Post on 10-Jul-2019
UNITED NATIONS
UNITED NATIONS
Office of Internal
Office of Internal
Oversight Services
Oversight Services
UNHCR Audit S
ervice
UNHCR Audit S
ervice
Comparative review
Comparative review
of th
e Desk function
of th
e Desk function
Assignment AR/2004/160/01
FinalAudit re
port R
05/R007
30 May 2005
Auditors:
Eleanor Burns
Anita Hirsch
Doremieke Kruithof
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n2
�From Octo
ber 2
004 to
January
2005, O
IOS co
nducted
a comparativ
e review
of th
e Desk
functio
n. T
he D
esks act as a
liaison betw
een UNHCR Field
and Head
quarters an
d are in
volved in
most o
f UNHCR’s in
ternal m
echanism
s and
processes. T
he p
rimary
goal o
f the rev
iew was to
understan
d th
e exten
t of th
e Desk
s’roles an
d resp
onsib
ilities and th
e ratio
nale b
ehind th
e differen
t structu
res, as well as to
analy
sethe D
esks’operatio
nal p
rocesses. F
rom in
itial interv
iews w
ith all H
eads o
f Desk
, OIO
S later fo
cused
its analy
sis on a sam
ple o
f four d
esks (D
esk 2 fo
r Europe, D
esk
1 fo
r Asia an
d Pacific, D
esk 4 Afghanistan
, and Desk
for E
ast and Horn of A
frica) consid
ered to
be rep
resentativ
e of
both th
e operatio
ns1and protectio
n activ
ities of U
NHCR.
�OIO
S fo
und th
at the ro
les and fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esks n
eeded to
be m
ore clearly
establish
ed: clearer stan
dard
s for th
e differen
t structu
res, more p
recisely stated
missio
ns, h
ence ro
les and resp
onsib
ilities, and m
easurab
le perfo
rmance
objectiv
es.
�OIO
S’rev
iew of th
e Desk
s’input in
some in
ternal p
rocesses su
ch as th
e resources allo
cation process n
oted
that th
ese need
to be rev
ised an
d sim
plified
.
�The fo
llowing th
ree charts su
mmarise O
IOS’observ
ations an
d reco
mmendatio
ns o
r opportu
nities fo
r improvem
ent,
which
are furth
er develo
ped in
the rep
ort itself. O
IOS voluntarily
left some o
f the o
pportu
nities o
f improvem
ent
identified
in th
e form
of o
bserv
ations (sh
own in
green
in th
e charts) an
d did not tu
rn th
em in
to co
ncrete
recommendatio
ns. It w
as felt that, as th
ey were m
ore m
edium to
long-term
objectiv
es or ap
plying to
UNHCR as a
whole, O
IOS’stan
dard
follo
w-up proced
ures o
n th
e implem
entatio
n of reco
mmendatio
ns d
id not ap
ply.
1 Throughout th
e report, th
e term ‘o
peratio
ns’refers to
all aspects o
f country
operatio
ns ex
cluding protectio
n activ
ities.
0. Comparative review of th
e Desk function
0. Comparative review of th
e Desk function
Executive summary
Executive summary
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n3
Observations
Observations
Recommendations
Recommendations
More effective and efficient DesksThere are u
nclear ro
les
and resp
onsib
ilities
resultin
g in
possib
le duplicatio
n
of fu
nctio
ns
Desk
staff did not alw
ays
have th
e necessary
skills
and knowled
ge to
be effectiv
e
from th
e outset
The p
ositio
n of th
e Senior
Legal A
dviso
r is not clear
and overlap
s Protectio
n
Operatio
ns S
upport S
ection (D
IP)
responsib
ilities
There is n
o clear co
rrelation
betw
een workload in
dicato
rs and
the stru
cture an
d size
of th
e Desk
StructureReview
job descrip
tions
Reco
nsid
er relevancy
of fu
nctio
ns
Organize sp
ecific training
Clarify
role an
d rep
ortin
g
lines o
f the S
enior L
egal A
dviso
r
Estab
lish stan
dard
s/benchmark
s
for ‘stab
le state’Desk
s
Estab
lish stan
dard
s/benchmark
s
For ‘ex
ceptio
nal state’
Desk
s
RECOMMENDATION 1R 2R 3
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n4
Observations
Observations
More effective and efficient DesksDesk
staff protested
at the larg
e
number o
f initiativ
es, which
required
their atten
tion lead
ing to
an unfocused
strategy
Support: o
verflo
w
of in
form
ation
UNHCR’sheav
y rep
ortin
g
requirem
ents are
not alw
ays ju
stified or
properly
used
MSRP im
pact
not fu
lly tak
en in
to acco
unt
Role and responsibility
Reduce n
umber o
f reports
Merg
e specialists an
d general
reports fo
r integ
rated
presen
tation of o
peratio
ns
Desk
s are involved in
processes w
here th
e added
valu
e is limited
, resultin
g in
essential fu
nctio
ns b
eing
neglected
Clarify
responsib
ilities in th
e area
of p
rocurem
ent, staffin
g
& donor relatio
ns
Revise p
lanning/program
ming
and m
onito
ring processes
Allo
w fo
r more fo
cus o
n strateg
y,
analy
sis and ev
aluatio
n/co
ntro
l
Custo
mise
reports fo
r offices/co
untries
Recommendations
Recommendations
R 4R 5
Prio
ritiseinitiativ
es
Develo
p guidelin
es and ways to
filter
inform
ation an
d id
entify
prio
rities
Sim
plify
and deleg
ate furth
er
Adapt to
the D
esks’need
s
and processes
Amend proced
ures
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n5
Specific
Measu
rable
Achiev
able
Relev
ant
Tim
e-bound
Observations
Observations
More effective and efficient Desks
Objectiv
es were n
ot su
fficiently
specified
to en
able
perfo
rmance m
easurem
ent
Assessing performance
Develo
p SMARTperfo
rmance
objectiv
es and related
indicato
rs
Monito
r perfo
rmance
The F
ield’s p
erceptio
n of th
e
Desk
is mixed
Recommendations
Recommendations
R 6Then
Update C
hapter 2
of th
e UNHCR M
anual
R 7
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n6
Page
1. IN
TRODUCTION
7
2. AUDIT OBJECTIVES
8
3. AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
9
4. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1. S
tructu
re and staff
4.1.1. ‘S
tandard
’Desk
s’
4.1.2. S
tructu
re and workload of a D
esk in
a ‘stable state’
4.1.3. S
tructu
re and workload of a D
esk in
an ‘ex
ceptio
nal state’
4.1.4. E
xperien
ce of D
esk staff
4.1.5. S
kills o
f Desk
staff
4.1.6. P
ositio
n of L
egal A
dviser v
is a vis th
e Desk
s
4.1.7. R
ecommendatio
ns
4.2. R
ole an
d resp
onsib
ilities of th
e Desk
s
4.2.1. S
trategy
4.2.2. S
upport
4.2.3. D
onor relatio
ns
4.2.4. R
eportin
g
4.2.5. P
rogram
me activ
ities
4.2.6. R
ecommendatio
ns
4.3. A
ssessing th
e perfo
rmance o
f the D
esks
4.3.1. M
ission -objectiv
es of th
e Desk
s
4.3.2. F
ield ‘C
lient’satisfactio
n
4.3.3. R
ecommendatio
ns
4.4. C
onclu
sion
1011
27
46
52
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
55
Table of content
Table of content
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n7
�From Octo
ber 2
004 to
February
2005, O
IOS co
nducted
a comparativ
erev
iew of th
e UNHCR Desk
functio
n. T
he au
dit
was co
nducted
in acco
rdance w
ith th
e Intern
ational S
tandard
s forthe P
rofessio
nal P
ractice of In
ternal A
uditin
g.
�OIO
S rev
iewed th
e activities o
f all Desk
s and co
nducted
an in
-depth rev
iew of D
esk 2 fo
r Europe, D
esk 1 fo
r Asia an
d
Pacific, D
esk 4 Afghanistan
, and th
e Desk
for E
ast and Horn of A
frica.
�As o
utlin
ed in
the U
NHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
, Organizatio
nal S
tructu
re and Resp
onsib
ilities, the D
esks are “in
volved in
operatio
nal strateg
ic plan
ning, political an
alysis, d
isseminatio
n of in
form
ation an
d co
ordinatio
n, an
d program
me su
pport
functio
ns in
cluding m
onito
ring, staffin
g, fin
ance, p
rocurem
ent an
d ad
ministratio
n.”With
such a b
road defin
ition of th
eir
functio
ns, th
e role o
f the B
ureau
x an
d th
e Desk
s is a central o
ne fo
r the d
elivery
of U
NHCR field
activities.
�Prev
ious rev
iews o
f the D
esk fu
nctio
n were carried
out in
1994 an
d 1999, b
ut th
e recommendatio
ns w
ere not fu
lly
implem
ented
, and in
some cases w
ere found not to
be p
ractical.
1. Introduction
1. Introduction
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n8
The m
ain objectiv
es of th
e audit w
ere to:
�Understan
d how th
e Desk
s operate an
d to
determ
ine w
hat th
e main
functio
ns o
f the D
esks are, th
rough co
llating an
d
summarizin
g th
e differen
ces betw
een th
e Desk
s in term
s of stru
cture, reso
urces an
d workflo
w processes.
�Evalu
ate the w
orkflo
w processes to
determ
ine w
heth
er adequate g
uidance an
d proced
ures are in
place an
d to
ensure
the effectiv
eness an
d efficien
cy of in
ternal co
ntro
ls.
�Assess th
e perfo
rmance o
f the D
esk fu
nctio
n an
d hence, its ad
ded
valu
e; review
the m
anagem
ent to
ols av
ailable to
measu
re perfo
rmance an
d th
e Desk
s’im
pact o
n field
activities.
2. Audit objectives
2. Audit objectives
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n9
�OIO
S in
terview
ed all th
e Head
s of D
esk to
obtain
an understan
ding of th
e functio
n of th
e Desk
s and to
identify
sim
ilarities and differen
ces in th
eir perceiv
ed ro
les and resp
onsib
ilities.
�Four D
esks w
ere selected fo
r an in
-depth rev
iew. T
wo “p
rotectio
n-orien
ted”Desk
s: Desk
2 in
the B
ureau
for E
urope,
and Desk
1 in
the B
ureau
for A
sia and th
e Pacific an
d tw
o “o
peratio
ns 1
-orien
ted”Desk
s: Afghanistan
in th
e Bureau
for C
ASWANAME an
d East an
d Horn of A
frica in th
e Bureau
for A
frica.
�Most staff m
embers w
ithin th
ese four D
esks w
ere interv
iewed in
cluding th
e Senior L
egal A
dvisers (S
LAs) an
d Senior
Reso
urce M
anagers, w
heth
er (structu
rally) p
laced with
in or o
utsid
e the D
esks to
understan
d th
eir specific
responsib
ilities and th
e detailed
work processes. A
t the A
fghanistan
Desk
, due to
a request fro
m th
e Head
of D
esk, th
e interv
iews w
ere limited
to th
e Head
, the S
enior D
esk Officer an
dthe S
enior R
esource M
anager.
�OIO
S fo
cused
, although not ex
clusiv
ely, on th
e processes lin
ked to
the fo
llowing to
pics: p
lanning, p
rogram
ming an
d
monito
ring.
�OIO
S rev
iewed th
e four D
esks’project files to
understan
d th
e type o
f documents an
d co
rrespondence m
aintain
ed on
file, as well as to
determ
ine th
e effectiveness o
f the D
esks’oversig
ht an
d ev
aluatio
n of field
activities.
�OIO
S rev
iewed pertin
entstaff m
embers’
perso
nnel files to
determ
ine w
heth
er staff assigned to
a Desk
functio
n had
the n
ecessary qualificatio
ns an
d ex
perien
ce.
�OIO
S in
terview
ed certain
field staff recen
tly reassig
ned to
Head
quarters, an
d sen
t questio
nnaires to
the 2
6 field
offices fallin
g under th
e purview
of o
ur fo
ur sam
ple D
esks fo
r feedback
on th
e Desk
s’perfo
rmance. O
IOS an
alysed
and su
mmarized
the an
swers o
f the 1
9 offices (7
3 per cen
t) that rep
lied. In
view
of th
e on-going Head
quarter R
eview
and EPAU’s rev
iew of th
e Desk
functio
n, O
IOS did not rev
iew or assess th
e Desk
s’perfo
rmance to
ward
s their
‘Head
quarters C
lients’. T
he rev
iew was lim
ited to
an assessm
ent o
f the relatio
nship ofthe D
esks w
ith th
e Field
.
1 Throughout th
e report, th
e term ‘o
peratio
ns’refers to
all aspects o
f country
operatio
ns ex
cluding protectio
n activ
ities.
