04. Part tree: Organizational and financial questions Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 maj 1997

PART THREE: ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL QUESTIONS

3.1 CRITERIA AND OPTIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

Having explored the functions of a refugee documentation centre in the previous chapter, this part of the study will deal in more detail with criteria and options for an organizational structure of such a centre.
A vast variety of options exists, each with its pros and cons; they will be looked at in sequences.

3.1.1 Volunteers versus staff

Amnesty International is a membership organization drawing its strength to a large extent from the dedication, enthusiasm and persistence of its worldwide membership. The membership component is a strong element of al's activism, which distinguishes the movement from other international human rights groups. But al also employs hundreds of skilled professional paid staff, no less dedicated, in offices around the world (both at the International Secretariat and in sections and structures), who research and prepare the material for the membership to act upon and develop and service membership structures. While it would be in line with the al-philosophy to explore whether certain tasks can be undertaken on a voluntary basis by a membership structure, some tasks do not lend itself to be undertaken purely on a voluntary basis. The refugee documentation centre appears to be one of them.
As discussed in the previous chapter, the refugee documentation centre involves a strong element of service to enable others in the movement to better act on our concerns regarding refugees. Revisiting its functions, it appears that in order to provide this service in the best way possible special skills and prior knowledge and experience seem desirable, if not essential.
i ~ centre can only fulfill its tasks satisfactory if it acts iniaiispeedily i manner with a high degree of~reIiability: Users must feel ensured that they receiye a competent response at the earliest possible moment. Accessibility also is a mus't: A centre which can only be reached a few hours a day or a few days a week misses much of its point.
Finally, volunteer structures pose questions as to their continuity and accountability. It lies in the very nature of membership-based structures that members are free "to come and go" -and they do so. Even long-term members cannot guarantee the continuity needed to sustain such a service. Previous experiences within al with the delegation to a volunteer membership structure of certain tasks to be undertaken on behalf of the whole movement have been negative.
This past experience and the nature of the operation envisaged strongly suggest that the centre needs to be manned with a core of employed staff (which does not rule out the pOssibility to use, in addition, the services of dedicated volunteers).

3.1.2 A network versus one central location

Networking is at the heart of our organization. Much of our work is about building and sustaining action networks. Networks allow for the distribution of work on various shoulders and give room for a certain amount of specialization. Would it therefore be conceivable to create the.centre in the form of a network spread across several locations in the form of several 'mini-centres' each with their own areas of specializations?

The major objection against such an organizational set-up is that it goes contrary to the very idea of having just one centre to turn to in order to seek the information needed. The whole idea of creating one focal point to turn to would be lost. While some of the negative features of a network structure could possibly be reduced by organizational measures such as assigning one part of the network as the central position to receive and distribute all requests for information, this could also be the source for unwanted further delays. A lack of clarity mi the division of tasks and responsibilities between different parts of the network may be more~ difficult to overcome and consistency in the methods of work and the standards applied would be difficult to ensure, unless some form of a strong coordination is being installed. all in all, a 'centre' in the form of a network spread across several locations would appear rather diffused.
The above observations appear valid regardless of whether the network would be maintained by staff in different locations or run by membership volunteers. They may multiply in the case of a volunteer network. But even if staff capacity is envisaged, basic questions remain to be settled: either new staff needs to be employed or existing staff will neiiieditoi be freedi of sorrie of their present tasks in order to take on specific functions within a refugee documentation network. Otherwise participation in the documentation network would be added to the tasks and workload of staff usually already overburdened with work.

It is therefore strongly recommended that the refugee documentation centre be set up as a fully staffed operation in~one central location only.


3.1.3 The refugee documentation centre as a deconcentrated or decentralised function?

This part of the discussion centers around the question whether the documentation centre should be set up as a deconcentrated or decentralised operation. After all, the Ljubljana Action Plan adopted by the 1995 1CM refers to the proposed refugee documentation centre as a decentralized structure. The 1CM in adopting Mid Term Objective 1.5 stated as one of the end results: "Implementation of the results of the feasibility study carried out by the Dutch Section in liaison with the IS, in relation to a decentrallzed (emphasis added) refugee information and coordination structure." Nevertheless, this study does not from the outset take it for granted that the documentation centre should necessarily become a ~ecentralized structure; it is undertaken on the understanding that this is one of a number of o~ions - although not an unlikely one.

