Download report here - Norwegian Refugee Council

environment. The fact that the requesting mission is treated as a client (and, thus, the MSUas the provider of services) sometimes makes the MSU reliant upon good will. As the MSUhas the responsibility for the SBT on mission, however, it should be in a position to ensurethat the requesting agencies and field missions provide for the necessary logistics.There is a division of opinion of whether or not the location of the Standby Team decreasedor increased the efficiency of its work. One argument is that if SBT members would be basedin New York, they could be used as support staff for the Mediation Support Unit in assistingwith advocacy, training, coaching and other activities. Others within the MSU argue that thereis a certain advantage to having the SBT as autonomous and, thus, not sucked into thedaily work and operations of the MSU. The argument followed by the SBT was that it wouldbe unrealistic to expect a SBT member to relocate himself (and his family) to New York forone year. The SBT members valued being able to return to their home base.Another factor impacting upon efficiency relates to the effective preparation of the fieldmission for the arrival of the SBT member including clarification of roles. Some SBTmembers have argued that it would have been useful if they could be in direct contact withthe field mission or the requesting entity to negotiate/discuss the details of their deployment.Such direct communication could help clarifying the Terms of Reference and, thus, increasethe quality of services offered. It should be noted that SBT members of the second teamstated in interviews that they repeatedly had the chance to communicate directly with therequesting agencies and field missions whilst it seems that the MSU was much morerestrictive in this regard during the first SBT.Efficiency relates to the question of whether or not activities could have been achieved withfewer inputs. Some members of both of the Standby Teams have commented that somedeployments were not necessary although they recognised the need of the MSU to informabout (and market ) the SBT. In lieu of deployment, some SBT members believe that theirefficiency would have been increased by providing more support functions within the UNsystem rather than outside.Efficiency also relates to the integration of the SBT member into a particular process. Whilstwe could not assess this point in more detail, and have only a few anecdotal and writtenreferences, there have been issues with certain types of behaviour and consequent negativeside effects of a mission. SBT members have no clear guidance of how to act (or not to act)within their assignments. Although highly skilled professionals, some members of the SBThad neither been exposed to mediation processes nor have they received mediation training.Long and repeated travels impact upon the mental and physical health of the experts. All(except one) expert have repeatedly requested that they can travel in business class for theirdeployment, in particular for long journeys. Although it seemed obvious to the evaluationteam that it is difficult to expect a senior expert, who is on frequent deployment and arrivesafter a night-flight to be in prime condition to provide mediation support, it is a fact which hasa reported impact upon the work performance.4.5 Sustainability and Organisational LearningWe have underlined in this report that we consider the structure of the SBT being a serviceprovided for and owned by the UN but with a certain level of independence in terms of thepositioning of the mediation support experts and with an outside management partnerindependent as innovative and effective. On the other hand, this model raises the question ofsustainability of the overall SBT arrangement as well as of the sustainability of mediationsupport-related knowledge and expertise within the MSU.22