reasonably well.

� There seem to be a need for more consistency between what IOM says about thefunctions of the MRFs in official documents, and what the MRFs actually do. Thisconsistency seems to some extent to be lacking.

� The MRFs are portrayed as being rather similar, when they in reality are highlydiverse.

� Nearly all MRFs believe there are Country Missions that should be linked to anotherMRF than the current one.

SCBF/266Page 4

� There does not seem to be a great need for more MRFs when the number of CountryMissions increases.

� The role of the Regional and Diplomatic Advisers (RDAs) is not very clear.

� It is unclear how Country Missions are to fund project development when the Chief ofMission is fully projectized.

I.4.2 Key recommendations

19. � A thorough review of the regional structure concerning location, geographicalcoverage and number of MRFs is necessary, and should be conducted by theAdministration of IOM.

� The mixed model of centralization/decentralization and the diverse nature of today’ sMRFs call for a re-examination of the concept of “Missions with regional functions”.

� The role and functions of the MRFs should be based on clear and agreed premises andthese premises should be consistently applied.

� The role of the Regional and Diplomatic Advisers should be clarified.

� The Administration should consider conducting an evaluation of the funding ofproject development.

II. INTRODUCTION

20. The Office of the Auditor General of Norway has been appointed External Auditor ofIOM for the financial years 2001 to 2006. The main task of the External Auditor is to examineand audit the annual financial statements and to report whether the annual financial statementspresent fairly, in all material respects, the organisation’ s financial position at the end of thefinancial year and the results of the operations for the year.

21. As an integral part of the audit work for 2003, an evaluation of the IOM’ s field structurehas been carried out to review the organizational structure and set-up of the Field Offices and toevaluate the efficiency of the decentralized MRF structure. There are currently (spring 2004)19 Field Offices worldwide designated as Missions with Regional Functions (MRFs). The MRFsfunction as resource and support centres for IOM Country Missions and Special-PurposeMissions in the region. IOM has a global network of over 150 Country Missions that are largelyfinanced by the projects they carry out.

22. In accordance with the principles for the external audit of IOM, set out in the Annex tothe Financial Regulations, this report is hereby submitted to IOM for information andconsideration.

SCBF/266Page 5

III. MAIN ISSUES AND METHODS

III.1 Main issues

III.1.1 Does the organizational structure with Missions with Regional Functions(MRFs) function efficiently?

23. To evaluate the efficiency of IOM’ s decentralized structure there are three main themesthat will be addressed. First, if IOM is to function efficiently it is important that the supportneeds of the Country Missions are met. An analysis of the MRFs regarding the support theyprovide is thus conducted, and both the MRFs own views and the views of the Country Missionswill be presented.

24. Second, the MRFs have important regional functions such as liaison with regional donors.Again, if IOM is to function efficiently it is important that such functions are carried outeffectively. In this regard, the performance of the MRFs regarding regional functions will beassessed.

25. Third, a more general analysis of the role of MRFs in the organizational structure of IOMwill be conducted. For example, both Headquarters and some Country Missions also performimportant regional functions. In addition, there are many Country Missions that receiveadministrative support from Headquarters. Whether this mixed model, with elements of bothdecentralization and centralization, is efficient will also be discussed.

III.1.2 What impact does funding from the Administrative Budget andDiscretionary Income have on the functioning of the MRFs?

26. As MRFs to a large extent are supposed to provide support and services to CountryMissions, the financing of this support is an important area, and also an area of concern. Sincethe Administrative Budget has been kept on zero nominal growth for most of the recent years,this has resulted in severe financial constraints. A point of interest is therefore how theseconstraints have affected the support activities of the MRFs to the Country Missions and theirsignificance for other regional functions.

27. The sources and allocations of administrative funding to the Field Missions are importantfactors of the MRF structure. These factors will be analysed as a part of the examination in orderto identify possible measures and recommendations on how to improve the core funding for theMRFs.

III.2 Methods

III.2.1 Efficiency considered

28. When doing an evaluation on the efficiency of any organization, it is useful (andnecessary) to clarify what is meant by this term as it can have a variety of meanings. In thisreport “efficiency” is used in a broad manner. One important aspect will be the effectiveutilization of resources. For example, if the Country Missions are quite satisfied with the supportthey get from the MRFs, this may be taken as an indication of efficient utilization of resourcesavailable for support.

SCBF/266Page 6

29. When considering the organizational structure in more general terms, “effectiveness”becomes an important term. This term refers to the relationship between the intended impact andthe actual impact of an activity. As such, the decentralization of IOM can be seen as an activitywhere a well functioning decentralized organization is the intended impact. As the report willaddress the actual impact of the decentralization, effectiveness will be evaluated.

III.2.2 Process

30. IOM has been invited to comment on direction and tools used in the analysis and theproject group has worked closely with IOM management during the review. Furthermore theapproaches chosen and conclusion drawn have been discussed with IOM management.However, the Office of the Auditor General of Norway has the sole responsibility for the contentof the report. 31. The review was carried out during second half of 2003 by an audit team from the Officeof the Auditor General of Norway. The auditors were Jan Roar Beckstrom (team leader) andLillin Cathrine Knudtzon, assisted by Elise Fidjestol. 32. During the fieldwork, the auditors had meetings, discussions and interviews withdirectors, division leaders, Regional representatives, Chiefs of Missions, senior staff, projectmanagers and other key personnel at IOM Headquarters in Geneva and at the field missions inBrussels, Vienna, Nairobi, London and Oslo.

III.2.3 Sources of information

III.2.3.1 Documents

33. When evaluating the MRF structure of IOM it is reasonable to compare what IOMdocuments (for example the Programme and Budget documents) say the MRFs should be, withthe present situation. In this way such documents can be used as a rough measuring tool forassessing whether the efficiency and effectiveness demonstrated by IOM, are in accordance withthe articulated intentions and goals. For example, a discrepancy between what theAdministration says the MRFs should be, and how they actually function may be taken as a signof inefficiency.

34. As such, public and internal documents from IOM management have been a prime sourceto get an overall view of the organization and the development of the MRFs. The sources havemainly been documents related to the sessions of the Council, Executive Committee andSubcommittee of Budget and Finance, Council Resolutions, reports from the Office of theInspector General and also written material produced at the MRFs.