3. Audit scope and methodology
3. Audit scope and methodology
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n10
4. Audit F
indings and
4. Audit F
indings and
Recommendations
Recommendations
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n11
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n12
Size
Experien
ce
/ skills
Organisatio
nal
chart
Positio
ns
Workload
Mission
FunctionsProcesses
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
Our an
alysis o
f the stru
cture o
f the D
esks
comprised
an an
alysis o
f the:
�Organigram
mes
and staffin
g tab
les of th
e
Desk
;
�Size an
d reso
urces o
f the D
esks;
�Experien
ce and sk
ills of th
e staff; and
�Differen
t positio
ns in
the D
esks an
d th
eir
tasks;
In relatio
n to
the:
�Missio
n of th
e Desk
s;
�Functio
ns o
f its staff;
�Processes it is in
volved in
; and
�Workload.
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n13
�There are v
arious D
esks’stru
ctures in
place in
UNHCR.
�OIO
S’referen
ce points fo
r the D
esks’stru
ctures in
the B
ureau
xwere o
utlin
ed in
the U
NHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
. It states:
�For th
e Bureau
for A
sia and Pacific, D
esks are lead
“by a H
ead an
d su
pported
by a S
enior L
egal O
fficer, two
Desk
Officers, o
ne P
rogram
meAssistan
t and a S
ecretary”.
�The D
esks fo
r the O
peratio
ns fo
r the S
udan Situ
ation are co
mposed
of a H
ead of D
esk, “a S
enior D
esk Officer,
a Desk
Officer, P
rogram
meAssistan
ts and other su
pportin
g staff.”
�UNHCR M
anual C
hapter 2
does n
ot d
etail the stru
cture o
f a ‘standard
’Desk
, nor d
oes it p
rovide a ty
pical
organigram
mein other B
ureau
x.
�From an
analy
sis of th
e organigram
mes an
d staffin
g tab
les provided to
OIO
S, it ap
pears th
at the m
ost co
mmon
structu
re consists o
f a:
�Head
of D
esk -P-5
�(Senior) D
esk Officer -
P-4/P-3
�(Senior) P
rogram
meAssistan
t -G-7/G-6
�Secretary
.
�For C
ASWANAME, th
is general stru
cture w
as found in
two Desk
s (Desk
1 an
d Desk
2 &
3). H
owever, th
e Afghan
Desk
and th
e Iraq Support U
nit d
iffered:
�The A
fghan Desk
had a S
enior R
esource M
anager in
stead of a seco
nd Desk
Officer;
�The Iraq
Support U
nit h
ad a ‘C
oordinato
r’instead
of a H
ead of D
esk, a S
enior L
egal O
fficer, a Senior S
upply
Officer, an
Administrativ
e Assistan
t and tw
o Secretaries.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n14
�The D
esks w
ithin th
e Bureau
for A
frica had th
e above stan
dard
structu
re, though th
e number o
f Desk
Officers an
d
Program
me A
ssistants v
aried fro
m one D
esk to
the o
ther. T
he C
oted’Iv
oire an
d Liberia U
nit w
as of a ‘lig
hter’
structu
re.
�The E
uropean
Desk
s are similar to
that o
f the B
ureau
of th
e Americas, an
d co
nsisted
of D
esks h
eaded by a S
enior
Desk
Officer, assisted
by a P
rogram
me A
ssistant, an
d a D
esk Officer in
a few cases. (A
Secretary
and Program
me
Assistan
t were sh
ared.)
�The A
sia Bureau
has recen
tly m
oved to
a similar set-u
p as E
urope an
d th
e Americas. S
pecific to
the A
sia and Pacific
Bureau
, however, th
e Senior L
egal A
dviso
r is integ
rated in
the D
esk.
�OIO
S ap
preciates th
at it is often
difficu
lt to co
mpare B
ureau
x due to
the d
ifferent n
ature o
f operatio
ns. F
rom OIO
S’
review
however, an
d our in
terview
s with
Desk
staff, it appears th
at there w
as an overlap
in th
e functio
ns o
f the H
ead
of D
esk an
d th
e Senior D
esk Officer. It w
as suggested
on sev
eraloccasio
ns th
at these tw
o fu
nctio
ns b
e merg
ed to
avoid an
additio
nal lay
er of b
ureau
cracy. T
he In
specto
r General also
recommended th
is type o
f merg
er in 1999.
�OIO
S’rev
iew of th
e job descrip
tions o
f Head
of D
esk an
d Senior D
esk Officer n
oted
that th
ey have sim
ilar resp
onsib
ilities, apart fro
m th
e coach
ing of staff an
d en
surin
g a sm
ooth co
mmunicatio
n flo
w with
in th
e Desk
.
�In OIO
S’opinion, fro
m th
e inform
ation receiv
ed th
ere is a need
to rev
iew th
e staffing stru
cture o
f the D
esk to
determ
ine w
heth
er it is optim
al to have b
oth a H
ead of D
esk an
d a S
enior D
esk Officer. F
or larg
er and m
ore
complicated
operatio
ns, th
e Senior D
esk Officer co
uld be at th
e P-5 lev
el, and fo
r smaller an
d m
ore stab
le operatio
ns
the p
ositio
n would stay
at the P
-4 lev
el. If it is determ
ined th
at, in m
ost cases, n
either p
ositio
ns are req
uired
, the
merg
ing of th
ese functio
ns w
ould sim
plify
the D
esk stru
cture, an
d possib
ly in
crease the reactiv
ity an
d efficien
cy of
the D
esks’to resp
ond to
the field
.
�OIO
S also
noted
that D
esk Officers o
ften perfo
rm very
similar fu
nctio
ns to
Senior D
esk Officers, an
d th
e Head
s of
Desk
in assig
ning resp
onsib
ilities did not alw
ays tak
e this ‘sen
iority
’into acco
unt.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.1.
4.1.1. ‘ ‘Standard Desks
Standard Desks’ ’
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n15
�In its an
alysis, O
IOS ack
nowled
ged th
e existen
ce of th
e notio
n of ‘stab
le state’and ‘ex
ceptio
nal state’
Desk
s as
develo
ped by th
e 1994 W
orking group.
�Stab
le state refers to lim
ited in
volvem
ent o
f the D
esks in
the F
ield, as th
e Field
is mostly
in co
ntro
l of th
e
implem
entatio
n of its p
rogram
mes.
�Excep
tional state refers to
situatio
ns w
here th
e dem
ands o
f the F
ield an
d th
e operatio
n are su
ch th
at the stab
le
state arrangem
ents can
not ad
equately
respond to
these n
eeds.
�OIO
S selected
indicato
rs and co
mpared
and an
alysed
the o
nes w
hich
should be rep
resentativ
e of th
e workload of th
e
Desk
s, as follo
ws:
�Number o
f countries;
�Number o
f Field
Offices;
�Number o
f Perso
ns o
f concern
;
�2004 rev
ised budget allo
cations;
�Number o
f Letters o
f Instru
ction (L
OIs);
�Number o
f Head
quarters p
osts; an
d
�Ratio
of estim
ated staff co
sts (based
on Stan
dard
Salary
Costs) o
n to
tal budget (in
per cen
t).
�In resp
onse to
the co
mmen
ts received on th
e dra
ft report, O
IOS co
nfirm
s that th
e above list o
f indica
tors w
as n
ot
mea
nt to
be co
mpreh
ensive o
r exhaustive. U
NHCR co
rrectly men
tioned
that a
n analysis o
f the n
umber o
f sub-pro
jects
and amount o
f pro
curem
ent co
uld gainfully co
mplem
ent O
IOS’analysis.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a ‘ ‘stable state
stable state’ ’
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n16
Table 1
: Comparativ
e data o
n th
e UNHCR Desk
s’workload
Desk 1
21
26.7
245,278
17
21
6
3.0%
Desk 2
11
25.9
604,156
69
6
3.0%
Desk 1
11
4.2
251,890
912
2
5.9%
Desk 2
11
4.1
1,096,455
89
2
6.1%
Desk 3
910.2
120,089
710
3
2.4%
Desk 4
717.0
1,914,708
410
2
1.5%
Desk 5
13
32.7
962,616
618
3
1.3%
Desk 1
11
5.0
25,776
20
72
4.6%
Desk 2
8
11.5
221,038
12
84
4.3%
Staffing vs
budget 2004 (%)
Asia
and
Pacific
EuropeAmeric
as
CASWANAME
Desk
Total number of
staff
Persons of
concern
Field offices
Projects (LOIs)
2004 budget
(millio
n USD)
Countries
Desk 1
22
48.7
2,196,193
716
6
1.6%
Desk 2 & 3
22
15.2
873,802
18
17
6
5.1%
Desk 4 - A
fghanistan
10
74.0
740,839
15
6
1.1%
Iraq
474.7
162,727
13
8
1.6%
Liberia & Cote d'Ivoire
737.0
580,613
210
5
1.5%
West Afric
a30
42.0
430,185
11
19
6
1.8%
Southern Afric
a21
34.1
539,155
917
7
2.2%
East and Horn
34
66.9
1,190,077
725
7
1.3%
Central Afric
a GL
46
64.5
1,078,984
832
7
2.1%
AfricaCASWANA
ME
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a ‘ ‘stable state
stable state’ ’
A-The ratio
was calcu
lated based
on OIO
S’calcu
lation of staffin
g co
sts (UNHCR stan
dard
salary scale p
er grad
e) on th
e 2004 budget.
A
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n17
1
10
100
1,000
10,000R
BAC 1
Europe 1
Europe 2
Europe 4S
udan & Chad
Europe 5
Europe 3
RBAC 2
Liberia & Cote d'Ivoire
RBAP 1
RBAP 2
CASWANAME 1
CASWANAME2&3
AfghanistanWest Africa
Southern AfricaEast and H
orn
Central Africa and the G
reat Lakes
Iraq
Taking th
e follo
wing in
dicato
rs:
•�2004 budget (in
millio
n USD)
•�Perso
ns o
f concern
(in th
ousan
ds)
again
st the −
total n
umber o
f staff, the fo
llowing ch
art shows th
e differen
t pattern
s.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a ‘ ‘stable state
stable state’ ’
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n18
�OIO
S fo
und so
me tren
ds in
the d
istributio
n of reso
urces, b
ut also
some ex
ceptio
ns.
�The relatio
n betw
een th
e staffing lev
els and th
e budget seem
ed to
be b
ased on th
e follo
wing allo
cation fo
rmula: tw
o staff
mem
bers fo
r budgets b
elow US$ 10 m
illion; (ab
out) 6
staff mem
bers fo
r budgets b
etween
US$ 25 an
d US$ 35 m
illion, an
d
7 staff m
embers fo
r budgets o
ver U
S$ 60 m
illion. H
owever w
e noted
the fo
llowing:
�Europe D
esks 4
(two perso
ns fo
r a budget o
f US$ 17 m
illion) an
d 5 (th
ree perso
ns fo
r a budget o
f US$ 33 m
illion).
�The S
outhern
Africa O
peratio
ns D
esk, w
ith a b
udget o
f US$ 34 m
illion has 7
staff, compared
to th
e Central A
frica
Desk
(US$ 65 m
illion an
d 7 staff m
embers) an
d East an
d Horn of A
frica Desk
(US$ 67 m
illion an
d 7 staff m
embers).
�Europe D
esk 5 has a b
udget sim
ilar to th
at of th
e Southern
Africa O
peratio
ns an
d m
ore p
ersons o
f concern
yet, th
eir
staffing co
nsists o
f respectiv
ely 3 an
d 7 staff m
embers.
�OIO
S fo
und th
at with
in th
e Bureau
x th
e total co
st of staff p
er Desk
was co
rrelated to
the to
tal budget. M
ost D
esks h
ad
staffing co
sts represen
ting ab
out 1
.5 to
3 per cen
t of th
eir budget. T
here are n
otab
le excep
tions, as D
esks 1
and 2 of th
e
Europe B
ureau
amounted
to 6 per cen
t.
�When co
mparin
g th
ese ratios to
the n
ature o
f the activ
ities and th
e type o
f support p
rovided, it ap
pears th
at regions
involving protectio
n an
d lo
bbying ten
d to
have h
igher ratio
s as they req
uire m
ore p
olicy
monito
ring an
d guidance at th
e
Head
quarters lev
el.
�Operatio
nal D
esks fo
cus m
ore o
n th
e provisio
n of g
oods an
d serv
ices to th
e field, th
us req
uire m
ore fin
ancial th
an staff
input.
�OIO
S understan
ds th
e need
for flex
ibility
in th
e Desk
s’stru
cture, as n
ot all o
peratio
ns an
d reg
ions h
ave th
e same n
eeds.
OIO
S would however ex
pect a clearer co
rrelation betw
een workload
indicato
rs and staffin
g lev
els. Taking th
is into
consid
eration, in
OIO
S’view
, UNHCR sh
ould id
entify
logical an
d ratio
nal m
inim
um stan
dard
s and a fram
ework based
on
represen
tative in
dicato
rs, yet at th
e same tim
e enablin
g ad
aptatio
n to
the sp
ecific need
s of th
e Desk
s.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a
4.1.2. Structure and workload of a Desk in a ‘ ‘stable state
stable state’ ’
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n19
�Over tim
e, the S
outh Eastern
Europe O
peratio
n provides a g
ood ex
ample o
f progressiv
ely decreasin
g workload with
a sig
nifican
t decrease in
the n
umber o
f staff of th
e Desk
(from 13to 3 in
the co
urse o
f one y
ear).
