16th Meeting of Senior Fellowships Officers of the ... - Development

Administrative Issues 43
146. The representative of the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC) explained that the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belgium gave priority status to fellows for their visa
requests. Consulates in various countries were instructed accordingly and had to find
appropriate solutions to provide visas in due time. BTC noticed that with Schengen
1, 2 and 3 in place, obtaining a visa took time but the process could be shortened
considerably when an embassy or a consulate was closely following up on a request.
Visas for fellows in high risk programmes, such as nuclear technology training, who
needed security clearance as well as medical fellows who entered a doctor-patient relationship
were centrally processed in Brussels. BTC pointed out that visa issues also
occurred in South-South cooperation. In order to assist fellows BTC relied on their
local antenna offices.
147. Like all agencies, UNOPS had experienced a severe increase in the workload due
to visa requirements. Visa requests had been centralized at UNOPS but its staff
was obliged to constantly update their knowledge on visa issues at training courses.
UNOPS tried to make training providers aware of the visa issue early and insisted
that they allowed enough time for participants to get their visa. WMO, UNESCO
and WHO wanted to see beneficiary governments much more involved in the visa
process. Fellows, in many cases, were government employees and therefore should
receive assistance by their government.
148. With regard to visas, Ms. Slessor of IMO noted the practice of her agency. IMO provided
fellows with an official letter of invitation and nomination which they presented to the
relevant consulates to support them with their visa arrangements. IMO also got the authorities
of the host country involved to assist the fellows while the agency provided them
with a list of names and passport numbers. Occasionally, IMO requested the assistance
of the UNDP country offices for cases when all options had failed. A complex situation
would be when the IMO fellows from Africa travel, say, to Poland while the IMO Headquarters
was in London. IAEA confirmed that handling such situations was their daily
work which came along with considerable difficulties. If travel to a third country was
necessary to obtain the visa, IAEA covered the fellows’ itineraries and provided one day
of DSA. Since DSA was paid, the organization invested a considerable amount of time to
ensure that a fellow travelling to another country had a fair chance of actually obtaining
the visa. However, there were cases when visas were not issued.
149. WHO mentioned that many fellows could not advance visa fees and therefore the UN
policy of reimbursing secondary costs later on should be reconsidered. DESA recalled
that the UN policy stated that obtaining a visa was the responsibility of the fellow and/
or the government. Since not all fellows were government officials, it would be helpful
if both the UN agencies and the national placement and supervising bodies could
look at possible ways of assisting them. It was agreed in the Vienna Meeting of SFOs
that visa and airport fees be reimbursed by the UN agencies up to USD 100. However,
CEB had not approved that recommendation yet. WMO clarified that since all its fellows
were government employees it would not reimburse any costs related to visas.