Before various questions and options are being explored in more detail, some perceptions and attitudes regarding deconcentration and decentralisation will be highlighted, followed by a sketch of the general discussion of these issues within the movement.

3.1.3.1 PeYceptions and attitudes

Some observations will be made here in order to underscore the importance of differing perceptions and attitudes regarding decentralized projects. They relate to the different experieinces of larger and smaller sections with the IS and to the relationship between larger and smaller sections.
Larger sections with an established refugee program (in particular those in Western
i Europe) may feel more inclined to establish the refugee documentation centre as a decentralized project because of past (negative) experiences with the IS: in their view the IS has not always been able to give sufficient attention in thei past to the functions now allocated to the proposed documentation centre.i and there is perhaps not full confidence that the IS could do so in the future, if the centre would be created within the IS. Western European sections in general also have more - and more positive - experience with deconcentrated/decentralized projects (siiuch as the EU Association) and may feel better equipped to participate in such an endeavor.
Smaller and developing sections and structures, on the other hand, generally do appreciate the support they receive from the IS, in particular the regional development teams, and their own experience may not confirm to the more sceptical view of the IS prevalent in some larger sections. They may fear, though, that a decentralized project, not under the direct control of the IS acting on behalf of the whole movement, may be more open to undue influence and possible dominance by the larger sections in a better position to devote more attention and resources to it.

3,1.3.2 General discussion of decentralisation and deconcentration

The discussion of the refugee documentation centre as a possibly decentralised or deconcentrated function has to be seen within the overall context of the ongoing general discussion of these issues within the movement. In recent al terminology decentralisation is defined as allocating a function, including complete responsibility for carrying out that function, to one or more sections or to an independent body (such as EDal or the EU Association). Deconcentration is defined as moving a function of the International Secretariat from London to a different geographical location (such as the UN offices in New Yprk and Geneva) where accountibility~ for the functi.on. remains with the IS. This discussion recently received a major push through the adoption of MTO 4.3 of the Ljubljana Action Plan ("To agree a policy on international decentralization and deconcentration and to start implementing it.") Under MTQ 4.3 concrete proposals for decentralisation and deconcentratuon should include proposals for the allocation of new approved activities idirectly to the existing anid new~~decentralised structures or program networks. As part of the implementation of MTO 4.3 a study has been commissioned to the London School of Economics and a special project has been created within the IS (for further background see the Background Paper on Decentrailsation and Deconcentration, ORG 31/01/96 and the Secretary General Letter on Deconcentration and Decentralisadon, ORG 31/04/96).

3.1.3.3 Criteiria from an organizational point of view

While the creation of a refugee documentation centre within al is expected to focus and enhance al's refugee work and strengthen refugee work vis-a-vis other areas of al work, different views can be taken whether this can better be achieved by highlighting this work through the creation of a separate, decentralized structure or by fully integrating it into al's mainstream work undertaken at the IS.
From afli~iorgaflizau.on~al point of view ai number of criteria need to be mentioned; mosti of i thiei mi point tOi the creation of the documentation centre as a separate entity distinct from the IS.
Accessibility has already been identified as a major criteria. There are reasons to assume that a documentation centre separate from the IS may be better accessible for its users, simply because staff working there would not go on missions and would not be involved in crisis response work or preparations for a major campaign.
It could also arguably be said that sections will take a stronger interest in and be prepared to take over more responsibility for a centre they feel "they will run". The perception that sections are to be "in control" of the centre may lead to a stronger involvement of at least some sections, including financial involvement (see below under options for funding). A refugee documentation centre managed in the Ooined) responsibility of (some) sections - or sections and the IS - rather than the IS alone would also be in line with the traditional approach to and division of work and responsibility within al's refugee work.

Finally, it could be argued that an approach involving a separate entity offers more flexibility in setting up the centre, making the necessary arrangements and adjustments, or dissolving

On the other hand, a completely decentralized documentation centre could result in a more hesitant attitude among research teams to share internal information. Informal communication and networking between staff could benefit from the centre being housed in the same building as the IS, and a refugee documentation centre placed within the IS may be perceived as enhancing the integration of al~s refugee work.
Other points will be raised in connection with the discussion of funding and financial aspects, in particular in relation to opportunities for external funding.