�The Iraq
Support U
nit, o
n th
e other h
and, seem
s heav
ily staffed
compared
to th
e 2003 budget lev
el, and so
me
positio
ns n
eed to
be ju
stified, fo
r exam
ple th
e Senior S
upply Officer. P
rocurem
ent in
the M
iddle E
ast region in
2003
amounted
to US$ 16.8 m
illion* as co
mpared
to th
e South W
est Asia
Region (A
fghanistan
), which
reached US$ 42.5
millio
n* in
2002, w
ithout a d
edicated
Supply Officer p
ositio
ned in
the D
esk.
�OIO
S ap
preciates th
e significan
t differen
ce betw
een th
e operatio
ns, b
ut th
e differen
ces betw
een th
e types o
f staff req
uired
was n
ot v
ery clear.
�The A
fghanistan
Desk
has
a Senior R
esource M
anager p
ositio
n. T
he fu
nctio
nal o
verlap
with
the S
enior D
esk Officer
was m
entio
ned to
OIO
S. A
s most o
f the reso
urces d
erive in
itiallyfro
m Special B
udget (S
B), th
e monito
ring an
d
reportin
g workload it in
duced
may have ju
stified th
e positio
n in
the D
esk. H
owever th
e positio
n was ex
tended well
after the o
peratio
n was fu
lly fu
nded under th
e Annual B
udget (A
B), w
hich
probably in
creased th
e overlap
of th
e rem
aining fu
nctio
ns o
f the S
enior R
esource M
anager an
d th
e Senior D
esk Officer. U
NHCR sta
ted th
at o
pera
tional
modalities/ p
rogra
mme su
pport fu
nctio
ns u
nder A
B rem
ain th
e sameas in
SB.
�The D
esks fo
r the S
pecial O
peratio
ns in
Sudan have a S
enior R
esource M
anager.
�The Iraq
Support U
nit, alth
ough it h
ad a U
S$ 74 m
illion Special B
udget in
2004, did not h
ave a S
enior R
esource
Manager, b
ut in
stead a F
inance/P
roject C
ontro
l Officer. W
heth
er the d
ecision to
modify
the ad
ministrativ
e support
(from Senior R
esource M
anager to
Project C
ontro
l Officer) w
ithin
the Iraq
Support U
nit resu
lted fro
m lesso
ns learn
ed
from th
e Afghanistan
Desk
was n
ot clear.
�The B
urea
u of C
ASWANAME did not a
gree th
at th
e Iraq and Afghan D
esks should be a
ssessed usin
g th
e same
para
meters in
regard
to th
e creatio
n of a
Pro
ject Co-ord
inatorpost in
stead of a
n Sen
ior R
esource M
anager. S
ince
the Ira
q and Afghan opera
tions w
ere very differen
t in sco
pe a
nd vo
lume, a
nd any lesso
ns lea
rned
would have to
be
clearly q
ualified
.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an
4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an ‘ ‘exceptional state
exceptional state’ ’
* Per F
MIS
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n20
�The U
NHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
states that d
urin
g larg
e-scale, complex
emerg
encies w
here th
e curren
t capacity
of a
Bureau
is exceed
ed, a S
pecial O
peratio
ns U
nit m
ay be created
either w
ithin, or as a sep
arate entity
to, a B
ureau
. Such
Special O
peratio
ns w
ill have a C
oordinato
r or R
egional C
oordinato
r reportin
g to
the B
ureau
Directo
r or d
irectly to
the
High Commissio
ner in
the case o
f a separate o
rganizatio
nal en
tity, or o
ther sen
ior m
anager as d
esignated
by th
e High
Commissio
ner.
�OIO
S noted
that S
pecial U
nit/D
esk stru
ctures h
ave b
een created
for o
peratio
ns in
South Eastern
Europe, Iraq
and th
e Sudan Situ
ation.
�While O
IOS ap
preciates th
e need
for U
NHCR to
be ab
le to react q
uick
ly to
new
situatio
ns an
d be flex
ible to
change,
it was stated
to OIO
S th
at the d
ecision to
create new
Desk
s’stru
ctures an
d tak
e the resp
onsib
ilities out o
f the
‘traditio
nal’
Desk
were n
ot alw
ays tran
sparen
t nor w
as the n
eed to
establish
Special U
nits/D
esks clear. If th
e ‘trad
itional’
structu
re was n
ot effectiv
e, or w
as deem
ed not to
be th
e ideal so
lutio
n fo
r an em
erging em
ergency, an
evalu
ation sh
ould have b
een done to
determ
ine th
e reasons w
hy an
d to
draw
lessons learn
ed fo
r future situ
ations.
�In so
me cases, in
the p
ast, it appears th
at availab
le resources an
d donors’
interests h
ave in
fluenced
the size o
f a Special U
nit m
ore th
an objectiv
e workload pattern
s. In its rep
ly to th
e dra
ft Rep
ort, U
NHCR co
ncu
rred th
at th
e donor-d
rivenness
of so
me S
pecia
l Budgets a
pplies to
emerg
ency D
esks as w
ell.
�OIO
S noted
that w
hile th
e Handbook fo
r Emerg
encies p
rovides u
seful g
uidance o
n a v
ariety of activ
ities such as
procurem
ent, staffin
g lev
els, superv
ision, etc., clear stan
dard
s/criteria still need
to be d
evelo
ped fo
r the estab
lishment
of a S
pecial U
nit/D
esk to
support th
ese emerg
encies fro
m a H
eadquarter p
erspectiv
e.
�The n
eed to
establish
criteria for th
e creation of an
‘Emerg
ency Desk
’was activ
ely discu
ssed at th
e Evalu
ation Policy
and Analy
sis Unit (E
PAU) R
eference G
roup (co
mprisin
g (S
enior) D
esk Officers, P
rogram
meAssistan
ts and staff
mem
bers fro
m other U
NHCR Units su
ch as th
e Divisio
n of F
inancial
and Support M
anagem
ent, th
e Emerg
ency an
d
Secu
rity Serv
ice, the D
ivisio
n of H
uman Reso
urces M
anagem
ent an
dthe M
SRP im
plem
entatio
n team
)in February
2005. T
here w
as a consen
sus th
at a policy
should be d
evelo
ped ofwhat an
Emerg
ency Desk
should co
mprise
inclu
ding its stru
cture an
d th
e staffing ex
pertise req
uired
, which
would be d
ependent o
n th
e estimated
size of th
e em
ergency an
d th
e poten
tial risks asso
ciated with
it.
�OIO
S also
understan
ds th
at work has alread
y begun in
the d
evelo
pment o
f such a p
olicy
.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an
4.1.3. Structure and workload of a Desk in an ‘ ‘exceptional state
exceptional state’ ’
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n21
�Desk
positio
ns req
uire a th
orough knowled
ge an
d understan
ding ofthe m
ain processes o
f UNHCR with
regard
to
plan
ning, program
ming an
d rep
ortin
g, as w
ell as an understan
dingof all th
e other U
nits in
teracting with
the
Desk
/Field
such as th
e Operatio
ns R
eview
Board
(ORB) an
d th
e Divisio
n of E
xtern
al Relatio
ns (D
ER) fo
r dealin
g
with
donors, etc.
�OIO
S’rev
iew of p
ersonnel reco
rds co
nclu
ded th
at, in general, D
esk staff h
ad th
e necessary
skills an
d ex
perien
ce as
required
by th
e job descrip
tion.
�The av
erage len
gth of relev
ant ex
perien
ce varied
from nearly
19 years fo
r Head
s of D
esk, an
d 14 to
16 years
for S
enior D
esk Officers an
d Desk
Officers resp
ectively
. Field
experien
ce was fo
und to
be q
uite ex
tensiv
e with
an av
erage o
f 9, 6 an
d 14 years resp
ectively
.
�OIO
S noted
, however, th
at what co
uld be in
terpreted
as increased
responsib
ility fo
r the S
enior D
esk Officer in
the
Bureau
for E
urope (p
erform
ing so
me o
f the fu
nctio
ns o
f a Head
ofDesk
in other B
ureau
x) d
id not tran
slate into a
higher ex
perien
ce requirem
ent, th
ough th
e incumbent’s p
rotectio
n back
ground was tak
en in
to acco
unt w
here th
is
positio
n was reg
arded to
be a m
ore a p
rotectio
n orien
ted post.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.4. Experience of Desk staff
4.1.4. Experience of Desk staff
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n22
�While staff h
ad th
e experien
ce and years o
f service req
uired
forDesk
positio
ns, p
er the jo
b descrip
tions, th
ey did not
always h
ave th
e necessary
skills to
be fu
lly effectiv
e from th
e outset.
�Staff recen
tly reassig
ned fro
m th
e field m
entio
ned th
at (Senior)Desk
Officers ten
ded to
lack practical ex
perien
ce and
understan
ding of sy
stems an
d proced
ures (M
SRP, IP
R Project M
anagem
ent S
ystem
s, ORB, dealin
g with
donors), an
d
some (S
enior) D
esk Officers in
terview
ed ag
reed th
at they did notcome to
the p
ositio
n with
adequate k
nowled
ge o
f
the w
orkings o
f Head
quarters.
�OIO
S was in
form
ed th
at Program
meAssistan
ts often
had to
provide o
n-th
e-job train
ing to
new
Desk
staff (in one case
estimated
at 20 to
30 per cen
t of th
eir time), w
hich
may not b
e an efficien
t use o
f a Program
meAssistan
t’s time.
�Furth
er, OIO
S noted
that D
esk staff d
id not alw
ays h
ave a so
und understan
ding of th
e geograp
hical area th
ey co
vered
,
as staff could be assig
ned to
a Desk
regard
less of th
eir prio
r knowled
ge o
f the co
untries to
be co
vered
.
�OIO
S noted
that so
lid knowled
ge o
f Head
quarters sy
stems an
d proced
ures is n
ot a req
uirem
ent fo
r the ap
pointm
ent at
a positio
n in
the D
esk, n
either w
as there a n
eed to
have ex
perien
ce in th
e geograp
hical area to
be co
vered
. Moreo
ver,
on assig
nment to
a Desk
, there are n
o stan
dard
orien
tation m
eetings, d
etailed briefin
gs o
r training of D
esk staff, to
enhance th
eir skills an
d knowled
ge.
�OIO
S ap
preciates th
at with
UNHCR’srotatio
nal p
olicy
it is not p
ossib
le to assig
n to
Desk
s staff with
all the relev
ant
skills an
d knowled
ge o
f the w
orking en
viro
nment. H
owever, th
ese issues sh
ould be ad
dressed
by UNHCR to
ensure
satisfactory Desk
perfo
rmance an
d m
ore efficien
t managem
ent o
f Desk
s.
�The issu
e of th
e lack of p
ertinent train
ing was also
raised in
the 1
994 W
orking Group.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.5. Skills of Desk staff
4.1.5. Skills of Desk staff
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n23
�To en
sure ad
equate k
nowled
ge o
f field activ
ities, field m
issionsshould be an
essential p
art of all D
esk staff’s
activities. O
IOS fo
und th
at in general trav
el undertak
en was in
sufficien
t, and so
me D
esk staff h
ad never v
isited so
me
of th
e countries u
nder th
eir responsib
ility at all. M
ost D
esk staff ag
reed th
at there sh
ould be a m
inim
um of tw
o field
visits p
er year to
enable th
em to
fully
appreciate sig
nifican
t country
program
mes an
d th
e associated
field co
nstrain
ts.
Not all D
esk staff m
anaged to
achiev
e this b
ear minim
um.
�OIO
S ap
preciates th
at there are so
metim
es conflictin
g prio
ritiesand budgetary
constrain
ts. Noneth
eless, this sh
ould
be an
importan
t functio
n of th
e Desk
that sh
ould not b
e overlo
oked.
�In resp
onse to
OIO
S’questio
nnaire to
field offices, 7
4 per cen
t consid
ered field
visits b
y Desk
staff essential to
understan
d field
operatio
ns.
�Acco
rding to
one F
ield Office, th
e effectiveness an
d ad
ded valu
eof th
e Desk
s was d
irectly related
to field
visits.
Others m
entio
ned th
e usefu
lness o
f visits, esp
ecially in
the p
eriod of th
e Country
Operatio
ns P
lan (C
OP) p
reparatio
n.
