ACTIONS 1, 2 AND 3
In early February 2001, the High
Commissioner launched a review of the
Office, known as Actions 1, 2 and 3, in
order to prioritise UNHCR’s mission and
core activities based on its fundamental
mandate and purpose. The review
contained three stages. At the time of
writing, the first two stages have been
concluded, while Action 3 is ongoing:
administration and related costs required to
undertake it.” Within the context of Action 1,
the Office defined the characteristics of core
activities, and criteria for the prioritisation
within core activities. It is envisaged that not
all core activities should necessarily be
implemented by UNHCR and the Office may
seek partnerships to strengthen its coverage
and capacity.
•
Action 1: defining the Office’s core
activities; focusing on protection;
examining UNHCR’s assistance and
emergency capacity, the role of
UNHCR staff in carrying out its
mission, in co-ordination, and in
reaching out to partners.
Action 2: addressing immediate
concerns, mostly in terms of savings;
on the basis of priorities established in
Action 1, recommending how best
UNHCR can operate within the
projected income for 2001.
Action 3: addressing fund raising in
the broadest sense; reviewing adequate
funding mechanisms for a global multilateral organisation; focusing on the
weight and potential of traditional and
other donors; considering partnerships
for undertaking activities of direct or
indirect concern to UNHCR; making
proposals to address the immediate
problem of funding the Office’s
programmes in 2001 and 2002.
Factors affecting UNHCR’s choice on
engagement in non-core activities may
include: the availability of the necessary
financial and human resources; their
relationship to specific core-activities; the
strength of the humanitarian imperative; the
wider benefit for the organisation (or at least
no adverse effect on core activities); the
relevance of UNHCR’s particular expertise;
the prospects for success; the degree of
concern expressed by governments, the UN
Secretariat and others; and obligations in the
wider UN family context. In addition, priority
should be given to non-core activities which
have a beneficial impact on core activities or a
significant relationship to core activities (such
as, return of IDPs to areas where returnees are
located) and the relevance to UNHCR’s
expertise (such as, protection of IDPs as
opposed to assistance without protection and
general human rights promotion). The noncore activities undertaken by the Office may
include what is now referred to as Special
Operations.
The results of Action 1 provided guidelines
on priority setting for core and non-core
activities. A core activity is defined as;
“… one for which UNHCR has a central
universal responsibility, as contained in its
Statute and developed through subsequent
General
Assembly
or
ECOSOC
resolutions. By its nature, a core activity
will have a clearly established link to the
international protection of refugees (and
stateless persons) or the pursuit of durable
solutions. A core activity includes the
programme support, management and
In the process of defining core and non-core
activities, the Office devised, tested and
revised practical parameters against the
proposals of Action 2, making it possible to
determine the scope and duration of
UNHCR’s involvement in the particular
situation. In accordance with Action 1, the
Office’s programmes have been re-orientated,
while programme priorities relating to gender
equality, children, environment, older persons,
camp security and staff safety have been
maintained.
•
•
UNHCR Mid-Year Progress Report 2001 - 6
Examples of Core and non-Core Activities
Field activities
Refugees/Countries of Asylum
Protection
Legal
Status and interventions, for
individuals or groups
Promotion/advocacy/ advice
Supervision/monitoring
Operational
Material assistance
Towards solution
Pending solution, to promote protection
Returnees/Countries of Origin
Protection
Legal (amnesties, rights, etc.)
Operational (monitoring, interventions etc)
Material assistance
Specific and limited to returnees
Also to others
Preparation for repatriation
Not linked to repatriation
Any Country
Capacity building
Legal/Protection/
Emergency Preparedness/Security
Wider
Mobilising political
For core activities
support
For other activities
Mobilising financial
For core activities
support
For other activities
Prevention/solutions not specific to UNHCR.
(UN/regional peace keeping/building, etc.)