3.1.4 Exploring the question of the location of the centre

The purpose of this section is to disentangle the interlocking questions of the location of the centre and the organizational nature of its structure. although often discussed in conjunction, they are not identical.
At first sight it might appear that a refugee documentation centre located in London would naturally be part of the IS and - vice versa - a refugee documentation centre part of the IS would be located in London. But this is not necessarily so: The documentation centre could conceivably be a decentralized function still located in London (or even physically located within the IS). On the other hand it could be located potentially anywhere outside of Loindon, while being part ofi the IS (as a 'deconcentrated' office).

3.1.4.1 Location in London - pros and cons

In al-terms there are a number of positive things to be said about locating the centre within or very near the IS in London. The centre could i benefit from regular direct and personal contacts with members of different research teams and the refugee team. Meetings could be easily arranged with no travel costs involved. Potential misconceptions about each other's work could be clarified and misunderstandings ironed out more easily; and the centre might feel closer to overall al-work and could help in perceiving refugee work as closer to al's 'mainstream' work.
On the other hand physical proximity does not necessarily mean more trust, responsiveness and cooperation. A number of IS-staff working in the same building (or even on the same floor) do not know each other at all. A heavy workload, conflicting priorities or other commitments may be detrimental to cooperation even with the person working in the office next door or down the floor. Physical presence in the same building (or close by) may well enhance contacts and.cooperation, but that should not be taken for granted. although there may be certain advantages to the centre being located in London, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that this has to be the case. After all, whereever it may be located; the centre would be working with a high degree of autonomy in a very ~~ecialized fiei Id. Its relationship with the IS will be determined by a number of other factors more important than physical proximity: Among them are the degree of acceptance of the centre by its users (including the IS) and a relationship based on clarity in the division of tasks and responsibilities and a climate of mutual trust and cooperation.

3.1.4.2 General criteria for the location of the centre

The main criteria for choosing the location of the centre is accessibility by phone, fax and e-mail from around the world. This would involve reliable direct international telephone line connections and good telecommunications systems in the country chosen. also, the possibility of electricity power cuts must be minimal.
Office costs is another important aspect. The availability of suitable office space and the costs for rental and maintainance of office premises are important factors. The possibility of the use of existing office space in an al section or structure should be explored. Costs could be reduced, if a section were in a position to allocate office space to the centre, either free of charge or on the basis-of a subrental contract. alternatively, additional office space could be acquired in the same building or otherwise very near an existing al office. Equally important are the costs for personnel, in particular staff salaries and allowances. These will depend on the general standard of living in the country.
Additional considerations for the selection of the location include the following:
the question of visas and work permits for non-nationals, labour laws and regulations, company laws (for the possible setting up of a company as employer), tax laws and customs regulations (for the possible import of computers and equipment).
Other important considerations concern questions of security and atmosphere: Is the location generally considered safe? Would there be a security problem for al in general or a structure working in the field of refugees in particular? What is the attitude of the government towards al? Is there a favourable climate for working with refugees? Finally, a number of assets for selecting a location could be thought of. These may include
-the proximity of an al section experienced and interested in refugee work, a positive attitude ofithe section to the refugee documentation centre and/or the proximity of other relevant documentation centres or institutions.


3.1.5 Options for organizational structures

3.1.5.1 within the IS

Within the present structure of the IS there are several options for the organizational affiliation of staff to be involved in matters of refugee documentation and information. "Regional refugee information officers" could be added to the different regional programs,-the Refugee Team could be expanded to include one or more "Refugee Information Officer(s)" or the refugee documentation centre could become part of an enlarged Information Resources Program. A detailed analysis of these optiohs is included as Appendix 4.
Whichever option for the organizational affiliation is preferred, the centre could be set up as a deconcentrated office. The question whether the refugee documentation centre would be located at the IS in London or at a different geographical location does not depend on the choices for~ organizational affiliation within the IS. It rather depends on whether the function is seen as suitable to be performed from a deconcentrated office. For a function part of the IS, the final decision on this is for the Secretary General to take.