III.2.3.2 Interviews

35. The audit team has conducted a large number of interviews with IOM management andstaff. Altogether more than 50 people within IOM, from Headquarters, MRFs and Countrymissions, have supplied information on their work tasks, working conditions and strengths andweaknesses within the organizational set-up of IOM. These contributions have been invaluablewhen it comes to giving an in-depth understanding of the essence of migration work and the

SCBF/266Page 7

challenges that IOM faces. Furthermore these dialogues have given direction to the evaluation.The areas within the organizational set-up that cause concern in the field have been addressedthrough the dialogues. All IOM staff has been positive, helpful and responsive throughout thisexercise.

III.2.3.3 Survey

36. A survey has been conducted for the MRFs and the Country missions respectively on thebasis of the interviews. Pilot versions of both questionnaires were tested before distribution. Thefinal questionnaires were sent to all MRFs and Country missions.1 Seventeen out of 19 MRFsresponded, while 48 out of 88 Country missions responded – a little more than 50 per cent. Theresponse rate from the Country missions implies that there is a slight geographical bias regardingwhich Country missions responded. Smaller missions in places with poor infrastructure (likeabsence of internet) are under-represented. This may have some implication on the distributionof the answers. Where such a bias is likely, this will be discussed under the presentation of thesurvey results.

IV. MRFs ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL IOM DOCUMENTS

IV.1 The historical background of the MRFs

37. In the period 1992-95 an important process of strategic planning was carried out withinIOM, where future migration issues and programme policies were discussed.2 This processculminated in Resolution No. 923 where IOM’ s future activities were established. According toIOM documents, there was at the time also a broad consensus that the strategic reorientationnecessitated a close review of IOM management policies and practices.3 Thus, the “ManagementReview” was launched and one fundamental conclusion of this process was “the need for IOM toplace substantially greater responsibility and authority, as well as the commensurate resourcesnecessary to exercise both, in the Field”.4

38. More concretely, this meant that “local and subregional liaison, programme development,programme delivery and administrative support will be largely delegated to the Field,accompanied by human and financial resources shifted from Headquarters to field locations”.5

39. This can be considered the starting point of the decentralization process and led to theestablishment of Sub-regional offices (SROs). Three principles were set to guide the location ofthe SROs. They were to be established where6:

� IOM can develop and implement targeted programmes in the countries of the subregionto address major migration issues;

1 The questionnaire was not sent to sub-offices in countries where there are more than one IOM mission.2 See especially MC/1842 “ IOM strategic planning: Towards the Twenty-First Century” .3 MC/EX/586 Status Report on the Management Review, p. 2.4 MC/INF/232/Rev. 1, IOM Management Review and Organizational Structure, p. 1.5 MC/INF/232/Rev. 1, IOM Management Review and Organizational Structure, pp. 1-2.6 MC/INF/232/Rev. 1, IOM Management Review and Organizational Structure, p. 2.

SCBF/266Page 8

� IOM can significantly contribute to the discussion and analysis of national, subregionaland/or interregional migration trends and issues; and

� Communications and transportation can efficiently support programme activitythroughout the subregion, as well as facilitate necessary coordination with othersubregions and with Headquarters.

40. It was also stated that “ the location and coverage of each SRO will be subject to regularreview to ensure consistency with established criteria in the context of those changing needs” .7

41. The 13 original SROs were increased to 19 MRFs in 2001.8 The functions of the sixadded MRF-offices were considered as being of regional nature.

IV.2 IOM documents describing the role of the MRFs

42. “The Programme and Budget document”: One of the most central IOM documents is theyearly Programme and Budget9 document proposed to IOMs Council. This document gives,among other things, an overview of IOMs organizational structure, including a generaldescription of what should be the functions of the MRFs: “ [The MRFs] function as resource andsupport centers for IOM Country and Special-Purpose Missions in the region, and provide themwith operational and administrative expertise to assist with project development andimplementation. (…) The MRFs further ensure that, regardless of geographic decentralization,there is a coherent approach throughout the Organization. The MRFs provide the structuralflexibility for quick and temporary deployment of expert resources, for example to undertakeassessment missions during the planning of new projects or to monitor and advise theimplementation of project activities in other Missions with less resources” .10

43. In addition to the general description of the MRFs there is in the Programme and Budgetdocument a short and specific description of each MRF, which has been updated according tochanges in the scope of the different MRFs.

44. However, the general description of the MRFs has seen only minor changes in recentyears, and the description given in the Programme and Budget for 2004 is approximately thesame that is given in the corresponding document for 2001; the year where “ Missions withRegional Functions” was established as a concept.11 This indicates a stability regarding thegeneral functions MRFs are supposed to provide. It is also noted in the Programme and budgetfor 2004 that “ The functions of the MRFs are constantly reviewed with the aim of strategizingtheir regional approach and updating their responsibilities to current needs” .12

7 MC/INF/233, IOM Management Review and Organizational Structure, p. 1.8 MC/2010 Programme and Budget for 2001, p. 4.9 Usually referred to as ” the Blue Book” .10 MC/2117Programme and Budget for 2004, p. 10.11 See MC/2010 Programme and Budget for 2001, p. 4.12 MC/2117Programme and Budget for 2004, p. 10.

SCBF/266Page 9

45. The Regional and Diplomatic Advisers (RDAs) are located at Headquarters and as suchnot a part of the decentralized structure. However, they do have a certain regional role, as theyshall “ maintain liaison with Permanent Missions in Geneva, government units of States withinthe region of their responsibility and regional bureaux of other intergovernmentalorganizations” .13

46. Thus, their role is mainly of diplomatic nature, but focusing on a specific region. Withthis regional focus their interaction with the MRFs becomes important. This makes the functionof RDAs relevant when reviewing the MRF structure and will be discussed later in the report.

47. Council resolution No. 949 “Attribution of staff positions between the administrative andoperational parts of the budget”: The 949-resolution is important because it distinguishesbetween HQ and Field regarding the personnel financed by the Administrative Part of theBudget. It identifies two situations where Field personnel are to be financed by theAdministrative Part of the Budget.

48 Firstly the Admin budget shall cover: “ The costs of Chief of Mission and one employeein her/his office at a principal post located in a Member State where activities are multi-facetedin nature; are of significant budgetary volume; involve substantial liaison duties, including vis-à-vis other multilateral bodies, in particular those of a regional or sub-regional character; and/orregional in nature” .

49. In practice this means, for every MRF office, the Regional representatives plus oneemployee.14

50. Secondly the Admin budget shall also cover: “ The costs of staff serving at a post in aMember state who plan, organize, implement and monitor activities of the Organization at theregional or sub-regional level, or in a functional capacity, and whose work is not directly relatedto the management or implementation of identifiable programmes or projects” .

51. This means that also other staff at the MRFs, or at Country missions, whose work is notdirectly related to projects/programmes, could be financed by the Administrative Part of theBudget.