In particu
lar, the p
ractice of th
e Afghanistan
Desk
to organize w
orking groups w
ith th
e differen
t stakeholders to
prep
are the C
OP an
d to
provide sy
stematic feed
back
thereafter can
be h
ighlig
hted
as a valu
able o
ne.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.4. Skills of Desk staff
4.1.4. Skills of Desk staff – –
Field missions
Field missions
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n24
�The p
ositio
n of th
e Senior L
egal A
dvisers v
aries from Bureau
to Bureau
:
�In th
e Bureau
for A
sia and Pacific, th
ey fo
rm part o
f the D
esk,
�In th
e Europe B
ureau
, they are in
tegrated
in a sep
arate Policy
Unit, an
d
�In th
e Africa an
d CASWANAME Bureau
x, th
ey are in
a separate L
egal A
dvice U
nit.
�In OIO
S’opinion, each
of th
ese structu
res have th
eir own ad
vantag
es. Senior L
egal A
dvisers assig
ned to
the D
esk
develo
p stro
ng operatio
ns k
nowled
ge an
d benefit fro
m clo
se coordinatio
n with
the D
esk Officers. S
eparate L
egal
Units allo
w Senior L
egal A
dvisers to
closely
interact w
ith co
lleagues (d
irect legal feed
back
) and provide clearer
reportin
g lin
es. They guaran
tee consisten
cy of p
olicies th
roughout th
e region an
d co
mplem
entary
expertise p
rovided
by sev
eral Senior L
egal A
dvisers.
�The p
ositio
n of th
e Legal A
dviser h
owever n
eeds fu
rther clarificatio
n. D
esk Officers seek
the in
put o
f Legal A
dvisers
only when th
ey co
nsid
er it necessary
, whereas th
e Legal A
dvisers, in
order to
do th
eir job properly
, should be
involved in
, or at least h
ave an
overall v
iew of all th
e issues th
at may have leg
al implicatio
ns.
�Legal A
dvisers w
ere not alw
ays co
nsulted
on th
e COP, w
hich
is contrary
to IO
M/FOM/020/2004 on Param
eters and
Proced
ures fo
r review
of 2
005 Country
Operatio
ns P
lans an
d Head
quarters P
lans, w
hich
prev
ents a co
nsisten
t
Protectio
n an
d Operatio
ns ap
proach
.
�Some co
ncern
s were also
raised as to
the su
perv
ision of th
e Legal A
dvisers b
y th
e Directo
r of th
e Bureau
, consid
ering
the latter’s n
on-leg
al back
ground th
at does n
ot alw
ays allo
w fo
r proper ev
aluatio
n of leg
al perfo
rmance. A
second
reportin
g lin
e is created de fa
ctoas th
e Legal A
dviser o
btain
s the n
ecessary leg
al guidance fro
m th
e Departm
ent o
f
Intern
ational P
rotectio
n (D
IP).
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser
4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser visvisa a visvisthe Desks
the Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n25
�Another co
ncern
rests with
the o
verlap
of th
e functio
n of th
e Legal A
dvisers in
the B
ureau
x an
d th
at of th
e Protectio
n
Operatio
ns S
upport S
ection (P
OS). F
ollo
wing UNHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
, both are resp
onsib
le for p
roviding ad
vice
and su
pport to
field operatio
ns an
d m
ainstream
ing policies an
d stan
dard
s. As b
oth have a g
eograp
hical resp
onsib
ility,
the risk
of d
uplicatio
n of w
ork is h
igh. L
egal/P
rotectio
n Officers in
the B
ureau
x co
nfirm
ed th
at their term
s of
reference co
incid
e with
those o
f POS. F
rom th
is persp
ective, O
IOS is in
accord with
the B
oard
of A
udito
rs’
recommendatio
n th
at “UNHCR rev
iew th
e terms o
f reference an
d proced
ures o
f the P
rotectio
n Operatio
ns S
upport
Sectio
n, w
ith a v
iew to
streamlin
e and optim
ise the relatio
ns w
ith th
e Bureau
x an
d th
e support p
rovided to
protectio
n
field operatio
ns”. U
NHCR ag
reed, w
ithin its 2
005 restru
cturin
g effo
rt, to rev
iew th
e terms o
f reference an
d
proced
ures o
f the P
OS.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser
4.1.6. Position of the Legal Adviser visvisa a visvisthe Desks
the Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n26
Recommendation 1:
The U
NHCR Departm
ent o
f Operatio
ns, in
order to
streamlin
e and ratio
nalize th
e Desk
s’stru
cture an
d its reso
urces, sh
ould
develo
p a stan
dard
Desk
structu
re for ‘stab
le state’operatio
ns, th
rough:
�Review
ing th
e functio
ns an
d jo
b descrip
tions o
f the D
esks w
ith reg
ard to
their co
heren
ce and relev
ance, an
d elim
inate th
e duplicatio
n of fu
nctio
ns b
etween
a Head
of D
esk an
d a S
enior D
esk Officer;
�Estab
lishing guidelin
es for th
e staffing reso
urces allo
cated to
each Desk
, taking in
to acco
unt rep
resentativ
e workload
indicato
rs (such as n
umber o
f countries, n
umber o
f Field
Offices, n
umber o
f perso
ns o
f concern
, budget allo
cations,
number o
f Letters o
f Instru
ction, number o
f Head
quarters p
osts an
d ratio
of estim
ated staff co
sts on to
tal budget) an
d
consid
ering each
Desk
’s resources alo
ng th
ese guidelin
es;
�Clarify
ing th
e role an
d rep
ortin
g lin
es of S
enior L
egal A
dvisers
(Rec. 0
1).
Recommendation 2:
The U
NHCR Departm
ent o
f Operatio
ns sh
ould determ
ine criteria fo
restab
lishing Special U
nits o
r Emerg
ency Desk
s, and
develo
p stan
dard
s related to
the actu
al workload fo
r the allo
cation of h
uman reso
urces an
d ex
pertise (su
pply m
anagem
ent,
administratio
n an
d teleco
mmunicatio
ns) if it is d
etermined th
at such ex
pertise is b
etter placed
in th
e Desk
rather th
an rem
aining
with
in th
e functio
nal U
nits at H
eadquarters (R
ec. 02).
Recommendation 3:
The U
NHCR Departm
ent o
f Operatio
ns in
cooperatio
n with
the D
ivisio
n of H
uman Reso
urces M
anagem
ent (S
taff Develo
pment
Sectio
n) sh
ould develo
p stan
dard
orien
tation train
ing program
mes fo
r new
Head
s of D
esk an
d (S
enior) D
esk Officers w
ith a v
iew
to en
hance th
e perfo
rmance o
f the D
esks. It sh
ould in
clude th
e functio
ns o
f Units at H
eadquarters, th
e processes in
volving th
e Desk
s, their resp
onsib
ilities, as well as th
e Desk
s’functio
ns, p
rogram
ming sy
stems an
d proced
ures fro
m a H
eadquarters
persp
ective.T
he train
ing co
uld be m
odule-b
ased with
staff selecting to
pics w
here th
ey need
to en
hance th
eir knowled
ge (R
ec. 03).
In resp
onse to
the d
raft rep
ort, U
NHCR sta
ted th
at w
ith a clea
r job descrip
tion and keep
ing in
mind how universa
l Desk O
fficers’kn
owled
ge a
nd skills h
ave to
be, D
esk Officers sh
ould be a
ble to
enhance th
eir knowled
ge in
the a
reas w
here th
ey need
it with
the
variety o
f learn
ing pro
gra
mmes
alrea
dy existin
g. O
IOS believ
es however th
at consisten
t and co
mpreh
ensiv
e trainingis n
ot
always b
est achiev
ed by rely
ing on in
dividual ju
dgment.
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1. Structure and staff
4.1.7. Recommendations
4.1.7. Recommendations
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n27
4.2. Roles and responsibilitie
s
4.2. Roles and responsibilitie
s
of th
e Desks
of th
e Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n28
�OIO
S co
uld not fin
d a clear an
d co
nsisten
t descrip
tion of th
e functio
ns an
d ro
le of th
e Desk
other th
an th
at already
referred to
in th
e UNHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
(which
was v
ery lim
ited), an
d in
Desk
staff’s job descrip
tions.
�The 1
994 rev
iew co
nclu
ded th
at the D
esk was co
nfro
nted
with
“unclear d
elineatio
n of resp
onsib
ilities, […] d
iffering
and co
nflictin
g in
terpretatio
n of th
e role o
f the D
esk […
], confusio
n over th
e exten
t to which
the D
esk or B
ureau
should tak
e on fu
nctio
nal ro
les […], an
d disag
reement o
ver th
e exten
t of D
esk in
volvem
ent […
]”;
�The 1
999 rev
iew called
for a clarificatio
n of th
e future ro
les of th
e Desk
. Appropriate actio
n was n
ot tak
en, an
d in
OIO
S’opinion th
e roles an
d resp
onsib
ilities have still to
be clarified
.
�In try
ing to
assess the cu
rrent situ
ation, O
IOS rev
iewed all av
ailable relev
ant d
ocumentatio
n, m
anuals an
d
instru
ctions, an
d so
licited th
e view
s of th
e Desk
s and th
e Field
on th
e roles o
f the D
esk.
�Build
ing upon:
�Conclu
sions o
f the 1
994 W
orking Group;
�Findings o
f the 1
999 rev
iew; an
d
�Curren
t job descrip
tions o
f Desk
positio
ns;
�OIO
S id
entified
the fo
llowing m
ain fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esk fo
r furth
er analy
sis:
�Strateg
y;
�Support;
�Donor relatio
ns;
�Reportin
g; an
d
�Program
me-related
activities (p
lanning, program
ming, im
plem
entin
g an
d m
onito
ring)
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n29
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
Integ
rated overv
iew
of all asp
ects of U
NHCR
operatio
ns in
one g
eograp
hical area
Represen
tation of U
NHCR
concern
s for th
e country
/
sub reg
ion in
ternally
Represen
tation of U
NHCR
concern
s for th
e country
/
sub reg
ion ex
ternally
Institu
tional m
emory an
d co
ntin
uity
at HQ fo
r political an
d protectio
n
related issu
es and durab
le solutio
n
achiev
ements,
complem
entary
to th
e Field
Functio
nal ro
le in m
onito
ring,
contro
lling an
d other task
s
Assistan
ce in th
e form
ulatio
n
of p
olicies an
d operatio
nal strateg
ies
for th
e region
Dissem
inatio
n of in
form
ation
Coordinatio
n, liaiso
n
and ad
vocacy
role at H
Q
Legal ad
vice an
d protectio
n
Tech
nical/P
rogram
me
Managem
ent issu
es
Emerg
encies
1994 Working Group
1999 Review
Strateg
y
Support, D
onor relatio
ns, R
eportin
g
Program
meactiv
ities
Serv
e as focal p
oint
Analy
seinform
ation, rep
orts
to ad
dress n
eeds
Ensure o
bjectiv
es, workplan
s,
project d
escriptio
ns reflect th
e
prio
rities/strategy an
d guaran
tee
best u
se of reso
urces
Promote co
ordinatio
n,
communicatio
n an
d
sharin
g of b
est practices
Estab
lish an
d m
aintain
contact
with
Missio
ns, N
GOs, U
N Agencies
Make su
re advice/g
uidance is
provided to
address o
peratio
nal/
legal g
aps
Ensure F
ield offices p
rovide
inform
ation an
d dissem
inate
intern
ally an
d ex
ternally
Coordinate th
e prep
aration of th
e
Desk
’s submissio
n to
Pre-O
RB/ORB
Exam
ine field
requests (b
udget,
requirem
ents, staffin
g)
and ex
pedite th
rough reso
urce
managem
ent m
echanism
s
Monito
r implem
entatio
n
Prep
are special ap
peals, u
pdates,
Reports, b
riefing notes
2004 Job Descrip
tions
SLA
ESS
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n30
�Some o
f the fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esks, as id
entified
in 1994 an
d 1999, h
ave b
een rep
ositio
ned in
the B
ureau
(rather th
an
the D
esk). F
or ex
ample in
accordance w
ith UNHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
:
�In term
s of p
olicy
develo
pment an
d research
, “the B
ureau
Directo
r takes th
e lead ro
le for h
is/her reg
ion as a
whole in
accordance w
ith th
e HC, D
HC an
d AHC, th
e Represen
tatives/C
hiefs an
d su
pport serv
ices at Head
quarters […
]”.
�SRMsare
responsib
le for assistin
g th
e Directo
rs of th
e Bureau
x“in
strategic an
d operatio
ns p
lanning,
coordinate p
rogram
ming, an
d su
pport o
ffices in th
e Field
in m
onito
ring an
d reallo
cating reso
urces in
response
to new
develo
pments an
d ch
anging circu
mstan
ces”.
�Legal ad
vice
is in th
e purview
of th
e Senior L
egal A
dviso
r, and only under th
e Desk
’s responsib
ility in
the
Bureau
for A
sia and Pacific.