3.1.5.2 allocated to another structure

The alternative to establishing the refugee documentation centre - in whichever form - at the IS is to allocate this function to another structure within the movement.
While this would certainly be in line with present thinking- within al- to develop "proposals for the allocation of new approv~ed activities directly to the existing and new decentralised structures or program t'etworks" (Ljubljana Action Plan, MTO 4.3), this is by no means a new idea. The IS in the comments to the 1992 study of al's research
- stated the following:
"The idea of ~n intermediate structure to handle such (refugee-related information) requests is, in principle, welcomed by the IS. The IS Refugee Team has been discussing with interested refugee coordinators how this might be developed in practice, and alternative models. It has been suggested that the best model would be to establish in one section a specialized unit that could handle in the first instance all requests for comments or information relating to asylum cases. Refugee coordinators in other countries would make their inquiries to that unit (rather than to IS research teams as at present). That specialized unit would maintain regular-contact with the IS and with refugee coordinators in sections. The specialized unit would approach the IS for information or for an assessment of a case only when it judged it could not itself deal with a particular sections's inquiry. Such a model would also allow for the rational and efficient exchange of IS internal information (produced both by the IS and sections) that could be of help in al's refugee work."

To whom could the function be allocated? T~ere are, again, several options:

The function could be allocated to existing structures: sections or a section, groupings or a grouping. A more detailed discussion of these opdons is presented as Appendix 5.



Clearly, another option would be to create a new structure for this purpose. Advantages over allocating a function to only one section include the fact that a number of sections - or sections and the IS/IEC - take joint responsibility, possibly including financial responsibility. A joint undertaking may also enhance intersection contacts in general and in refugee work, in particular. Finally, the creation of an international structure, rather than a national one, to set up and operate the refugee documentation centre would underline the fact that refugee work is an international responsibility.
An institutional structure for a joint endeavor by a number of sections also has certain advantages over a purely informal cooperation among them and with the movement: a clear long-term commitment to the project, a sound organizational basis and clear structures, and a mechanism acknowledging the principle of accountability to the movement.
An international institutional structure for the documentation centre would attest to the long-term need and commitment to refugee work. Compared to allocating the function to existing structures (sections or a section, ~ or a group~ing), the creation of a new structure appears to be the preferred option.


3.1.5.SOptions for a new structure

The new structure could be similar to other al-structures set up for specific purposes. but it could also take a different form.
Other structures set up for other specific tasks include the French and Spanish language services EFal and EDal, and the EU Association in Brussels coordinating al approaches to the European institutions. Common features of these structures include that they have an AGM, a board elected by that AGM and that they employ a number of professional staff. There are differences in funding, in that the language services are funded from the international budget, while the budget of the EU Association is financed completely from section contributions.

Over the years some experiences - good and bad - have been gained with such a decentralized approach, from which a number of lessons can be learned witho~ut necessarily iIT'plying that the refugee documentation centre should follow this model. After all, there are important differences between the functions allocated to the structures mentioned above and those of a refugee documentation centre: On substance, the centre would be very close to the production and dissemination of country information, a task for good reasons traditionally allocated within the movement to the IS and undertaken under international responsibility.
In this regard, refugee work is very much at the heart of al's work. Another difference lies in who is being serviced: While the language programs service a limited and clearly defined group of sections and structures operating in the same language, and the EU Association services sections in countries which are members of the European Union, the refugee documentation centre would be involved in program activity relevant to the movement as a whole. It would also be working on issues covered by IS research teams and the refugee team, while e.g. presently noone at the IS is assigned work on the EU.

I
34

The following section explores two possible models for a new structure in order to identify the most appropriate option:

i modified deconcentrated structure
2. modified decentralized structure

Modified deconcentrated structure

Under this model the centre would be operating under IS authority, but with a large degree of section input. In case of disagreement the IS would have the final say. While the ultimate responsibility would lie with the IEC, in practice the centre would be responsible to an IS manager. Section input should be given through a "steering committee". The steering committee would be composed of section refugee coordinators and others, who - because of their knowledge and experience - would be in a position to advise the centre in its day to day work. i,The steering committee is not meant to be a "powerful organ" with decision-making authority and complete responsibility for the project. Program responsibility, including responsibility for the quality Qf the output, would lie with the IS. The workplan and budget for the centre would be approved within the overall al planning process. The director of the centre would report to the IS/IEC and inform the steering committee.

Strengths and weaknesses

The main argument for this model is that the issues covered by the work of the centre touch upon sensitive questions regarding country information and assessment and the centre should therefore work very closely with and under the responsibility of the IS. The major strength of the model is that the danger of the centre "going its own way" is minimized. A deconcentrated structure is also likely to receive more support from the IS in the field of information technology. The major weakness of the model is the potential for confusion about the role and responsibilities of the steering committee. also, management by the IS would be "distance management".