UNHCR-related for other
(Sub-) regional management
Countries
Support/administration
With regard to Action 2, five working
groups made proposals after applying a
number of distinctive criteria. Bureaux,
Departments and Divisions then devised
implementation plans according to their
interpretation of the priorities. Some
implementation was able to be started
immediately, resulting in ten per cent
savings in the Annual Programme Budget
originally approved by the ExCom and the
Supplementary Programmes. Thus, the
original 20 per cent freeze on operations and
administrative budgets implemented at the
beginning of the year was lifted. Taking into
account the parameters provided in the
Action 1, it is evident that there are a
number of operations which are useful but
which are not core activities, and should
therefore not be financed from the limited
available unearmarked funds. These
operations, which are now referred to as
Special Operations, will from now on be
implemented
only
when
additional
earmarked funds are assured.
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core
Core (if limited to returnees)
Core (if limited to returnees)
Core
Non-core
Core
Non-core
Core
Non-core
Core
Non-core
Core
Non-core
Non-core
Both
Both
It was also envisaged that as a result of
Action 2, there would be 760 post
discontinuations worldwide. A number of
associated human resource issues were
considered in this process, such as: ensuring
that our postings system can work better;
finalising packages for voluntary and/or
involuntary separations; rotation; identifying
possible additional savings from unfilled
posts which remained vacant for prolonged
periods; and taking a closer look at the
situation of staff-in-between-assignments
and who have remained without posts for
exceptionally long periods. The provisions
for targeted Early Retirement and Voluntary
Separation have been put in place as well as
the Accelerated Postings Procedure aimed at
filling vacant posts and reducing the number
of staff between assignments.
As a result of Action 2, the allocation of
resources has been strengthened in some
areas, whereas in other areas there have been
reductions. In addition, the regular annual
UNHCR Mid-Year Progress Report 2001 - 7
Programme Review was waived for 2001, as
Action
2
already
represented
an
implementation review and prioritisation
exercise. Although Action 2 originally
focused on the operations in 2001, it has
implications for 2002. In the context of the
Action 2, the Office considered how best
UNHCR can operate within the projected
income for 2002, based on the priorities
established in Action 1. The results of
Actions 1 and 2 were also used to review the
country operations plans for 2002.
Based on the outcome of Actions 1 and 2,
Action 3 examines criteria for the design of
a funding strategy for UNHCR as a global
multilateral institution. The Office has
published a strategy paper, Funding
UNHCR: a new approach to resourcing the
Organisation, addressing the immediate
funding concerns, analysing UNHCR’s
funding structure, including the issue of
partnership and devising a communication
strategy for funding. The new approach for
resourcing UNHCR focuses on bringing the
gap between the current level of support,
representing today’s reality, and the
“normative” level, or the volume of resouces
that UNHCR should expect to receive from
States. More specifically, the new approach
considers that benchmarks for determining
financial contributions from States to
UNHCR can be developed following an
assessment of their potential contribution.
Another
suggested
strategy,
a
comprehensive and negotiated approach,
entails an annual contribution to be
discussed globally at the beginning of the
year and to be consigned to a type of formal
agreement between the donor and UNHCR.
Furthermore,
UNHCR
has
been
strengthening its relationship with the
private sector and this will be pursued in the
coming years. Partnerships with NGOs, UN
agencies and bilateral aid agencies shall be
further developed and strengthened, in order
to further increase the level of resources
reaching refugees and returnees. In addition,
the High Commissioner called for “soft”
commitments by donors before the
Executive Committee session in October, to
ensure fully funded budgets and to avoid a
recurrence of budgets cuts in the middle of
the year. It should be noted that eight States
have already contributed to UNHCR above
the normative level in 2001.
The three actions are inter-linked and feed
into each other. They will facilitate a larger
strategic direction aimed at improving the
quality of the Office’s programmes and
making the organisation a more effective
one that is better prepared to carry out the
mandate given by the international
community.
UNHCR Mid-Year Progress Report 2001 - 8