52. In general Resolution No. 949 is seen as a document that identifies core activity and corepersonnel for IOM. These are to be covered by the Administrative Part of the Budget.

53. The approach in Resolution No. 949 regarding the financing of core personnel in theField was modified through the Programme and Budget document for 2002. In order torationalize the allocation of staff positions among the MRFs, it was proposed that a maximum ofthree staff positions per MRF be funded from the Administrative Part of the Budget for 2002.This practice has been followed since.15

13 This is according to the Programme and Budget document for 2004, p. 17.14 The only Country Mission where the costs of any staff are covered from the Administrative Part of the Budget is Germany.15 MC/2049, Programme and Budget 2002, paragraph 85.

SCBF/266Page 10

54. The Administration of IOM has calculated that if Resolution No. 949 was applied to thefull extent, the Administrative Part of the Budget would have to be increased by approximatelyCHF 13.5 million (37 per cent).16

V. DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF TODAY’s ORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURE

V.1 The diversity of MRFs

V.1.1 MRFs with a global scope

55. As mentioned above, the concept of “ Missions with regional functions” came into beingin 2001 and it is stated that a main task should be the functioning as resource and support centersfor IOM Missions in the region. Such general statements may to some degree mask thesignificant differences between the MRFs. It is therefore necessary to chart out these differencesbefore proceeding to discuss their efficiency.

56. All MRFs may be resource and support centers, but some MRFs have more of aworldwide focus than a regional focus. The best example is perhaps Manila which is anAdministrative Center for the entire organization including functions such as the ProjectTracking and Staff Security Units and certain IT functions. Also, in 2003 a “ Mission AccountsQuality Control and Support Unit” was established in Manila, which focuses on providingfinancial accounting support to Country Missions. This support includes control throughverification of accounting transactions, which were previously provided by HQ and some MRF's.It is now on a gradual basis being taken over by Manila.

57. In relation to the establishment of this last support unit, Manila has been assigned theresponsibility concerning administrative support for an increasingly number of missions in Asia.Thus, Manila covers 15 Country Missions17 from Kazakhstan to New Zealand. In addition,Manila provides administrative support to three MRFs. These are Canberra, Islamabad andBangkok.

58. Secondly, IOM Brussels is a MRF that provides support to missions worldwide (includingHeadquarters) concerning EU-matters, and the IOM Administration has determined that MRFBrussels is in charge worldwide “ of the identification of funding opportunities, EU programmesand budget lines as well as the provision of timely information/advice and technical assistance toMRFs and Country Missions regarding EU project rules and procedures and in cooperation withHQs service areas, DBD and DRD, on the management of projects, and relevant donor reporting,in line with EU rules and procedures” .18

59. In addition, the concrete description of the functions of MRF Brussels relates solely to EUmatters19. As such, Brussels can be considered a mission with “ regional functions” in the sensethat they are dealing with an important regional body and donor (the EU). However, Brussels

16 MC/EX 650 “ Zero Nominal Growth in the Administrative Part of the Budget and IOM’ s Growth” , p. 3.17 Two missions are shared with Canberra, this is IOM Nauru and IOM Papua New-Guinea.18 “ MRF Brussels Functions in the New Structure” , undated.19 ibid.

SCBF/266Page 11

can hardly be considered regional in the sense of supporting a certain number of adjacentCountry Missions, even if Brussels for 2004 also is designated as the administrative support unitfor two Country Missions, IOM France and IOM Netherlands.

60. Thirdly, MRF Washington is an office whose most important task is liaising with theUnited States Government and it’ s relevant departments including aid agencies such as theUS Agency for International Development (USAID), which are very important donors for IOM.As such it is stated that MRF Washington “ will take the lead role for all USAID related matters” ,and the other MRFs and Country Missions shall regularly report and coordinate with the relevantservices in MRF Washington on all USAID related matters20. As an administrative support unit,Washington has in 2004 the responsibility for providing support to two missions, IOMDominican Republic and IOM Jamaica.

61. Finally, MRF New York has two distinct functions, first as a liaison office relating to theUN Headquarters. In this way it supports and informs the whole organization on UN matters.Second, New York is coordinating the worldwide US resettlement programmes. With referenceto the Programme and Budget document, this MRF is not a “ resource and support center for IOMCountry and Special-Purpose Missions in the region” .

V.1.2 The functions of the regular MRFs

62. The 15 remaining MRFs are more in line with the original definition of MRF, providingsupport to missions in the region and carrying out other regional functions. However, alsoamong these 15 there are somewhat special cases. For example, MRF Vienna is the site of thetechnical cooperation center (TCC) for the former CIS-countries, thus covering the IOMMissions in Central Asia on TC-matters.21

63. As indicated in chapter III.1 the functions of these 15 MRFs may be divided in two maingroups. The support the MRFs provide to Country Missions in the region and the generalregional functions. Examples of the kind of support the MRFs provide are accounting, projectdevelopment/implementation, human resources/management matters, liaison activities and thetemporary deployment of service experts.22 Chapter V.2 takes a closer look at this supportincluding an assessment of this support by the Country Missions.

64. Examples of general regional functions are the development of regional projects,coordination of different Country Missions’ projects, ensuring a coherent approach to migrationissues throughout the organization and liaison with international/regional bodies/donors.Chapter V.3 takes a closer look at these general regional functions starting with the MRF’ s ownview of the quality of their work and followed by the Country Missions’ correspondingassessment.

20 Role of MRF Washington for USAID related matters.21 MRF Vienna is responsible for coordinating technical cooperation and associated programme activities in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan (General Bulletin 1359).22 According to the Programme and Budget document the MRFs “ provide the structural flexibility for quick and temporary deployment of expert resources, for example to undertake assessment missions during the planning of new projects, or to monitor and advise on the implementation of project activitites in missions with less resources” , MC/2117 p. 10.

SCBF/266Page 12

65. Chapter V.4 concerns regional functions covered by Headquarters. Support to otherMRFs is a prime concern for at least some of the MRFs, and this function is covered inchapter V.5. Finally, assessments on efficiency and conclusions are presented in chapter V.6.