Modified decentralized structure

Under this model the centre would be largely decentralized, but the IS would be represented on the governing board. The structure would be composed of members (sections and the IS). The highest decision-making body would be the AGM, open to all imembers, which would adopt the workplan and budget. It would also elect and control the board as the governing body for the project, take major decisions on the organizational development and action programme of the centre, and decide on the acceptance of new members.
Responsibility for the work of the centre would lie with the board, on which the IS would be represented; It should be composed of experienced al meinbers with diverse skills a~d i i ~ hopefully from different parts of the world. Members of the board will be working in their individual capacities. The responsibilities of the board include ~e functioning of the office, the recruitment of staff,~the drafting of the workplan and budget, financial decisions within the spending limit set by the AGM and the overall performance of the centre. The director would report to the board and the board is responsible to the AGM and reports to it.
There would be clear agreements between the centre, the ISIIEC and sections on accountability and the division of tasks and responsibilities. While the centre will act with a high degree of autonomy within the parameters agreed, it is essential that the relationship between the structure, the IS/IEC and sections be clarified. Formal agreements ("integrated agreements", "letters of intent", "memoranda of understanding") could be drawn up covering operational arrangements and relationships in a number of areas. The structure as a whole would periodically report to the IEC and would be accountable to the movement via the IEC i and 1CM.
ý½_ _

I

35

..iStrengths and weaknesses

The main argument for this model is that the documentation centre is mostly a section initiative and sections are expected to provide a substantial part of the funds needed to establish and run it. Sections may feel more inclined to take on responsibility, including financial responsibility, for a centre they feel they "own". A decentralized structure also has a greater potential to attract external funding. There is a potential danger that the governing body may set priorities slightly different from the IS and that the workplan may not be fully integrated with the IS agenda. This danger could be substantially reduced by involving the IS at all stages and levels.


Here is a chart summarizing the main features of the twQ models for organizational structures:

FEATURES / ELEMENTS
MODEL

"modified decon-centrated structure"
"modified decen-tralized structure"

characteristics:
operating under IS authority, with large degree of section input
mostly "owned" by sections with formal IS participation

ultimate responsibility/. IEC board, elected by AGM,
governing body reporting to IEC/ICM
program responsibility/ IS, advised by board, elected by AGM
fi~ancial reponsibility "steering committee"
advisory body/ advisory body: steering governing body: board
governing body committee, composed elected by members (sectionsi
of (section) refugee IS) in AGM; IS/IEC represented
coordinators/experts on board

structures cooperation, dual
reporting to steering
committe and IEC/IS,
IEC/IS to authorize
workplan and budget
staff Director responsible
to IS manager
funding international budget
(with additional section
contributions and funds
raised externally)
statute, membership~ AGM; AGM to adopt workplan, approve annual report and budget, elect and control officers, etc.



Director responsible to board system of section contributions
(with additional contribution from international budget and funds raised externally)
ÿ•À_ _

36



It is recommended that the refugee documentation centre be set up as a modified decentralized structure. The advantages of this model include greater clarity of roles and responsibilities and a greater potential to attract financial commitments from sections and external funding.


3.1.5.4organizational aspects of the new structure Legal set-up

It seems advisable to set up a company according to the national laws of the country of location of the documentation centre. This would enable the centre/structure to enter into contracts with outsiders, including other documentation centres, employ its own staff, and open up opportunities for the centre to receive external funds.

Membership

although this may be a difficult exercise, criteria for membership in the structure need to be developed. It should be remembered, though, that membership is not a prerequisite to be serviced by the centre. While all those within al in need of refugee-related information could be potential clients of the centre, membership in the structure for decision-making purposes needs to be somehow limited. There do not appear at first sight obvious criteria for membership as with e.g. the EU Association: here membership depends on whether the section's country is a member of the European Union. Suggested minimum criteria for membership are section status and the formal appointment of a section refugee coordinator as a contact person, but there may well be additional criteria for membership, such as a minimal level of activity iri refugee work. Regional ~ on the basis of recommendations from the groupings, could be a way itoiibdth diversify and limiti i membership.