�“In
conjunctio
n with
the S
enior R
esource M
anagers, th
e Desk
s in each
Bureau
are also in
volved in
operatio
nal
strategic p
lanning, political an
alysis, d
isseminatio
n of in
form
ation an
d co
ordinatio
n, an
d program
me su
pport
functio
ns in
cluding m
onito
ring, staffin
g, fin
ance, p
rocurem
ent an
d ad
ministratio
n.”
�OIO
S fo
und th
at Desk
staff are sometim
es focal p
oints fo
r the d
evelo
pments o
f one o
r several in
itiatives o
r projects
(Intern
ally Disp
laced Populatio
ns, G
ender an
d Age, F
undraisin
g).This m
eans th
at they have to
attend related
meetin
gs, d
isseminate th
e inform
ation in
the B
ureau
and ad
vise th
e Field
and others in
the D
esk/Bureau
on th
e topic.
They also
have th
e responsib
ility to
relay all in
itiatives to
the F
ield to
ensure th
eir proper im
plem
entatio
n.
�Most o
f the D
esk staff in
terview
ed ad
mitted
that d
ue to
their su
pport fu
nctio
ns, in
form
ation overlo
ad an
d daily
‘em
ergencies’
there w
as not m
uch tim
e left for strateg
ic plan
ning an
d directio
n. T
he 1
994 rev
iew co
nfirm
ed th
is and
reported
in th
is regard
that “so
me fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esks w
ere neglected
, nam
ely co
ntin
gency an
d fo
rward
plan
ning
and fo
rmulatio
n of strateg
ies at the su
b-reg
ional an
d reg
ional lev
els”.
�Also
a strong statem
ent w
as put fo
rward
whereb
y th
e Desk
s resented
the scatterin
g of reso
urces am
ong so
many
initiativ
es.
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.1. Strategy
4.2.1. Strategy
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n31
�Consid
ering th
e number o
f initiativ
es, in OIO
S’view
the m
ultip
licity of p
riorities resu
lts in ad
ditio
nal w
orkload,
which
can distract th
e Desk
s from th
eir core su
pport fu
nctio
ns. D
esk staff in
dicated
that th
eir involvem
ent in
such
activities w
as time-co
nsuming an
d in
ferred th
at it was n
ot alw
ays clear w
hat th
eir responsib
ilities were, n
or d
id th
ey
always h
ave th
e expertise o
r resources to
assist field operatio
ns in
these m
atters.
�Noneth
eless, Desk
staff are in m
any cases in
an opportu
ne p
ositio
n as th
ey have a u
nique ‘b
ird’s ey
e’view
of co
untry
operatio
ns w
ithin a certain
region. D
esks, th
erefore, can
add valu
e if they provide p
roper an
alysis o
f what is
implem
ented
in neig
hbourin
gcountries an
d assist in
exchanging best p
ractices. This co
uld ach
ieve m
ore sy
nerg
y an
d
consisten
cy in
the su
b-reg
ion. S
taff in th
e field co
nfirm
ed th
ey would welco
me su
ch an
approach
.
�In OIO
S’view
the in
volvem
ent o
f Desk
staff in strateg
y need
s to be fu
rther clarified
to en
sure a co
heren
t approach
and a b
etter understan
ding of w
hat th
eir roles an
d resp
onsib
ilities are in th
is area.
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.1. Strategy
4.2.1. Strategy
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n32
�The m
ajority
of H
eads o
f Desk
interv
iewed saw
their m
ain ro
le asone o
f support. T
he 2
005 EPAU Referen
ce Group
on th
e Desk
conclu
ded th
at the o
rientatio
n an
d fo
cus o
f the D
esks w
as toward
s the F
ield, m
eaning th
at there w
as little,
if any, ro
om fo
r the D
esk fu
nctio
n to
service H
eadquarters.
�Replies to
OIO
S’questio
nnaire co
nfirm
ed th
is understan
ding, an
d field
offices h
ighlig
hted
the co
ordinatin
g an
d
liaising fu
nctio
n of th
e Desk
s as the m
ain one (7
2 per cen
t), essentially
relating to
budget an
d reso
urces (6
1 per cen
t).
They reg
retted th
e lack of sy
stematic feed
back
and practical ad
vice (6
7 per cen
t) and would welco
me m
ore su
pport in
the areas o
f operatio
ns an
d program
mes (6
8 per cen
t), protectio
n(47 per cen
t) and policy
or g
lobal in
itiatives (4
2 per
cent).
�The U
NHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
identifies th
e prim
ary ro
le of th
e Bureau
Directo
rs as “advisin
g an
d assistin
g th
e
High Commissio
ner an
d Assistan
t High Commissio
ner in
the fo
rmulatio
n of p
olicy
and directin
g th
eir develo
pment
and promulgatio
n”. O
n th
e prim
ary ro
le of th
e Desk
s, the M
anual is n
ot clear. T
heim
pressio
n was w
idely
shared
among Desk
staff that th
eir focus w
as progressiv
ely sh
ifting to
“feed-in
the H
eadquarters’
mach
inery
”rath
er than
truly su
pportin
g th
e Field
.
�OIO
S fo
und it d
ifficult to
measu
re the effectiv
eness o
f the D
esks’role in
their su
pport fu
nctio
n, as m
ost o
f it was
provided via E
-mail. A
lthough th
is meth
od of co
mmunicatio
n is v
ery efficien
t and practical, in
dicato
rs of th
e Desk
s’
support fu
nctio
n perfo
rmance are ‘h
idden’and hence n
ot easily
measu
rable.
�OIO
S id
entified
that E
-mail w
as beco
ming a p
roblem
for D
esks, p
articularly
those su
pportin
g an
emerg
ency
operatio
n. T
here is in
form
ation overlo
ad, an
d it w
as mentio
ned th
at in so
me cases read
ing an
d an
swerin
g E-m
ails was
a full-tim
e job. C
onsid
ering th
e volume o
f inform
ation, so
me sy
stem need
s to be in
troduced
to en
able D
esk staff to
prio
ritise requests an
d work co
mmitm
ents.
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.2. Support
4.2.2. Support
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n33
Donor relatio
ns
�The ex
tent o
f the D
esks’involvem
ent in
fundraisin
g activ
ities and donor relatio
ns is m
ainly left to
the D
esks’
discretio
n. S
ome staff stated
to be h
eavily
involved (D
esk 2 fo
rthe A
mericas); so
me in
dicated
their p
articipatio
n in
donor m
eetings, in
cluding acco
mpanying DER on m
ission an
d one D
esk m
entio
ned th
at they were h
eavily
involved
from a m
arketin
g asp
ect and had to
‘sell’their o
peratio
ns to
donors. O
thers rely
entirely
on DER, an
d ju
st provided
the n
ecessary raw
inform
ation as in
put.
�OIO
S noted
that in
all cases Desk
s were ex
pected
to provide a
d hoc in
form
ation as an
d when req
uired
for d
onor
related purposes. H
owever, as u
p-to
-date in
form
ation was n
ot alw
ays at h
and, su
ch req
uests w
ere norm
ally re-d
irected
to th
e Field
.
�The E
PAU Referen
ce Group co
nfirm
ed th
at, although staff at H
eadquarters receiv
ed m
any pertin
ent rep
orts o
n field
activities su
ch as th
e Situ
ation Reports (S
itReps), it w
as not alw
ays easy
to fin
d th
e inform
ation th
ey req
uired
and
they often
had to
revert to
the F
ield fo
r up-to
-date in
form
ation. T
his w
as seen as a d
rain on both th
e Desk
s’and Field
staff resources.
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.3. Donor re
lations
4.2.3. Donor re
lations
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n34
�All D
esks m
entio
ned th
e increasin
gly
overw
helm
ing rep
ortin
g task
s, both stan
dard
and ad
hoc. In
this reg
ard, th
e Field
and th
e Desk
s’opinion
concur. T
he rep
ortin
g resp
onsib
ility rests m
ainly
with
the F
ield.
�Reportin
g req
uirem
ents w
ere found to
be v
ery
dem
anding -
OIO
S th
erefore d
ecided to
furth
er
analy
sethe 2
004 stan
dard
reportin
greq
uirem
ents.
�It w
as establish
ed th
at there w
ere 17 rep
orts, w
hich
need
ed to
be su
bmitted
, most o
f them
due in
Septem
ber, w
ith at least o
ne sp
ecific reportin
g
requirem
ent each
month. It is ap
preciated
, however,
that th
eir complex
ity varies an
d th
at they are n
ot
always d
ealt with
by th
e same p
erson.
�The g
raph does n
ot tak
e into acco
unt th
e ad-hoc
reports req
uested
, for w
hich
Desk
s either h
ave to
draft o
r significan
tly co
ntrib
ute to
.
�OIO
S noted
that a recen
t inventory of rep
orts w
as
made, w
hich
inclu
ded all in
ternal rep
orts to
UNHCR, m
entio
ns sp
ecific donor su
bmissio
ns an
d
reports, in
put fo
r reports to
the G
eneral A
ssembly,
Notes fo
r the F
ile or A
udit rep
lies.
�OIO
S has b
een m
ade aw
are that a w
orking group
has b
een estab
lished to
review
UNHCR’srep
ortin
g
requirem
ents an
d id
entify
those w
ho ad
d valu
e.
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.4. Reportin
g4.2.4. Reportin
g
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
8/3: re
ceive country
chapter of 2003 Global
reportfor re
view and
transmission on 15/3
26/3: re
ceive country
operations plansfor
2005 for re
view and
consolidation up to 19/4
20/6: re
ceive final
country operations
plansfor 2005
25/6: draft in
put fo
r 2005
Annual Programme
Budget
1/9: re
ceive draft c
ountry
chapter fo
r 2005 Global
Appealfor re
view,
editing and tra
nsmission
on 8/9
Sept-15/10: clearance of
field drafts for 2005 plans in
Consolidated Appeal
Process
29/2: copy of 2003
Annual Protection
Reports -prior lia
ison
with the Desk
29/2: re
ceive 2003
country report fo
r
review, consolidation of
views and fin
alization
18/8: re
ceive Annual
Programme Interim
Reportand identify
where follow-up action is
needed
27/8: submit to
Budget
proposed revised
allocations based on
Annual Programme
Interim
Report13-24/9: consultation on
budgetary tra
nsfers
between appropriations,
submission of fin
al ta
bles
and results
26/4-7/5: Pre ORB meetings
31/1: copy of 2003 Annual
Statistical Reports and
Resettlement statistics Report
5/11: re
ceive Detailed
Project Submissionsfor
2005 for issuance of ABOD
LOIs
31
29826
26720
25
18
27
24
13
155
End
198 1
Quarterly Statistical
Reports and
Resettlement Statistics
Reports
Quarterly Statistical
Reports and
Resettlement Statistics
Reports
Quarterly Statistical
Reports and
Resettlement Statistics
Reports
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
8/3: re
ceive country
chapter of 2003 Global
reportfor re
view and
transmission on 15/3
26/3: re
ceive country
operations plansfor
2005 for re
view and
consolidation up to 19/4
20/6: re
ceive final
country operations
plansfor 2005
25/6: draft in
put fo
r 2005
Annual Programme
Budget
1/9: re
ceive draft c
ountry
chapter fo
r 2005 Global
Appealfor re
view,
editing and tra
nsmission
on 8/9
Sept-15/10: clearance of
field drafts for 2005 plans in
Consolidated Appeal
Process
29/2: copy of 2003
Annual Protection
Reports -prior lia
ison
with the Desk
29/2: re
ceive 2003
country report fo
r
review, consolidation of
views and fin
alization
18/8: re
ceive Annual
Programme Interim
Reportand identify
where follow-up action is
needed
27/8: submit to
Budget
proposed revised
allocations based on
Annual Programme
Interim
Report13-24/9: consultation on
budgetary tra
nsfers
between appropriations,
submission of fin
al ta
bles
and results
26/4-7/5: Pre ORB meetings
31/1: copy of 2003 Annual
Statistical Reports and
Resettlement statistics Report
31/1: copy of 2003 Annual
Statistical Reports and
Resettlement statistics Report
5/11: re
ceive Detailed
Project Submissionsfor
2005 for issuance of ABOD
LOIs
31
29826
26720
25
18
27
24
13
155
End
198 1
Quarterly Statistical
Reports and
Resettlement Statistics
Reports
Quarterly Statistical
Reports and
Resettlement Statistics
Reports
Quarterly Statistical
Reports and
Resettlement Statistics
Reports
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n35
�The resp
onsib
ility fo
r the an
nual rep
ortin
g req
uirem
ents as listed
in th
e prev
ious p
age m
ainly lies w
ith th
e Field
. It is notew
orth
y to
mentio
n th
at the rep
ortin
g req
uirem
ents are sim
ilar for all D
esks an
d all F
ield Offices, irresp
ective o
f size, staffin
g lev
els, perso
ns o
f concern
, budget an
d/or d
ynam
ics in th
e field. T
he D
esks’input o
n th
e reports b
y th
e field
was p
erceived as lim
ited (6
7 per cen
t of th
e respondents).