V.2 The support functions provided by the MRFs

66. When the Sub-regional offices (SROs) were originally established it was intended that theSROs would provide administrative support to the Field offices in their region. However, globalcoverage was never achieved according to IOM documents dating from 2001. With theintroduction of MRFs, the Administration recognized that not all MRFs could or should provideregional administrative support. The result was that the responsibility for administrative supportwas divided between Headquarters and 13 of the MRFs. The remaining six MRFs were seen ashaving important regional roles, but should not provide regional administrative support. Thesewere seen as offices “ which either do not have large admin/finance functions, or are in areaswhere other regional offices and/or Headquarters already provide such support” .23

67. Thus, in considering the support the MRFs provide to the Country Missions it isimportant to remember that many Country Missions had Headquarters as their administrativesupport unit in 2003. In fact, 18 of the 48 Country Missions who answered the survey hadHeadquarters in Geneva as their administrative support unit for the most part of 2003.24

68. From 2004 many of the missions that reportedly had Headquarters in Geneva asadministrative support unit in 2003, shall now relate to Manila and there is a total of nineCountry Missions that have Headquarters as the administrative support unit. There are also tworegular MRFs that mainly provide support regarding project development and projectimplementation, these are MRF Islamabad and MRF Bangkok. There is also one CountryMission that has some responsibilities as an Administrative Support unit. This is IOM Colombiafor projects on the Northern border of Ecuador, and is explained by the significant and importantproject base, staff and resources being managed by this Field office.25

V.2.1 How the Country missions assess the MRFs’ support

V.2.1.1 Frequency of support from MRF to Country Mission

69. Regarding the frequency of support, there are few Country missions that say they needfrequent support from MRFs, and the need for support is greatest regarding project developmentand implementation (see Annex I, figure 2).

70. The support area that is indicated as needed from most Country missions is projectdevelopment support – indicated as a need in 55 Country Mission – MRF relationships. Supporton project implementation and information on trends and policy in the region are also ratedfrequently – for 40 and 41 respectively. Training is required in 37 relationships.

23 E-mail from the Administration to all Missions worldwide, dated 14. March 200124 Based on information from the Location list of 8 October 2003. This was changed when the “ Mission Accounts Quality Control and Support Unit” was established in Manila in November of 2003.25 Field Office Support Matrix, January 2004

SCBF/266Page 13

V.2.1.2 To what extent are the needs of the Country Missions met?

71. The rating that the Country Missions give the MRFs regarding support is mainly positive.The most overall positive feedback is found related to accounting, where there are very fewdissatisfied Country missions. That Country Missions largely are content with the support theyreceive is supported by the fact that 77 per cent of the Country Missions who responded to thesurvey state that some regional support functions are best provided from MRFs rather than fromHQ (see Annex II, table 1). The main reason given for this, is that MRFs are closer to the Fieldand as such better placed to respond to the needs of the Country Missions.

72. Still, there are areas where a rather large number of Country Missions are not completelycontent with the support they receive. The area where the Country Missions are most dissatisfiedis the provision of staff training. Also in areas like project development, project implementationand Human resources/management there are some Country Missions whose needs are met only“ to a variable degree” (see Annex I, figure 3). Altogether ten out of nineteen MRFs get anegative rating from one or more Country missions related to project development.

V.3 The general regional functions covered by the MRFs

V.3.1 General regional functions – The MRFs own view

73. As mentioned in V.1.2, the general regional functions constitute the second main group offunctions covered by the MRFs. The self-evaluation of the MRFs26 showed that the two areaswhere the MRFs are most satisfied are on “ liaison with donors” and “ development of regionalprojects” . Respectively, 12 MRFs and 10 MRFs think they usually are able to perform these twofunctions in a good manner (see Annex I, figure 4).

74. The picture is more mixed related to liaison with non-donors, on ensuring a coherentapproach by IOM in the region and on coordination of Country Missions’ projects. It is to somedegree surprising that three MRFs state that “ Ensuring a coherent approach in the region” is not afunction they are supposed to cover, when this is explicitly stated in the Programme and Budgetdocument27 for 2004.

75. The one area that stands out from the others is supervision of Country Missions’activities. Only 4 MRFs say that they usually perform this function in a good manner (Annex I,figure 4). It is here important to keep in mind that the number of answers on this question israther low. Only 11 MRFs state that this is a relevant function, which is interesting by itself.

V.3.2 How the Country missions assess the MRFs’ regional work

76. When the Country missions are asked to rate the work the MRFs perform toward otherentities, one has to bear in mind that these Missions may not be the best judges. The CountryMission may not always be instantly affected by how the MRFs perform their regional functions.On the other hand they do experience the result of these efforts if these functions are notsufficiently taken care of.

26 It is important to be somewhat cautious when interpreting results based on self-evaluation as there always is the possibility of answering strategically.27 Reference is made to The Blue Book for 2004 p. 10 (MC/2117).

SCBF/266Page 14

77. The two functions where Country missions give MRFs the best rating are thedevelopment of regional projects, and the liaisons with donors (see Annex I, figure 5). These arethe same two functions that the MRFs themselves are most happy with. However, in general itseems that the Country Missions are not very satisfied with how the MRFs carry out theirregional functions.

78. A majority of the Country Missions is not content with the way the MRFs are performingmajor regional functions. Two examples here are the coordination of national projects atdifferent Country Missions and analysis of migration trends in the region. Here a large numberof Country Missions are either dissatisfied, or they state that the function is relevant, but notperformed at all.

V.4 Regional functions covered by Headquarters

79. Although regional functions like for example “ liaison with regional donors” mainly is thefocus of MRFs, also Headquarters has retained a role regarding such functions. In the survey theCountry Missions were allowed to state whether regional functions were relevant with regards toHeadquarters, and if relevant asked to rate HQ’ s performance (see Annex I, figure 6).

80. A majority of the Country Missions sees a number of regional functions as relevant andinadequately performed by Headquarters. Examples are the development of regional projectsand the coordination of national projects. In addition, as many as 29 per cent of the Countrymissions think analyses of migration trends in the region is a relevant function for Headquarters,but a function that Headquarters fail to perform. Here it must be noted that the Chiefs of Missionthemselves also should analyze local trends, and provide analyses of the implications for IOM’ sprojects nationally, regionally and globally.28 Headquarters’ performance is rated well or usuallyquite well by a small majority of the Country missions in relation to supervision/monitoring ofactivities in the Country mission, liaisons with regional/international donors and liaison withregional/international entities.

V.5 Support and advice given from one MRF to other MRFs

81. The amount of support the different MRFs give to each other may be used as a roughmeasure on the level of cooperation between the MRFs. Overall, the level of MRF to MRFsupport is not very high. The three areas where there is most cooperation are projectdevelopment/implementation, liaison with regional organizations, and support on information,documentation and research about migration developments in the region (see Annex I, figure 8).Further, the support is provided by a rather limited number of MRFs. Brussels is exceptionalhere, but this is not surprising as it is supposed to be a service office on EU-related matters forthe whole organization. Also Washington and New York are important service offices for IOMas a whole.