Funding and financial contributions

As indicated before, al's language services for core languages of the movement (EDal, EFal and ARABal) are financed from the international budget, while the expenditure of the EU Association is financed completely from section contributions. From an organizational point of view this latter option seems preferable, because it links responsibility for the budget to the operational responsibility and vice versa. It would also strengthen the commitment to the project by adding a financial component to the other responsibilities for members of the structure. Those playing an active part in developing the work of the centre and exercising decision-making power, would also be involved in contributing financially. In tihis way, all major~aspects of this decentralised activity, that is program responsibility;, ~ and funding would be decentralized completely or in part.
A model fori pro rata funding from section contributions will be deyeloped in m6re detail in the chapter on funding. If such a model is to be accepted and the structure is at least initially heavily dependent for its funding on section contributions, other related questions need to be clarified: Should the membership in the structure, and in particular the exercise of decision-making powers, such as voting at the AGM, be coupled with a financial contributiQn, however limited, ("membership fee"), and the exercise of rights be subject to the fulfillment of such a commitment? Should the set-up of the centre and in particular the hiring of staff be subject to a number of sections formally committing themselves to fund the operation for a given period?

Staffing

Ideally, a full-fledged refugee documentation centre w~uld have a number of professional staff in order to discharge its responsibilities to the best extent possible and in a timely

I

37

imanner. Past experiences with decentralised or deconcentrated al offices have shown that a half-hearted experiment involving too little staff with too large a portfolio working in isolation severely endangers the success of an activity. (The Moscow office started in 1990 is a case in point.) This does not mean that the operation could not be set up succes~ively; it does mean, though, that there must be a commitment from the beginning to eventually fully staff the operation, and there must be a clear vision of what the "end product" should look like.

Here is a proposal which identifies staff positions and main responsibilities linked to the different positions:

I Director
management and financial matters; relation with the IS and the movement, relation with the outside world, in particular other documentation centres and institutions; development of the centre/structure

2 information officers
research into existing information; documentation; preparation of papers; provision of information; response to queries, etc.

I information systems operator set up and maintain database and communication systems; technical support and advice

I office support staff


Staff should be recruited in sequences, starting minimum of three pe?sons should be working in Employment policies should be based on equal for cultural diversity.














3.2 OPTIONS FOR~FUNDlNG
secretarial tasks; cqmmunications; accounts




with ithe appointment of the Director, but a the c~ntre, 9nce it becomes operational. ~ iand take initq accoun:t~he need

T~ his section; of the study deals with the difficult question of how to secure the necessary funds to set up and operate the refugee documentation centre. It looks at pos~ible ways to finance the centre by Amnesty International (international budget, section contributions, cost recovery systems) and investigate possibilities to raise funds externally. Subsequently, mixed models involving financial contributions from different sources and to different degrees will be discussed. Whichever option is finally chosen, the movement as a whole will have to make a clear and conscious decision to invest substantially in such an undertaking.

3.2.1 alfunding

3.2.1.1 The international budget

At first sight it may appear logical to fund the refugee documentation centre from the international budget. And indeed, there are good reasons for that: After all, refugee work is an international responsibility and should therefore be integrated into mainstream al work
K|_Á_ _

I

38



and financed from the international budget. Servicing the information needs arising in refugee work is an international function, regardless of whether the documentation centre will be part of the IS or operated under a decentralized structure. Something owned by the movement as a whole should be f~rianced by the movement as a whole.
There are other advantages of financing the documentation centre from the international budget. They include clarity, long-term financial stability and predictability.

Financing the documentation centre from the international budget would indeed be appropriate, if the centre is to be established as part of the IS. In this case budgetary provisions would have to be made and the movement would need to allocate sufficient funds from the international budget to such a service. Implementation would then be left to the Secretary General
If this organizational option is pursued, financing from the international budget may be the most logical, if not the only option; but funding from the international budget may also be a viable solution, if the function is allocated in a decentralized manner to a new structure. But then a further note of realism needs to be introduced into this discussion: It is highly unlikely that the refugee documentation centre will be established in the form proposed, if for its finances it would depend substantially or in total on the international budget. Even in times of significant growth of the international organization provisions for such a service have not been made in the budget, although the need to intensify and develop the information aspects of refugee work have been clearly expressed for some years. In these times of only limited growth this has not become more likely. In order to finance new activities the international movement would need to raise more funds or suspend or reduce other program work. Neither would be easy toido. Even if one could expect increased interest and commitment to refugee work in the movement as a result of the refugee campaign in 1997, a proposal for a substantial increase in the resources for this work would be up against competing prioritiesi,~including such popular ones as development, human rights education and awareness, and languages programs. It would~ therefore not seem advisable t9 rely for the f~n~iflg½~f ithe documentation centre exclusively on the interhaitional budget; alternative ~ fi~r funding need to be considered.