�The E
PAU Referen
ce Group highlig
hted
that D
esks staff d
id not ag
ree on what th
eir responsib
ilities with
regard
to
reportin
g were. S
ome in
dicated
that co
nsid
erable tim
e was sp
ent in
editin
g an
d clarify
ing issu
es documented
in th
e rep
ort fo
r which
the F
ield sh
ould be resp
onsib
le, others w
elcomed th
e review
process an
d perceiv
ed it as o
ne o
f their
valu
able co
ntrib
utio
ns to
Field
activities.
�There w
as an overall feelin
g by Field
staff, and to
a lesser exten
t by Desk
staff, as to th
e relevance o
f some o
f the
reports. A
n ex
ample is th
e Sitrep
, which
is submitted
monthly, w
eekly or b
i-week
ly, d
epending on th
e emerg
ency
status o
f the F
ield. It w
as stated th
at the S
itrepswere h
ardly ev
er read, let alo
ne co
mmented
on.
�Though th
e focus o
f the v
arious rep
orts an
d th
eir audien
ce seem to
differ, it b
ecame clear d
urin
g th
e interv
iews w
ith
staff that m
any rep
ortin
g req
uirem
ents are d
ealt with
in a 'co
py-cu
t-paste' w
ay due to
the h
eavy dem
ands.
�Though certain
reports serv
e a clear and sp
ecific purpose (e.g
. Annual S
tatistical report, A
nnual P
rotectio
n Report),
importan
t issues co
uld be o
verlo
oked becau
se the D
esks lack
ed an
overall p
icture reg
arding th
e differen
t issues
discu
ssed in
the v
arious rep
orts.
�On th
e other h
and, th
e more g
eneral rep
orts (e.g
. Country
Operatio
ns P
lan (C
OP), G
lobal A
ppeal) o
ften lack
the d
etail and fo
cus o
f the sp
ecific ones. It h
as thus b
een su
ggested
that,
rather th
an having sev
eral reports reg
arding differen
t topics an
d m
ore g
eneral rep
orts co
verin
g general issu
es, there sh
ould be o
ne co
nsolid
ated rep
ort, th
at integ
rates all those issu
es of in
terest, so th
at poten
tial weak
nesses, n
eeds an
d co
nflicts can
be m
ore easily
identified
.
�The Jo
int In
spectio
n Unit su
ggested
in its R
eview
of th
e Managem
ent an
d Administratio
n of U
NHCR th
at “the
Execu
tive C
ommittee […
] consid
er modify
ing th
e budget cy
cle from an
nual to
bien
nial”
to elim
inate in
termediary
step
s of th
e program
ming process an
d brin
g atten
tion to
longer-term
goals. If im
plem
ented
, such a ch
ange sh
ould be
used
to allev
iate some o
f the p
rogram
ming an
d rep
ortin
g req
uirem
ents o
f stable o
peratio
ns an
d lo
ng-term
strategy
operatio
ns, an
d to
simplify
the C
ountry
Operatio
ns P
lan process an
alysed
belo
w.
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.4. Reportin
g4.2.4. Reportin
g
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n36
�An essen
tial functio
n of th
e Desk
s is their in
volvem
ent in
the an
nual
plan
ning process (related
to th
e COP prep
aration an
d pre-O
RB
process). O
IOS rev
iewed th
ese processes to
identify
variatio
ns in
the
implem
entatio
n of ap
plicab
le rules an
d in
structio
ns an
d documented
differen
ces betw
een th
e Desk
s selected as o
ur sam
ple.
�OIO
S’analy
sis determ
ined th
at the D
esks co
uld gain
in effectiv
eness
and efficien
cy if:
�Built-in
MSRP co
ntro
ls allowed fo
r alleviatin
g so
me o
f the
specific co
ntro
ls seen th
roughout th
e Spending Authority
and
LOI p
rocesses. A
s an illu
stration, th
ere are four lay
ers of
contro
ls perfo
rmed by Budget in
the L
OI p
rocess (h
ighlig
hted
in th
is chart), ev
en th
ough th
e project’s b
udget in
itially lo
aded
cannot b
e overrid
enby th
e Desk
s.
�Desk
s were n
ot in
volved in
every
step of th
e program
ming an
d
implem
entin
g processes, b
ut o
nly in
a few essen
tial steps
where th
ey can
contrib
ute su
bstan
tially to
that p
rocess, an
dwhere ad
ded-valu
e is evident.
�The re-d
irection of D
esks’effo
rts away fro
m th
e detailed
annual
plan
ning ex
ercise would sav
etim
e and allo
w th
em to
re-focus o
n
other issu
es such as strateg
y an
d policy
. This w
ould m
eet the F
ield’s
expectatio
ns (4
2 per cen
t of th
e field resp
ondents w
ould welco
me
more su
pport o
n policy
and/or g
lobal issu
es).
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
Pled
ging
conferen
ce
Draft L
OI
Project d
escr.
Project b
udget
Workplan
Actio
n sh
eet
Final L
OI
Signatu
re
MSRP
Spending
Authorizatio
n
Mem
oCreate
Spending au
th.
Journal
Budget p
osts
Prep
are LOI
Cover p
ages
and prin
t
Review
and prin
ts final
2 pages
Change B
udget
To C
urren
tin
FOBS
Project
submission
Prin
ts other
documents
Desk
Budget
Bureau
Approval
andload
Pled
ging
conferen
ce
Draft L
OI
Project d
escr.
Project b
udget
Workplan
Actio
n sh
eet
Final L
OI
Signatu
re
MSRP
Spending
Authorizatio
n
Mem
oCreate
Spending au
th.
Journal
Budget p
osts
Prep
are LOI
Cover p
ages
and prin
t
Review
and prin
ts final
2 pages
Change B
udget
To C
urren
tin
FOBS
Project
submission
Prin
ts other
documents
Desk
Budget
Bureau
Approval
andload
1
2
3
4
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n37
Plan
ning an
d program
ming
�OIO
S was u
nable to
quantify
the ad
ded-valu
e of th
e Desk
or o
f the v
arious H
eadquarter U
nits, reg
ardingthe C
OP an
d
Project S
ubmissio
ns, as in
termediate v
ersions o
f documents in
itially drafted
or co
mpleted
by th
e field were seld
om filed
and m
aintain
ed by th
e Desk
.
�Vario
us in
puts an
d reaso
ns b
ehind m
ajor ch
anges to
the p
lanning documents an
d/or m
anagem
ent d
ecisions to
make
changes w
ere not alw
ays p
roperly
documented
or sh
ared with
fieldoffices.
�The B
ureau
for A
frica initiated
a COP Review
Committee co
mprisin
g th
e two Deputy Directo
rs and th
e Senior
Reso
urce M
anager to
assess the q
uality
and provide in
put fo
r improvem
ent an
d en
hancem
ent o
f the su
bmissio
ns w
ith
the D
esk. T
he C
ommittee tak
es system
atic minutes, th
at are shared
with
all Desk
s. This p
ractice could be em
ulated
by
other B
ureau
x, as it k
eeps a reco
rd of w
hat ch
anges are n
ecessary an
d co
uld be u
sed as lesso
ns learn
ed fo
r future
submissio
ns.
�Consid
erable effo
rts are made to
prep
are the an
nual C
OP, but o
nce co
mpleted
, OIO
S was in
form
ed it w
as rarely used
as
a reference d
ocument, o
r as a baselin
e again
st which
levels o
f achiev
ements co
uld be m
easured
.
�In resp
onse to
the d
raft rep
ort, U
NHCR m
entio
ned
that every yea
r a co
mpreh
ensive
pro
gra
mmereview
takes p
lace a
t
Hea
dquarters. T
his yea
r, the resp
onsib
ility of review
ing and va
lidatin
g field
submissio
ns w
as p
assed
over to
the B
urea
u,
with
emphasis o
n Burea
u-field
intera
ction fo
r finalisin
gsu
bmissio
ns a
nd brin
ging th
em in
line w
ith global o
bjectives
and para
meters. A
lso, th
e COP pro
cess has b
een revised
for th
e 2006 su
bmissio
n and now co
ntains b
aselin
e, objectives,
targ
ets and budgets p
er sector th
at w
ill serve as m
onito
ring andrep
ortin
g to
ols.
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n38
Contro
ls and M
SRP
�The effect o
f MSRP on th
e role o
f the D
esks w
ill not b
e fully
compreh
ended until it is ro
lled-out to
the field
and
effectively
working in
that en
viro
nment. H
owever, ev
en at th
is early stag
e OIO
S noted
a few areas w
here p
roced
ures
and co
ntro
ls could be stream
lined.
�The B
udget S
ection is resp
onsib
le for en
tering th
e ORB budget in
MSRP an
d also
responsib
le for m
aking budgetary
changes to
the in
itial budget o
nce th
e COP is ap
proved, as w
ell as for th
e spending au
thority
levels. T
he B
udget
Sectio
n also
clears project b
udgets, o
nce u
ploaded by th
e Program
meAssistan
t, and co
nsolid
ated oblig
ation plan
s fro
m th
e Field
, befo
re the L
OIsand th
e amendments to
them
are issued. T
his is d
one fo
llowing clearan
ce by eith
er the H
ead of D
esk or th
e (Senior) D
esk Officer an
d th
e Senior R
esource M
anager.
�MSRP in
troduced
an ad
ditio
nal co
ntro
l: it rejects input o
r transactio
ns th
at differ fro
m budgets o
r data alread
y in
the
system
(e.g. n
ame o
f Implem
entin
g Partn
ers). Only th
e Budget an
dFinance S
ections can
enter th
e system
to overrid
e or am
end su
ch data.
�In OIO
S’view
, as MSRP offers stro
nger in
ternal co
ntro
ls, this sh
ould lead
to in
creased deleg
ation in
the
program
ming process.
�Overall, O
IOS is o
f the o
pinion th
at, in th
e change p
rocess asso
ciated with
MSRP, U
NHCR still n
eeds to
:
�Carefu
lly stu
dy th
e impact o
f MSRP on th
e processes an
d use its fu
ll poten
tial to sim
plify
proced
ures an
d
effectively
deleg
ate decisio
ns to
the B
ureau
, and th
e Field
; and
�Develo
p M
SRP in
view
of th
e specific req
uirem
ents o
f the D
esks in
the areas o
f project im
plem
entatio
n an
d
monito
ring, in
line w
ith th
e integ
rated natu
re of th
e ERP (E
nterp
rise Reso
urce P
lanning so
ftware).
�These step
s, wheth
er undertak
en now or after th
e roll-o
ut o
f MSRP to
the F
ield, fall in
to a m
edium-term
project fram
e that O
IOS will k
eep under rev
iew.
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n39
Project files
�Acco
rding to
the U
NHCR M
anual, C
hapter 4
, Sectio
n 7, “p
roject m
anagers (u
sually
Desk
s/Sectio
ns) at H
eadquarters
will m
aintain
their o
wn project file in
order to
monito
r and co
ntro
l the lev
el of ex
penditu
re again
st the ap
proved budget,
and to
ensure th
at the lev
el of ex
penditu
re does n
ot ex
ceed th
e authorized
oblig
ation lev
el. The p
roject file sh
ould
contain
copies o
f the relev
ant rep
orts receiv
ed fro
m th
e Field
Office”
�The p
roject reco
rds m
aintain
ed by th
e Desk
s were n
ot sy
stematically
the sam
e and in
many cases ap
peared
to be
incomplete o
r did not sy
stematically
main
tain what O
IOS saw
as key in
form
ation fo
r the m
onito
ring of p
rojects (e.g
.
SPMRs, b
udget v
ariance an
alysis, au
dit certificates). T
he ty
pe an
d quality
of th
e documentatio
n on file v
aried
significan
tly fro
m one D
esk to
another, fro
m scarce, to
general (S
PMRs) o
r specific (fact sh
eets and co
mmunicatio
n to
donors, m
inutes o
f the C
ommittee o
n Contracts)
�No m
atter what th
e detail o
f the in
form
ation in
the p
roject files m
aintain
ed by th
e Desk
s, it main
ly co
nsisted
of co
pies o
f
implem
entin
g in
struments.
�A rev
iew of th
e documents as w
ell as discu
ssions w
ith Desk
staffindicated
that th
e lack of in
form
ation av
ailable at th
e
Desk
level d
id not facilitate p
roper m
onito
ring. If p
roject m
onito
ring is d
etermined as o
ne o
f the m
ain fu
nctio
ns o
f the
Desk
, appropriate actio
n is req
uired
to develo
p proced
ures to
ensure p
roject m
onito
ring an
d ev
aluatio
n is effectiv
e.
�In resp
onse to
the d
raft rep
ort, U
NHCR sta
ted th
at th
e LOI d
elegates th
e authority fo
r implem
entatio
n to
the
Rep
resentative, a
nd it is h
im/her w
ho is resp
onsib
le for th
e delivery o
f planned
activities, a
nd effective m
onito
ring ca
n
only ta
ke place in
the field
.