82. Concerning the quality of the support provided, the MRFs in general are quite satisfied.To illustrate this we can take “ Support on project development/implementation” as an example(see Annex I, figure 9). Most MRFs’ needs are “ Always” or “ Usually” met concerning support

28 Terms of reference for the Chiefs of Mission.

SCBF/266Page 15

on project development. A minor exception is Brussels where three MRFs say their needs aremet ” Rarely” or “ To a variable degree” .

V.6 Assessments on efficiency – Conclusions

V.6.1 Conclusions on the diversity of MRFs

83. For 2002 and the most part of 2003, Headquarters was the administrative support unit fora considerable number of Field offices. According to IOM documents, Headquarters was the“ Administrative Support Unit” for 27 Field Mission in 2002/2003.29 As such, a prime MRFfunction was being performed out of Geneva. According to the Country Missions, Headquartersalso to a large degree provides “ operational expertise” in areas like project development, projectimplementation and liaison with national government. As such, the organizational structure ofIOM can to some extent be characterized as a mixed model containing elements of bothdecentralization and centralization.

84. It is difficult to state clearly if this mixed model of centralization/decentralization isefficient or not. However, there may be a danger of a duplication of functions if the demarcationline regarding responsibility and authority between MRFs and Headquarters is not very clear.Some statements from the Country Missions indicate that such duplication may occur. One areamentioned by several Country Missions is the endorsement of new projects. However, from thecomments given on the endorsement of projects, it seems that this concerns a lack of clarityregarding the distinct roles of MRFs and Headquarters, as much as an actual duplication offunctions. In this way it may be difficult to distinguish between a real duplication and a lack ofclarity.

85. Further, there is little in the collected evidence that point toward a need for a morecentralized organizational structure. To illustrate this: Flexibility is often mentioned as a majorstrength of IOM and in the survey 65 per cent of the Country Missions state that the MRFstructure allows more flexibility than a more centralized structure (see Annex II, table 4). Also,70 per cent of the Country Missions want to have a direct link to Headquarters, without having togo through the MRF (see Annex II, table 5), and as such emphasize the importance oforganizational flexibility. This focus on flexibility and decentralization is supported throughinterviews conducted at both Headquarters and in the Field.

86. However, it should be noted that there should be consistency between what organizationssay they are doing in official documents, and what they actually do. Similarly, there should beconsistency between what IOM says about the functions of the MRFs and reality. Whenconsidering IOM documents and the current MRF set-up, this consistency seems to be lacking tosome extent. The Programme and Budget document portrays the different MRFs as being rathersimilar with similar support and regional functions. This is not really the case. For exampleManila is a worldwide support center; New York is partly a UN liaison office, partly anoperational office related to US resettlement programs, and Brussels is the worldwide supportoffice in EU matters. Thus, it could be useful to differentiate between various kinds of MRFfunctions in IOM-documents, and by doing so bring more consistency between what IOM sayand organizational reality.

29 “ Field Unit Support Table” December 2002.

SCBF/266Page 16

87. The mixed model of decentralization/centralization and the lack of consistency betweenIOM documents and reality must mainly be attributed to the growth of IOM in recent years andmay not be surprising considering the increase in number of Member States and providedservices. This growth has meant great changes for IOM and now may be the appropriate time fora re-examination of the concept of “ Missions with regional functions” . It is important that thereis a consistent and consequential application of agreed parameters for the establishment ofMRFs. This also implies that the Administration needs to review the parameters under whichMissions were granted MRF status in the first instance. The findings show that such a reviewand eventual realignment is necessary and should be clearly within the mandate and authority ofthe Administration.

V.6.2 Conclusions on general regional functions performed by the MRFs

88. The number of Country missions who have stated that MRFs have functions that arerelevant, but not performed is a matter of concern. Two examples given in chapter V.3.2 are thecoordination of national projects at different Country Missions and analysis of migration trendsin the region. Reference is also made to Annex I, figure 5.

89. This indicates that there should be room for improvement in the area of general regionalfunctions. One possible explanation for the apparent lack of regional focus is that at least someof the MRFs also are large Country Missions with considerable operational activity in thecountry. This may result in the MRF being “ tangled up” in day-to-day affairs in their own office.Both interviews in the Field and comments given by the Country Missions indicate that this maybe the case for some MRFs.

90. On the positive side, the views of the Country Missions also indicate that they want moreinvolvement from MRFs at least in some areas. This can be compared to the findingscommented on in chapter V.2.2 above, where it was stated that the Country Missions’ demandfor support from the MRFs was not very frequent. One possible conclusion is that quite anumber of the Country Missions wants the MRFs to become more “ regional” in their approach.

91 Regarding the support MRFs give to each other, this seems to be of a rather limitednature. It is reasonable to believe that many MRFs share at least some challenges in their supportand regional work. Also, the Regional representatives to a certain degree could be described asthe “ Field commanders” of IOM, and it is important that they work together for the commongood of the organization.

VI. THE LOCATION, COVERAGE AND NUMBER OF MRFs

VI.1 The location of the MRFs

92. When considering the location of the MRFs it is important to remember that MRFs mustbe placed in a member country. This follows from Resolution No. 949. However, the number ofmember countries was much lower when Field missions were initially designated asSub-Regional Offices. This means that the number of potential “ host countries” for a SRO wasmore limited than is the case for MRFs today. Also, with reference to chapter III.1 it is clearlystated that the location and coverage of each SRO should be subject to regular review by theAdministration.

SCBF/266Page 17

93. Another finding that emphasizes the need for a review of the location of the MRFs is thatquite a number of Country Missions state that they perform functions that may be consideredregional. Also they do this largely without any financing from the Administrative Part of theBudget. For example, as many as 42 per cent say they develop programs/projects with otherCountry Missions in the region on a regular basis, and 33 per cent say they liaise regularly withregional bodies (see Annex II, tables 2 and 3). Most surprising however, is the fact that nineCountry missions state that they regularly give administrative support to other missions in theregion (see Annex I, figure 7).30 As seen in chapter V.2 there is also one Country Mission thatfunctions as an Administrative Support Unit, namely IOM Colombia.

94. There is a possibility that the Country Missions use this opportunity to portray a moreimportant role than what they have in reality. Still, 32 Country Missions have provided a closerdefinition of the regional tasks they claim to cover, and a number of these tasks must beconsidered of real regional nature. On the other hand, there are some Country Missions thatclaim to perform regional functions that should be considered more as bilateral cooperationbetween Missions.