3.2.1.2Section contributions

As has been stated before, the initiative for a refugee documentation centre came from sections, in particular some of the larger sections with an established refugee program. These sections hope that the refugee documentation centre will assist them in their work and it may not be unreasonable to expect that they would be willing to make financial contributions to its budget.
There is at least one clear precedence for this: Amnesty International's EU Association, set up because the sections involved saw a need for coordination of and assistance in their lobbying of EU membei~r states and EU institutions. From the beginning of the project in 1.98ii5.~it has been largely financed through contributions by sections, although in its early stages it received a contribution of some 10% of the project costs from the inte~ational budget. As of January 1992 sections assumed full responsibility for the project, which is now managed and funded completely by the EU sections.
The European Union Association now employs four full-time and one part-time staff and in 1996 has an annual budget totalling some £260,000.16 sections contribute different amounts to the budget, ranging from more than 20% (United Kingdom, Netherland~, France) to less than 1% (Greece, Ireland, Portugal).
Under the statute of the association the contributions to be paid by the member sections are being calculated according to their relative contributions to the international budget based on sections' assessable incomes of the previous year.
The positive experiences made with this mode of financing and the stability achieved suggest that the EU Association could serve as a model for the financing of the refugee documentation centre. There are a number of obstacles, though: The long-term financial icommitments made by member sections of the EU Association to that work may lead to a
i more reluctant approach to make yet a further commitment on a similar basis to another

39


project, in particular in light of persistent requests from the international movement to the major funding sections to make extra contributions to other international program activities (such as development initiatives and deconcentrated offices). There are also uncertainties about the future financial capacity of some of the major funding sections.
On the other hand, the list of potential member sections of the refugee documentation centre would not be limited to those sections which are members of the EU Association. While it would include most. if not all European sections, it would also encompass major funding sections from other parts of the world: Australia, Japan, Canada and U.S.A. In this way, the financial burden could be divided among many shoulders according to capacities and a true system of "burden-sharing" be established.
For the purposes of this discussion it should be stressed that sections not in a position to make a financial contribution to the international budget will not be asked to contribute financially to the documentation centre, but will nevertheless not be excluded from membership on that basis.

3.2.1.3Cost recovery systems

It is highly unlikely that an internal al documentation centre could be financed completely by charging other al structures for the services provided. But a small portion of expenditure may well be recovered this way.
There are several disadvantages, though. First, such a system would not open up new and additionail sources for funding, but would be directed at al-structures. It would also be less secure and predictable than a system based on fixed regular contributions and could therefore not compensate for, but at best supplement such a system. It would also be an unusual system in the present al culture: sections and other structures within the movement are not used t9 be charged for services provided by the movement, with the exeiption of publications and other material for publicity and. of course, merchandise. It may als~turn i i into a co mpiilica~ ted system, possibly jny~vi~ng tpe.cbllectiion of ia l~irg~ number of small amounts ~ from di~e~reiriit~&buntries. Finally, a dependency of the dociumientation i i iicentre from ~at least in ~ through "sajes" its own income to sust?in its i operation would createi~ia constant incertainty whether the financial goals can be met. Nevertheless, some "user-related" system to seek extra cpntributions fromi those secitions and structures using the services of the centre most, could be installed, if deemed to be in the interest of fairness and equal partition of costs. (Again, sections with no accesible income would be exempt.) Such a system should not be counted for to recover more than a small percentage (say 5 or 10%) of overall costs.