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n40
Procurem
ent
�The D
esks’involvem
ent in
procurem
ent activ
ities is fairly lim
ited, but th
e responsib
ility of th
e Desk
versu
s that o
f the
Supply M
anagem
ent S
ervice (S
MS) is n
ot clear.
�From OIO
S’interv
iews w
ith Desk
Officers an
d Program
meAssistan
ts, procurem
ent ap
peared
to be a seco
ndary
issue,
whereas th
e field staff co
nsid
ered it as an
essential to
pic fo
r the D
esk to
follo
w-up on an
d im
prove.
�The resp
onsib
ility to
follo
w-up on th
e status o
f Head
quarter p
rocurem
ent an
d to
keep
field offices u
pdated
on th
e
progress o
f the p
rocurem
ent p
ipelin
e was n
ot clear. S
ome D
esks d
o keep
field offices in
form
ed th
rough accessin
g
MSRP, others in
dicated
that th
ey th
ought th
is was S
MS' resp
onsib
ility.
�One resp
onsib
ility of th
e Desk
in th
e area of p
rocurem
ent is to
represen
t the field
at the C
ommittee o
n Contracts (C
oC)
meetin
gs.
�In an
intern
al mem
oran
dum, dated
29 Octo
ber 2
004, th
e Contro
llerhad rem
inded th
e Head
s of D
esk of th
eir
responsib
ility to
attend th
e CoCand not to
deleg
ate their resp
onsib
ility.
�In resp
onse so
me actio
n was tak
en by Head
s of D
esk, but it w
as limited
. OIO
S observ
ed fro
m th
e minutes o
f the
CoCfro
m Octo
ber to
Decem
ber 2
004 th
at only tw
o Head
s of D
esk, out o
f the six
Desk
s concern
ed, atten
ded one
Committee m
eeting in
Decem
ber.
�In resp
onse to
the d
raft rep
ort, U
NHCR felt th
at it w
ould have b
een usefu
l to cite
the n
umber o
f Sen
ior D
esk
Officer/D
esk Officers th
at a
ttended
the C
oC. O
IOS ap
preciates th
is comment, b
ut w
ould highlig
ht th
at the
concern
of th
e Contro
ller related to
the w
idesp
read practice o
f Head
s of D
esk to
deleg
ate attendance at th
e CoC to
other staff.
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n41
Monito
ring
�The D
esks h
ave a fu
nctio
n of m
onito
ring an
d oversig
ht th
at is not restricted
to budgetary
and fin
ancial m
onito
ring,
and, alth
ough im
plem
entatio
n is fu
lly deleg
ated to
the F
ield Represen
tatives, th
e Desk
s could m
ore effectiv
ely
follo
w-up on th
e deliv
ery of p
lanned activ
ities. The p
rocess an
alysis sh
owed th
at the D
esks h
ave little in
form
ation to
monito
r activities (as an
exam
ple, th
ey hard
ly ev
er receive th
e narrativ
e part o
f SPMRs).T
he D
esks ag
reed th
at they
could not ad
equately
assess progress o
r project im
plem
entatio
n. It w
as also m
entio
ned th
at the em
phasis at
Head
quarters lies p
urely
with
arbitratio
n of reso
urces’
allocatio
n an
d cash
flow m
anagem
ent, an
d th
at the q
uality
of
implem
entatio
n is n
o lo
nger m
onito
red at th
e Desk
level, b
ut left to
the field
.
�The fin
ancial m
onito
ring by th
e Desk
sraises q
uestio
ns as w
ell. The D
esks are n
ot th
e recipien
t of th
e Field
Monthly
Acco
unts, w
hich
are sent d
irectly by Field
Offices to
Finance. T
his co
mplete d
ichotomy of b
udget an
d ex
penditu
re
monito
ring im
pairs an
alysis an
d co
ntro
l of th
e inputs an
d outputs o
f program
mes. It is also
importan
t to ad
d th
at, with
the ro
llout o
f MSRP, th
e 2004 ex
penditu
re reports b
ecame o
nly av
ailable in
Septem
ber o
f the sam
e year.
�It is also
notew
orth
y th
at Special U
nits are m
ore an
d m
ore in
volved in
single b
eneficiary
situatio
ns co
verin
g sev
eral
countries (A
fghanistan
, Iraq) w
hile th
e financial rep
ortin
g co
ntin
ues to
be d
one at th
e country
level. T
he A
fghanistan
Desk
intro
duced
monthly situ
ation rep
orts, co
nsolid
ating sev
eralcountries’
expenditu
re manually
. Such a stan
dard
report h
as only now been
develo
ped in
MSRP.
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n42
Closure o
f projects
�MSRP lack
s the fu
nctio
nality
to facilitate p
roject clo
sure an
d to
track in
form
ation on Sub-Project A
greem
ents,
inclu
ding am
endments (S
upplem
entary
Agreem
ents), statu
s reports an
d au
dit certificatio
ns. T
o work aro
und th
is
problem
, some D
esks h
ave d
evelo
ped ad hocsystem
s (Excel) to
ensure th
at inform
ation on su
b-projects is k
ept u
p-to
-
date. A
lso, to
fill the g
ap, th
e Divisio
n of In
form
ation Serv
ices and Teleco
mmunicatio
ns (D
IST) d
evelo
ped a sep
arate
web-based
applicatio
n called
Project M
onito
ring System
(PMS). T
he so
ftware w
as availab
le from m
id-2004, but it is
not effectiv
ely used
. Users in
form
ed OIO
S th
at as the ap
plicatio
n has n
o lin
ks to
the M
SRP fin
ance m
odule th
e
closure ex
ercise has b
ecome m
ore co
mplex
. Project clo
sure th
erefore h
as beco
me an
area of co
ncern
. For ex
ample, 9
9
per cen
t of th
e 400 projects (2
,650 su
b-projects) in
itiated in
2003 were still o
pen at th
e end of 2
004. F
or 2
004, th
ere
were clo
se to 375 projects estab
lished an
d no strateg
y has b
een put in
place to
close th
ese projects.
�This issu
e has alread
y been
raised in
our rep
ort o
f MSRP Post-Im
plem
entatio
n.
�In resp
onse to
the d
raft rep
ort, U
NHCR m
entio
ned
that in
clusio
n of a
dea
dlin
e for su
bmissio
n of p
roject clo
sure
docu
men
ts in th
e IOM/F
OM on ‘rep
ortin
g, im
plem
entatio
n and planning’would pro
ve usefu
l. OIO
S co
nsid
ers the
inclu
sion of a d
eadlin
e to be o
f limited
effect, as long as th
e basic to
ols fo
r project clo
sure are m
issing or can
not b
e
used
effectively
.
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n43
Role o
f the S
enior R
esources M
anager in
the p
rocess
�As th
e Senior R
esource M
anagers p
lay an
essential ro
le in th
e plan
ning an
d program
ming process, O
IOS m
et them
to
understan
d how th
ey liaise w
ith th
e Desk
s in th
e overall p
rocess. W
hile th
eir particip
ation m
ainly relates to
the
allocatio
n of reso
urces an
d arb
itration th
ereof w
ithin th
e Bureau
, their term
s of referen
ce also provide fo
r
coordinatio
n an
d m
onito
ring. A
gain
, the m
onito
ring fu
nctio
n seem
s to be o
vertak
en by other task
s: for in
stance th
e
annual staff co
mpendium was felt as v
ery tim
e-consuming.
�The p
ositio
n of th
e Senior R
esource M
anagers is n
orm
ally outsid
ethe D
esk fu
nctio
n (ex
cept th
e Afghanistan
Desk
and th
e Sudan Desk
) and fo
rmally
placed
it outsid
e the sco
pe o
f our rev
iew. O
IOS wish
es to em
phasize th
at,
consid
ering th
at monito
ring an
d program
mecoordinatio
n fall u
nder th
e responsib
ility of th
e SRM, an
d th
attheir P
-5
positio
n places th
em as o
ne o
f the sen
ior/ex
perien
ced staff in
the B
ureau
, their fu
nctio
ns rep
resent a stro
ng safeg
uard
in th
e area of b
udget an
d fin
ance, if ex
ecuted
well.
Planning
Program
ming
Implemen
ting
Closing
Monitoring
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.5.
4.2.5. Programme
Programmeactivities
activities
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n44
�The ro
le and fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esk have ev
olved in
recent y
ears with
the creatio
n of L
egal U
nits an
d Administrativ
e Units
outsid
e the D
esks. In
additio
n, M
SRP will su
rely in
duce sig
nifican
t changes fo
r the D
esks ren
derin
g Head
quarters d
ata availab
le in th
e Field
and red
ucin
g th
e relevance o
f the D
esks fo
r channellin
ginform
ation to
and fro
m th
e Field
.
�OIO
S believ
es that th
e Desk
functio
n is essen
tial as it is complem
entary
to Field
operatio
ns, an
d hence m
uch m
ore th
an a
post b
ox, as so
me p
eople still p
erceive it. In
the an
alysis o
f their actu
al roles, n
oneth
eless, OIO
S feels th
at too m
uch tim
e of th
e Desk
s is devoted
to fu
nctio
ns th
at add little v
alue, an
d th
at the D
esks w
ould gain
relevance w
hen fo
cusin
g m
ore o
n
strategy an
d policy
.
�Until M
SRP is ro
lled-out to
the F
ield, th
e Desk
s need
to rem
ain in
volved in
technical/p
rogram
ming m
atters, but th
e im
pact M
SRP will h
ave o
n th
e Desk
functio
n (essen
tially visa v
isthe P
rogram
meAssistan
ts) can alread
y be an
ticipated
.
�It is w
orth
notin
g th
at 37 per cen
t of th
e field resp
ondents co
nsid
er the d
istributio
n of au
thority
and resp
onsib
ility, as w
ell as th
e functio
ns o
f the D
esks u
nclear.
�Particip
ants o
f the 2
005 EPAU workshop believ
ed th
at it was d
ifficult to
globally
defin
e the ro
les and resp
onsib
ilities of
the D
esk as activ
ities and fo
cus v
aried sig
nifican
tly betw
een Desk
s and were d
ependent b
oth on th
e operatio
ns an
d
sometim
es the p
ersonal p
reference o
f the D
esk staff. O
IOS highlig
hted
, however, th
at there sh
ould be ‘co
re functio
ns’
comparab
le to all D
esks an
d th
is could be th
e starting point.
�In th
e response to
the d
raft rep
ort, U
NHCR co
nfirm
ed th
at th
e difficu
lties experien
ced by th
e Desks in
effectively disch
arg
ing th
eir functio
n, a
nd co
ncu
rred w
ith th
e statem
ent 'O
IOS fo
und th
at th
e roles a
nd fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esks need
ed to
be m
ore clea
rly establish
ed: clea
rer standard
s for th
edifferen
t structu
res, more p
recisely stated
missio
ns,
hen
ce roles a
nd resp
onsib
ilities, and m
easu
rable p
erform
ance o
bjectives' .
�UNHCR felt, h
owever, th
at th
e review did not co
nfro
nt th
e wider m
anagem
ent issu
es that h
amper th
e effectiveness o
f the
Desks. N
amely a
lack o
f clarity o
n th
e level of a
uthority o
f the D
esks, which
often
places th
e Desks a
t a disa
dva
ntage
when
neg
otia
ting cru
cial elem
ents o
f the p
rogra
mme su
ch as sta
ffselectio
n/dep
loym
ent, p
rioritisa
tion of reso
urces,
implem
entatio
n of p
olicy p
riorities. O
IOS believ
es that th
is issue w
ould relate to
a wider assig
nmentof U
NHCR Units,
Serv
ices and processes. A
compreh
ensiv
e review
of all H
eadquarter p
rocesses w
ould better d
efine th
e role an
d
responsib
ility of th
e Desk
s, and determ
ine an
adequate lev
el of au
thority
for th
e Desk
s.
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n45
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2. Role and responsibilitie
s of th
e Desks
4.2.6. Recommendations
4.2.6. Recommendations
Recommendation 4:
The U
NHCR Departm
ent o
f Operatio
ns sh
ould red
uce th
e annual rep
ortin
g req
uirem
ents b
y co
nsid
ering th
e relevance an
d
usefu
lness o
f each rep
ort, an
d by:
�Merg
ing sp
ecialist and general rep
orts to
allow an
integ
rated understan
ding of U
NHCR operatio
ns; an
d
�Adaptin
g th
e requirem
ents to
the size, state (em
ergency, protracted
, stable) an
d reso
urces o
f the field
office (R
ec.
04).
Recommendation 5:
The U
NHCR Departm
ent o
f Operatio
ns, to
enable th
e Desk
s to fo
cuson m
ore essen
tial functio
ns (strateg
y, an
alysis,
evalu
ation an
d co
ntro
l), should rev
iew th
e role o
f the D
esks, clarify
ing th
e exten
t of th
e Desk
s’resp
onsib
ilities and
involvem
ent in
processes su
ch as p
rocurem
ent, staffin
g, donor relatio
ns, an
d th
e plan
ning, program
ming an
d m
onito
ring
processes (R
ec. 05).