VI.2 The coverage of the MRFs

95. When considering the geographical coverage of the MRFs one interesting finding is thatalmost all MRFs think there is one or more Country Missions that naturally belong to one MRF’ sregion, but are connected to another MRF (see Annex II, table 8).

96. One region where there recently has been a review of the coverage of the MRFs isCentral- and Eastern Europe. This is discussed in the General Bulletin 1359 “ Adjustments to theresponsibilities of MRFs in relation to Central and Eastern Europe” . Here a new setup isintroduced concerning which Country Missions in the region fall under respectively MRFVienna, MRF Budapest and MRF Rome. These three MRFs maintain both administrative andprogramme responsibilities for a defined set of Country Missions. The only exception isAlbania, which is shared between Rome and Vienna. It is also stated that MRF Brussels shallplay a coordinating and advisory role vis-à-vis MRFs in EU-matters.

97. An example relating to geographical coverage that has been raised in several interviews isthe division of Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as MRF Nairobi has theresponsibility for Congo and MRF Pretoria has the responsibility for the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo. In addition, the two capitals Brazzaville and Kinshasa are very close to each other,on opposite sides of the Congo River. It has been pointed out in several interviews that themigration challenges in this region (the Great Lakes) are huge, and it might be useful to connectthe two countries to one MRF.

VI.3 The number of MRFs

98. One very basic question regarding the MRF structure is how many regional offices areneeded. According to the majority of the Country Missions and MRFs that answered the survey,there is no great need for more MRFs when the number of Country Missions increases (see

30 Of these nine Missions four were placed in Europe, two in Africa, and one each in Latin America, Asia and the Middle East.

SCBF/266Page 18

Annex II, tables 6 and 7).31 Nor in the interviews conducted at HQ and in the Field have a needfor an increased number of MRFs been voiced.

VI.4 Assessments on the location, coverage and number of MRFs

99. As auditors the Office of the Auditor General of Norway does not see it as part of its roleto comment on the validity of locations of the MRFs given the complex political andprogrammatic issues that drive such placements. It is clear however that there has been a largeincrease in membership and substantial shifts in migration dynamics and programme activityover the years, which necessitate a thorough review of the regional structure by theAdministration. The initial Council resolutions on the establishment of the Sub-regional officesmake it quite clear that such a review should take place periodically and could address bothlocation and number of MRFs.

100. One finding that supports the rationale for a closer review is that several CountryMissions say that they perform regional functions, and they do this without any funding from theAdministrative Part of the Budget.

101. Concerning the geographical coverage of individual MRFs, it is interesting that nearly allMRFs believe there are Country Missions that should be linked to another MRF than the currentone. This indicates that the coverage of individual MRFs also should be reviewed. One concreteexample where the coverage needs to be clarified is Central Africa, where IOM in Congo andIOM in the Democratic Republic of the Congo relate to two different MRFs, Nairobi andPretoria.

VII. OTHER MATTERS

102. During the review of IOM’ s decentralized structure a few other matters in addition to theMRF structure have been discussed, matters that to a certain degree are relevant when discussingthe decentralized structure. This concerns IOM’ s reporting structure, the role of the Regionaland Diplomatic Advisers and the funding of project development.

103. The external auditors will emphasize that the main focus of this report is the structure andfunctioning of the Missions with Regional Functions.

VII.1 IOM’s reporting structure

104. Effective control and monitoring mechanisms are necessary to achieve targeted and cost-effective operations. On the other hand, the introduction of new regulations and routines oftenlead to increased costs. Considering the financial pressure on the core structure of IOM one hasto be careful not to introduce costly (and rigid) control systems.

105. Rapid organizational growth combined with a diversification in services continues to posechallenges and risks to IOM as an organization. For example, the rapid increase in the number ofprojects and Missions has made it more difficult for Headquarters in Geneva to keep track of the

31 68 per cent of the Country Missions and 11 of 17 MRFs answered “ Disagree” or “ Partly disagree” on the question whether an increased number of Country Missions implies a need for more MRFs. See Annex II, tables 6-7.

SCBF/266Page 19

developments in the Field. The Office of Inspector General has an important role inoversight/monitoring, but also the OIG has limited resources.

106. Control and monitoring are to a large degree a question of information. If an organizationhas clear reporting structures that are being enforced, this is potentially a powerful controlmechanism that secures good performance and the right prioritization. More concretely,13 MRFs and 43 per cent of the Country Missions see the clarity of IOM’ s reporting structure asnot satisfactory32 (see Annex II, tables 9 and 10). This also indicates that the MRFs see thereporting structure as somewhat more problematic than the Country Missions. Many CountryMissions and MRFs have also provided more detailed comments on reporting structure and thesecomments supports the view of an unclear and even confusing reporting structure. For example,several Country Missions seem to be confused about what should be reported through their MRF,and what could be communicated directly to the different service areas at Headquarters.

107. Perhaps most importantly, the role and authority of the MRFs in relation to reportingseem to be problematic. This is also exemplified in the General Bulletin 1359, which contains adescription of “ Roles and responsibilities of Regional Representatives, Chiefs of Mission andHeads of Office in Europe” .33 Here it is stated that “ Chiefs of Mission and Heads of Office shallreport to the Regional Representative on all matters for which the MRFs bear responsibility” .

108. This states very clearly that the Country Missions in this region are supposed to report tothe MRF, and not directly to HQ in Geneva. The Chiefs of Missions are supposed to complywith all instructions obtained from their Regional representative. However at the same time it isalso clearly stated that the Chiefs of Missions may communicate with the Director General at anytime, but are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with sound professional standardsand respect for the working relationships set forth in the General Bulletin 1359.

109. This theme was also addressed in 1996 during the Management review that led to theestablishment of the Sub-regional offices. In this process some guidelines were defined for arevised organizational structure of IOM, one concerning the relation betweenroles/responsibilities and reporting: “ There must be clear and concise understanding of roles andresponsibilities throughout, with unambiguous reporting relationships to the DirectorGeneral/Deputy Director General to ensure effective priority-based management” .34 Thisguideline is also relevant in today’ s situation.

VII.2 The functioning of the Regional and Diplomatic Advisers

110. According to the Report of the Director General for 2002 the Regional and DiplomaticAdvisers (RDAs) have played an important role in preparing the grounds for the admission ofnew member states and the development of several important regional initiatives35. Thisstatement stands somewhat in contrast to the views of the MRFs and Country Missions on thisfunction. To be exact, 12 MRFs and 66 per cent of the Country Missions see the clarity of therole of the Regional Advisers as not satisfactory. Especially the concern of the MRFs is to somedegree disturbing as a coherent (regional) approach is defined as important.

