Download report here - Norwegian Refugee Council

The SBT has been considered as a pilot project but it is gradually consolidating as aninstrument which has made up part of the MSU brand. A large part of its attraction is that theteam is fully funded as this provides not only for the opportunity for quick deployment (thefunds do not have to be mobilised or raised for deployments which could otherwise be quite atime-consuming process) but also for a maximum of flexibility concerning the nature and taskof the mediation support activity. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided thefunds for the SBT since its inception in 2007 although this is upon the basis of theunderstanding that this is a pilot phase to test and, if worthwhile, to establish the SBT.According to our interviews, there is, in principle, a preparedness to continue with support forthe next few years but a mid- and long-term strategy is required in order to assure thesustainability of the SBT.Some senior officials within the UNDPA suggested that the SBT members should begradually integrated into the UN. We have little doubt that the sustainability of the SBTrequires in the long run that the mediation support experts are funded through the regularUN budget. Before the SBT concept has evolved into a stable and reliable instrument and isas such established, accepted and recognised within the UN system, however, it might notbe advisable to integrate it. It is likely that an early integration would affect the flexibility andindependence of the SBT which are its main assets. This flexibility is further strengthened bythe outsourcing of the administration as this releases the UN from the burden of developingthe necessary capacity (and culture) for quick deployment administration. We do believe thatthe model should be maintained in the short- to medium-term.Diversification of DonorsIn the medium-term, a diversification of donors might be of an advantage. Since 2009, theEuropean Union has been contributing to two positions of the SBT (which includes the parttimeland expert who was hired in September 2010) although the funding is provided directlyto the MSU. In addition to EU support, UNIFEM (now UN Women) seconded one teammember to the Standby Team (a gender advisor) from March to September 2010. Increasedfunding contributions make it possible that the team enlarges further. In any case, thesupport of other donors would contribute to the sustainability of the SBT which would then bea clear indicator of success.The tacit agreement between the NRC and the MSU that NRC should also take managerialresponsibility for the EU funded positions is a right step. It reduces administrative burden forthe MSU and guarantees managerial cohesion, thereby also strengthening the Team (whichotherwise might be subject to different staff regulations). If diverse donors contribute to theSBT, the MSU might need to set up a donor steering committee which consults regularly withthe MSU and its partner NRC. Key to this approach would be that the Standby Team wouldhave full ownership of the UN with donors as key strategic partners for standby operations.The semi-autonomous way of operations, administered by the NRC, could, as such, be asuccessful business model (as it has been successfully operated in other contexts as, forexample, with the Mediation Support Project in Switzerland).Organisational LearningIn order to continue with a model of independent mediation support through this semiautonomousmodel, an improvement of the interface management between the UN and theSBT is required in the field and also at headquarters. For that purpose, the evaluation teamherein suggests (chapters 4.6 and 6) enhancing human resources and establishing a SBTleader within the MSU.In this context, three areas are of crucial importance:Sustaining the knowledge and experiences of the SBT.Handing over from SBT to SBT.23