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n46
4.3. Assessing the performance
4.3. Assessing the performance
of th
e Desks
of th
e Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n47
Missio
n-objectiv
es
Activ
ities
Resu
lts
Field
Bureau
UNHCR HQ
Targ
et groups
satisfaction
Indicato
rs
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n48
�With
a view
to assess th
e perfo
rmance o
f the D
esks, th
e missio
n or ro
le of th
e Desk
s first need
s to be co
nfirm
ed to
be
able to
determ
ine th
e objectiv
es that sh
ould be u
sed as p
erform
ance in
dicato
rs.
�In doing so
the d
ual ro
le of th
e Desk
, supportin
g both Head
quarters an
d th
e Field
, is importan
t, as it can im
ply th
at one clien
t reports satisfacto
ry resu
lts while th
e other d
oes n
ot.
�In th
e initial in
terview
s with
the H
eads o
f Desk
, as well as in
the rep
lies to our q
uestio
nnaire to
the F
ield, th
e Field
was id
entified
as the first an
d fo
remost clien
t of th
e Desk
. It should be n
oted
that d
ue to
the H
eadquarter R
eview
and
the w
ork by EPAU on th
e Desk
functio
n, O
IOS in
tentio
nally
limited
its scope to
the rev
iew of th
e Desk
s’perfo
rmance to
ward
s the ‘F
ield’clien
t.
�Based
on th
e availab
le inform
ation, it w
as difficu
lt for O
IOS to
assess the D
esk's in
put in
many processes, as m
ost
products are a co
mbinatio
n of th
e Field
’s and th
e Desk
s’input. T
he rep
lies from th
e Field
were v
ery valu
able in
this
regard
, highlig
htin
g th
eir (be it su
bjectiv
e) percep
tion of th
e Desk
s’input v
ersus th
eirs.
�As p
art of th
e annual p
lanning process, th
e Desk
s prep
are an an
nual "O
bjectiv
e Settin
g M
atrix", d
efining th
e outputs,
the k
ey in
dicato
rs, the assu
mptio
ns an
d co
nstrain
ts as well as th
e timefram
e for co
mpletio
n fo
r each ro
le or
responsib
ility of th
e Desk
. This ex
ercise in itself is a step
forw
ard in
assessing th
e perfo
rmance o
f the D
esks. W
e noted
however th
at, in prev
ious su
ch ex
ercises, the o
bjectiv
es as defin
ed by th
e Desk
s were:
�Not m
easurab
le,
�Not tim
e-bound, an
d
�Did not seem
to fit in
the d
ynam
ic multi-y
ear strategy of th
e Desk
.
�The o
bjectiv
es merely
listed th
e roles o
f the D
esk, w
hilst th
e indicato
rs consisted
of activ
ities to be p
erform
ed by th
e Desk
(e.g. “rev
isions p
rocessed
”, “budgets ap
proved”, etc.). In
assessing th
e perfo
rmance o
f the D
esk, in
dicato
rs need
to targ
et ouputs/resu
lts/impact, b
e measu
rable activ
ities and tim
e-bound, an
d allo
w co
mpariso
n an
d benchmark
ing
betw
een Desk
s or m
easure p
rogress o
ver a p
eriod of tim
e.
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3.1. Mission
4.3.1. Mission – –objectives of the Desks
objectives of the Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n49
�Some B
ureau
x(Europe an
d Americas) d
evelo
ped a strateg
y to
identify
multi-y
ear objectiv
es. The fo
cus o
f this
strategy, however, is o
n th
e Field
and co
ncern
s undertak
ings an
dexpected
achiev
ements. It d
oes n
ot in
clude an
y
reference w
hatso
ever to
Head
quarter activ
ities. While O
IOS ag
rees that th
e Desk
s have a su
pport fu
nctio
n, w
hich
is
difficu
lt to ev
aluate, th
e absen
ce of an
y in
dicato
rs for activ
ities of th
e Desk
s may weak
en acco
untab
ility.
�Specific o
bjectiv
es and in
dicato
rs should be d
evelo
ped fo
r the D
esks to
be acco
untab
le per se, as h
as already been
done fo
r the F
ield.
�OIO
S refers to
the B
oard
of A
udito
rs’observ
ation th
at no guidelin
es exist fo
r plan
ning an
d program
ming at th
e
Head
quarters lev
el. More em
phasis sh
ould be p
ut in
the fu
ture o
nHead
quarters’
results b
ased rep
ortin
g, esp
ecially in
the co
ntex
t -as d
escribed in
the In
structio
n an
d Guidelin
es regard
ing rep
ortin
g in
2004, im
plem
entatio
n in
2005 an
d
plan
ning fo
r 2006 (IO
M/82/2004-FOM/86/2004) -
of a w
orsen
ing “g
lobal ratio
of ad
ministrativ
e cost (co
mprisin
g
both staff co
st and ad
ministrativ
e expenditu
res) over o
peratio
ns”
when th
e efficiency of th
e administrativ
e structu
re at
all levels sh
ould be d
emonstrated
.
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3.1. Mission
4.3.1. Mission – –objectives of the Desks
objectives of the Desks
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n50
�The p
rocess in
which
the D
esks h
ave th
e most ad
ded valu
e, as per
the H
eads o
f Desk
and an
d th
e Field
Offices, is th
e COP an
d th
e ORB rev
iew. In
the ab
sence o
f interm
ediate d
ocuments, in
dicatin
g in
puts fro
m vario
us acto
rs in th
e COP process, it w
as impossib
le to ev
aluate th
e exten
t to which
the co
mments an
d ch
anges m
ade b
y th
e Desk
s added
valu
e to th
e fields su
bmissio
ns. T
he th
us seem
ingly lim
ited in
put o
f the D
esk reg
arding th
e reportin
g processes w
as confirm
ed by th
e Field
Offices resp
onses to
the q
uestio
nnaire: 6
3 per cen
t of th
e field offices rep
orted
limited
input o
f the D
esk in
their rep
orts.
�Another in
dicato
r often
mentio
ned by th
e Head
of D
esks w
as the F
ield's (clien
t) satisfaction. T
he resp
onses fro
m th
e Field
in th
is regard
are mixed: 5
8 per cen
t consid
er the D
esks' resp
onses to
their req
uests "accep
table" an
d 68 per cen
t indicate th
at their req
uests are "m
ostly
" handled
in a tim
ely an
d co
mpeten
t manner (th
e second larg
est bein
g
"sometim
es" with
21 per cen
t).
�Staff in
the F
ield often
mentio
ned th
eir feeling of iso
lation fro
m th
e rest of U
NHCR, an
d would welco
me in
creased
communicatio
n fro
m th
eir Desk
, inclu
ding feed
back
on what is im
plem
ented
elsewhere an
d/or o
n Head
quarters
develo
pments. M
ost co
mmunicatio
n betw
een Desk
s and th
e field tak
es place at th
e level o
f the H
ead of D
esk,
(Senior) D
esk Officer o
r Program
meAssistan
t. It was also
mentio
ned th
at the P
rogram
meAssistan
ts are in general
more av
ailable an
d/or k
nowled
geab
le and, w
ith reg
ard to
program
mematters, th
e Field
receives a m
ore ad
equate an
d
concrete resp
onse fro
m Program
meAssistan
ts than th
ey do fro
m Desk
Officers. T
his fu
rther stresses th
e key ro
le the
Program
meAssistan
ts play
in liaisin
g with
the F
ield.
�It h
as already been
mentio
ned th
at ‘interm
ediate’
reports an
d documents w
ere not fo
und in
project files, as, if ex
isting
at all, they are k
ept in
the fo
rm of E
-mail. In
the sam
e way th
e valu
e and tim
eliness o
f the D
esks’resp
onses to
the
Field
requests can
not b
e measu
red. C
onsid
ering th
e fact that th
e main
role o
f the D
esk is ack
nowled
ged to
be su
pport
to th
e Field
, and th
at most o
f the D
esks’tim
e in th
is regard
is spent o
n E-m
ail, it may be ap
propriate to
create an
efficient E
-mail m
anagem
ent an
d arch
iving (‘fo
lderin
g’) sy
stem, th
at could ease th
e task an
d en
able p
erform
ance
measu
rement in
this reg
ard. A
s this is a g
lobal U
NHCR wide p
roblem
, OIO
S will rev
iew th
is as part o
f the p
lanned
assignment o
f UNHCR’s electro
nic arch
iving Electro
nic D
ocument M
anagem
ent S
ystem
.
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3. Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3.2. Field
4.3.2. Field ‘ ‘client
client’ ’satisfaction
satisfaction
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n51
Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
Assessing the performance of th
e Desks
4.3.3. Recommendations
4.3.3. Recommendations
Recommendation 6:
The U
NHCR Bureau
x sh
ould develo
p sp
ecific objectiv
es for th
e Desk
s, focussin
g on m
easurab
le outputs rep
resentativ
e of
the activ
ities of th
e Desk
, and sh
ould effectiv
ely m
onito
r these
outputs an
d ad
dress th
eir varian
ce (Rec. 0
6).
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n52
4.4. Conclusion
4.4. Conclusion
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n53
�Both staff at th
e Desk
s and in
the F
ield ag
ree that to
o m
uch tim
e is absorbed in
micro
-managing program
mes,
thereb
y in
part d
uplicatin
g Field
activities. F
ield an
d Desk
functio
ns sh
ould be co
mplem
entary
. Therefo
re, the h
eavy
involvem
ent o
f the D
esks in
program
meactiv
ities does n
ot seem
wholly
relevant. In
OIO
S’opinion, D
esk activ
ities
need
to be re-d
iverted
and co
ncen
trated on develo
ping strateg
ic guidance in
tegrated
at the reg
ional lev
el,
evalu
ation/co
ntro
l, contrib
utin
g to
the id
entificatio
n an
d dissem
inatio
n of g
ood practices as w
ell as to th
e
improvem
ent o
f program
mes. O
verall, th
e revised
roles an
d fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esks n
eed to
be d
efined in
a more
concrete m
anner.
�The D
esks sh
ould perfo
rm th
eir functio
ns w
ith ratio
nalised
and stan
dard
izedreso
urces. T
he relev
ance an
d th
e related
responsib
ilities of th
e vario
us p
ositio
ns in
the D
esk call fo
r furth
er consid
eration.
�The v
arious reco
mmendatio
ns o
f the rep
ort to
streamlin
e and ratio
nalise
the stru
cture o
f the D
esks, to
clarify an
d
revise th
eir missio
n an
d resp
onsib
ilities, once co
mpleted
, should lead
to a rev
ision of C
hapter 2
to reflect th
e changes
and fo
rmally
defin
e the D
esks.
Recommendation 7:
The U
NHCR Departm
ent o
f Operatio
ns, o
nce th
e structu
res, roles an
d resp
onsib
ilities of th
e Desk
s have b
een clearly
defin
ed an
d m
ade m
ore tran
sparen
t, should rev
ise the U
NHCR M
anual, C
hapter 2
to describ
e the D
esks’
structu
re in all B
ureau
x in
cluding em
ergency desk
s, and to
clearly outlin
e the ro
les and resp
onsib
ilities so th
at ‘clients’
of
the D
esks are ap
propriate in
form
ed (R
ec. 07).
4.4. Conclusion
4.4. Conclusion
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n54
Involvement of the Desks
Importan
ce
Procurem
ent
Support
Reportin
g
Plan
ning
COP/ORB
Strateg
yDonor relatio
ns
Monito
ring
Implem
entin
gSub/su
pl. ag
reements
Evalu
ation
Best p
ractice
Oversig
ht
Program
ming
LOI
Sim
plify
processes an
d
furth
er deleg
ate
Clarify
responsib
ilitiesIncrease fo
cus
Develo
p sk
ills and knowled
ge
Defin
e missio
ns an
d ‘clien
ts’
Reduce w
orkload
Develo
p in
tegrated
reportin
g
Change fo
cus
Substan
tiate input
�In th
e follo
wing ch
art, OIO
S tried
to su
mmarize step
s to be tak
en (d
eriving fro
m th
e observ
ations an
d
recommendatio
ns in
this rep
ort) to
balan
ce the fu
nctio
ns o
f the D
esk an
d to
create a tendency to
ward
s more
efficient su
pport an
d guidance.
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n55
�I w
ish to
express m
y ap
preciatio
n fo
r the assistan
ce and co
operatio
n ex
tended to
the au
dito
rs by th
e staff of U
NHCR.
Egbert C
. Kalten
bach
, Chief
UNHCR Audit S
ervice
Office o
f Intern
al Oversig
ht S
ervices
5. Acknowledgement
5. Acknowledgement
UNHCR Comparativ
e review of th
e Desk
functio
n56
�Questio
nnaire an
d an
alysis o
f responses to
OIO
S questio
nnaire to
the F
ield.
Annex
Annex