32 This amounts to 77 per cent of the MRFs that answered the survey and 42 per cent of the Country Missions.33 Statements 6 to 10 in the Bulletin.34 Status report on the Management Review, MC/EX/586, p. 5.35 MC/2114 “ Report of the Director General on the work of the Organization for the year 2002” , p. 65.

SCBF/266Page 20

111. Examining the written comments given by the MRFs and Country Missions gives furtherunderstanding of the background for these views. What the Regional and Diplomatic Advisersare supposed to do seems to be unclear to MRFs and Country Missions alike.

VII.3 Assessments on reporting structure and the role of the Regional and DiplomaticAdvisers – Conclusions

112. Although the external auditors do not question the rationale of the mixed organizationalmodel of centralization/decentralization it is clear that the lack of a uniform and consistentreporting structure creates frustration in the Field, and it is the MRFs who find this mosttroublesome. On a more general level, this is a question of the actual role MRFs are to have inthe organizational structure. As can be seen from chapter IV.7.2 the majority of CountryMissions also want to have a direct link to Headquarters, without having to go through the MRF.For Central and Eastern Europe it is even stated in General Bulletin 1359 that the Chiefs ofMission can communicate with the Director General at any time. At the same time Chiefs ofMission are supposed to report to the relevant Regional Representative on all matters for whichthe MRFs bear responsibility. As such the reporting structure in the Field remains unclear alsofor the Missions in Central and Eastern Europe.

113. The Regional and Diplomatic Advisers (RDAs) are situated at Headquarters in Geneva,and are strictly not a part of the decentralized structure. However, as they are supposed to have aregional role, it is important that their role is clear and that the role is clearly communicated tothe personnel in the Field. The role of the RDAs seems to be unclear at present. As a part of thesupport structure, their role should be reviewed in light of the added value they are supposed torepresent in relation to funding, development and implementation of IOM projects.

VII.4 Conditions for Country Missions to develop new projects

114. IOM’ s Administrative Part of the Budget (Admin budget) is supposed to cover the corefunctions of the organization and amounts to CHF 37 119 000 for 2004. Up to three positions atthe MRFs with the exception of Manila are financed by the Admin budget36, and the total amountof funds distributed to the MRFs in 2004 is CHF 6 951 000. In addition, there is theDiscretionary income (DI), which consists of project overhead and miscellaneous income(unearmarked contributions and interest income). The table below shows the distribution of DIfor 2004 which amounts to USD 14 230 000.

Allocation of DIfor 2004 in USD

Projectoverhead

Miscellaneousincome Total DI

Headquarters 4 487 400 0 4 487 400MRFs 3 610 200 1 461 800 5 072 000Country Missions 0 1 736 600 1 736 600Global activities 395 800 0 395 800Projects 106 600 1 431 600 1 538 200UNSECOORD fee 1 000 000 0 1 000 000Total 9 600 000 4 630 000 14 230 000

36 This is defined by Resolution No. 949 and the Programme and Budget document for 2001.

SCBF/266Page 21

115. As the Admin budget is not sufficient to cover the core structure, the distribution of DIbecomes very important. As an illustration the request from the Field (MRFs and CountryMissions combined) amounted to USD 10,4 million, but the actual allocation of DI amounted toUSD 6.8 million.37

116. According to the Programme and Budget Guidelines DI is allocated “ to cover core Staffand Office costs both at HQ and the field offices, and also used as seed money for new initiativesor to support priority projects where there is a commitment by the Organization” .

117. On the distribution of DI there are strong opinions both at Country Missions and MRFs.A large majority of the Missions feel that the distribution of DI is problematic. This is somewhatto be expected, as DI is a scarce resource. However, the level of discontent on the allocation ofDI is important. 27 Country Missions and 9 MRF stated in the survey that the distribution of DIfor project development was “ not satisfactory” . (See Annex II, tables 11-12). Several of theMissions also voiced a concern about transparency in the DI allocation process and expresseddifficulties in understanding the rationale behind the distribution of DI.

118. As indicated earlier, decentralization relates to both distribution ofauthority/responsibility and resources. Project development is one function where theresponsibility to a large degree lies with the Country Missions. Such development together withproject implementation can be considered as the central undertakings for IOM. Despite this, veryfew of the Country Missions have dedicated funds available to do project development, forseveral reasons. First, the Chiefs of Mission are often fully projectized to existing projects.Second, the 12 per cent overhead charged to IOM projects is used to fund what is considerednecessary core functions at Headquarters and the MRFs.38 This being the situation, it is difficultto see how Chiefs of Mission are to find the necessary resources to develop new projects.

VII.5 Assessment on project development – Conclusions

119. The funding issue related to project development is relevant as it highlights the problemsIOM has in funding important tasks in the Field. The amount of Discretionary Income is muchtoo small for IOM being able to fund project development by such means.

120. In general, it seems somewhat unclear how Country Missions are to fund projectdevelopment when the Chief of Mission is fully projectized and the Mission do not receive anyDiscretionary Income for project development. As such, IOM should consider conducting anevaluation by the Administration on the funding of project development.

121. Furthermore the Missions want more transparency in regard to the basis and reasons forthe given allocation of DI. The Administration of IOM should take notice of this request. It islikely that more openness in this process will provide the stakeholders with a betterunderstanding of the financial situation and prevent unnecessary misunderstandings.

37 Review of Administrative Budget and Discretionary Income for 2004, Memorandum, 07 July 2003 – The number of USD 6.8 million does not include the 1035-facility.38 The so-called ” 1035 Facility” is an exception here.

SCBF/266Annex IPage 1

Annex I

Figures based on the survey

When considering the answers from the Country Missions it is important to remember that theCountry Missions can get support from several MRFs in one specific area. This means that thenumber of answers can be higher than the number of Country Missions that answered the survey.For example, many missions will get support on project development both from their main MRFand from MRF Brussels. Accordingly, in Figure 2 below the number of answers on projectdevelopment is 55, while the number of Country Missions who answered were 48.

Figure 1:

Support from the MRFs to the Country Missions Are the MRFs able to provide support in a good manner?

The MRFs own view

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Project

development

Project

implem

entation

Accounting

Hum

anresources

Managem

ent

Liaison with

nationalgovernm

ent

Provision of

flexible serviceexperts

Usually Varies Rarely Not relevant


Figure 2:

Support from the MRFs to the Country MissionsFrequency regarding need for support from the MRFs

The Country Missions’ view

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Project

development

Project

implem

entation

Accounting

Hum

anresources

managem

ent

Liaison with

nationalgovernm

ent

Info onm

igrationnew

s/policies inthe region

Training

Provision of

flexible serviceexperts

Once a week Once a month Several times a year Once a year

Figure 3:

Support from MRFs to Country MissionsAre the needs met?


05

1015202530354045

Project

development

Project

implem

entation

Accounting

Hum

anresources

Managem

ent

Liaison with

nationalgovernm

ent

Information on

migration

news/policies

Training

Flexible serviceexperts

Always or usually To a variable degree Rarely or never

SCB

F/26

6A

nnex

IPa

ge 3

Fig

ure

4:

MR

Fs r

egio

nal f

unct

ions

Are

thes

e fu

nctio

ns h

andl

ed in

a g

ood

man

ner

by th

e M

RFs

?Th

e M

RFs

ow

n vi

ew

02468101214

Liaison withinternational& regional

donors

Liaison non-donor

internationalorganizations

Developmentof regionalprojects

Ensuring acoherent

approach inthe region

CoordinationCountry

Missions’projects

Supervisionof CountryMissions’activities

Usu

ally

Var

ies

Rar

ely

Not

rele

vant

Fig

ure

5:

MR

Fs r

egio

nal f

unct

ions

Are

thes

e fu

nctio

ns h

andl

ed in

a g

ood

man

ner

by th

e M

RFs

?Th

e C

ount

ry M

issi

ons’

vie

w

051015202530354045

Developregionalprojects

Coordinatenationalprojects

Ensuring acoherent


Supervisionmonitoringof CountryMissions

Liaisonswith donors

Liaisonswith non-donors

Analysis ofmigrationtrends in

the region

Wel

l or u

sual

ly q

uite

wel

lS

omew

hat p

oorly

Rel

evan

t but

not

per

form

ed


Figure 6:

Regional functions Are these functions handled in a good manner by HQ?


0

5

10

15

20

25

Develop

regionalprojects

Coordinationof nationalprojects

Ensuring acoherent


Supervision

monitoring

of Country

Missions

Liaison with

donors

Liaisonsw

ith non-donors

Analysis of

migration

trends in theregion

Well or usually quite well Somewhat poorly Relevant but not performed

Figure 7:

Regional functions performed by Country MissionsTo what extent do Country Missions handle reginonal functions?


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Develop

projects with

otherm

issions inthe region

Coordinate

projects with

otherm


Liaison with

regionalbodies

Adm

.support to

otherm


Other

functions

Yes, on a regular basis Yes, has happened No


Figure 8:

Support from one MRF to other MRFs

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Brussels Washington New York Vienna Rome Canberra Pretoria

Num

ber o

f MR

Fs

Project development and implementationLiaison with regional organizationsInformation documentation research

Figure 9:

Support from one MRF to another MRF on project developmentAre the needs met?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Brussels Washington New York Vienna Rome Canberra Pretoria

Always/Usually Rarely/To a variable degree No opinion/Not relevant

SCBF/266Annex IIPage 1

Annex II

Tables based on the survey

Table 1:Percentage of Country Missions who state that some regional support functionsare best provided from MRFs rather than from Headquarters

Frequency Per cent CumulativePer cent

Agree 16 33,3 33,3Partly agree 21 43,8 77,1Partly disagree 4 8,3 85,4Disagree 5 10,4 95,8No opinion 2 4,2 100Total 48 100

Table 2:Percentage of Country Missions who state whether they developprograms/projects with other IOM Country Missions in the region

Frequency Valid Per cent Cumulative

Per centNo 7 14,9 14,9Yes, on a regularbasis 20 42,6 57,4

Yes, hashappened 20 42,6 100

Total 47 100Missing 1

Table 3:Percentage of Country Missions who state whether they liaise withregional bodies


Per centNo 14 30,4 30,4Yes, on a regularbasis 15 32,6 63

Yes, hashappened 17 37 100

Total 46 100Missing 2


Table 4:Percentage of Country Missions who state that the MRF structureallows more flexibility than a more centralized structure

Frequency Per cent Cumulative

PercentAgree 13 28,3 28,3Partly agree 17 37 65,2Partly disagree 7 15,2 80,4Disagree 8 17,4 97,8No opinion 1 2,2 100Total 46 100Missing 2

Table 5:Percentage of Country Missions who state that they should havea direct link to Headquarters without having to go through the MRF


Per centAgree 14 29,2 29,2Partly agree 20 41,7 70,8Partly disagree 6 12,5 83,3Disagree 6 12,5 95,8No opinion 2 4,2 100Total 48 100

Table 6:Percentage of Country Missions who state that an increased numberof Country Missions implies a need for an increased number of MRFs


Per centAgree 3 6,4 6,4Partly agree 11 23,4 29,8Partly disagree 5 10,6 40,4Disagree 27 57,4 97,9No opinion 1 2,1 100Total 47 100Missing 1


Table 7:Percentage of MRFs who state that an increased number ofCountry Missions implies a need for an increased number of MRFs


Per centAgree 2 11,8 11,8Partly agree 3 17,6 29,4Partly disagree 3 17,6 47,1Disagree 8 47,1 94,1No opinion 1 5,9 100Total 17 100

Table 8:Percentage of MRFs who state that there are one or more Country Missionsthat naturally belong to one MRF’s region, but are connected to another MRF


Per centAgree 8 47,1 47,1Partly agree 8 47,1 94,1No opinion 1 5,9 100Total 17 100

Table 9:Country Missions assessment of the clarity of IOM’s reporting structure


Per centSatisfactory 9 19,1 19,1Quite satisfactory 15 31,9 51,1Not satisfactory 20 42,6 93,6No opinion 3 6,4 100Missing 1Total 48

Table 10:MRFs assessment of the clarity of IOM’s reporting structure


Per centQuite satisfactory 4 23,5 23,5Not satisfactory 13 76,5 100Total 17 100


Table 11:MRFs assessment of the distribution of Discretionary Income

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative

PercentQuite satisfactory 7 41,2 41,2Not satisfactory 9 52,9 94,1No opinion 1 5,9 100Total 17 100

Table 12:Country Missions assessment of the distribution of Discretionary Income


Per centSatisfactory 4 8,7 8,7Quite satisfactory 7 15,2 23,9Not satisfactory 27 58,7 82,6No opinion 8 17,4 100Total 46 100Missing 2

SCBF/266 - Review of IOM's decentralized structure

Documents

Transcript of SCBF/266 - Review of IOM's decentralized structure