3.2.2 External funding

Amnesty International is increasing efforts in international fundraising, including the e~xploration of additional funding sources and fundraising for special projects. These.efforts are examplified by~the appointment of fundraising consultants, recent approaches by the Secretary General to major US foundations, new Guideilnes for Fundraising for ~pecial Projects and Other Specific Purposes and numerous 1CM decisions. In December 1996 an initial set of fundraising proposals covering, among other areas, increased work on countries of the former USSR, promotional activities towards ending female genital mutilation, impunity and international criminal justice, and regional decentralized offices have been finalized. Other proposals fori external fundraising are soon to follow. Against this background and the need to raise additional funds for the refugee documentation centre opportunities for external funding need to be explored. The following does not purport to be a comprehensive study of the potential for external fundraising for the centre and the underlying issues involvedi at this point only the parameters for a future in-depth analysis can be identified.
Again, it seems appropriate to start with a word of caution: Given the scarcity of money available for "good cauisies~~ and the potentially unlimited needs, there is no reason to be overtly optimistic about the possibilities to raise external funds for the centre. In fact, the opportunities for external funding seem to be limited, in particular as the refugee

40


documentation centre would start as an al internal service. Nevertheless, existing opportunities in the field of IGO's, foundations and universities should be identified and aggressively pursued.

A distinction shouldbe introduced here between set-up costs (these are costs for establishing the centre, setting up office and recruitment of personf~el) and running costs (for the ongoing operation of the centre). While a commitment needs to be made to both set-up costs and running costs, different models for financing could apply depending on the nature of the costs.
It may be the case that some money for setting up the operation may be available in the country chosen as the location for the centre (because of a strong interest to host the centre there.) It also seems conceivable that a foundation or a similar institution may be willing to make a significant financial contribution to the start-up costs of such a project. but not make a long-term commitment to cover ongoing costs. Set-up costs could also substantially be reduced by donations in kind or in services (computer systems, office equipment,~software) and some form of reductions or benefits.
Seeking external funding for set-up costs only would not seriously raise an issue of dependency and entail no risks as to the operation of the centre in case of a downfall in externally raised funds. The following remarks concentrate on running costs.

3.2.2.1 Governments and IGO's

While the guidelines on acceptance of funds and the need to protect al's independence, impartiality ~nd balance would prevent al from receiving substantial funding from individual gQvemments, it should also be stated that refugees in general and assistance and support for refugees in particular is not very popular with most governments. In a number of countries, refugee support structures1 including documentation centres, which used to receive and are highly dependent on government funding, experience a state of crisis as government funds are no longer available. The French r~fug?e doci~umientatii9n/information centre, for example, had t6 close down when ~ funding expired a nd no alternative funding could be found; While al is ba~e~ friom seeking to have utS activities financed by individual governments, the possibility to accept limited amounts of money for a specific support structure (such as the refugee documentation centre) from intergovernmental institutions should be further explored. What comes to mind here is to open the possibility to apply for grants under certain established programs. such as those for human rights, from the Council of Europe or the European Union.

3.2.2.2 Foundations and trusts

As part of its strategy. for international fundraising the IS has recently established initial contact with a large number of foundations and trusts in Europe and North America and sought the help of consultants in approaching them. A number of program areas havie internally been identified as suitable for funding applicatiQns: Human Rights Education, Crisis Response, Theme Campaigns and MEC/MSP. Refugee work in general and the refugee documentation centre in particular could be added to that list. But even then the refugee documentation centre does not easily lend itself to funding through foundations, as it may seem less popular with them compared to other areas of human rights work, such as human rights awareness and education projects, the dissemination of basic human rights material,ior the developing of human rights constituencies and structures in Africa, Asia or Central Europe (SOROS Foundation). Funding may nevertheless be available from large (American) foundations such as the Ford Foundation, the Carnegy Foundation, or the J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation, and funding opportunities may increase in connection with the 1997 refugee campaign and capitalizing on the awareness and momentum created by it. In addition, certain elements of the project could be extracted for more specific and limited fundraising, such as seeking sponsors for the participation of a small section or small sections in the project.

3.2.2.3 Universities

although al in general so far has little experience in institutional cooperation with universities or other academic institutions, for the purpose of raising external funds some form of institutional link or mode of long-term cooperation with a.university or other academic institution should be further explored. A number of universities in different parts of the world (Canada, England, etc.) operate refugee study programs and a system of cooperation with such a university program may offer the opportunity for a mutually beneficial relationship. A refugee information and documentation centre may be more in line with a university's academic programs than advocacy and campaigning work on the issue. The chance to be seen close to al and its worldwide program and reputation may also appeal to them. While an institutionalized cooperation would not automatically give the university unlimited access to al's information, there could be cooperation and exchange on the technical side of the setting-up of information systems and al could even to some extent i profit from academic research into refugee problems and the discussion of new and emerging issues as seen from an academic perspective. Details of the cooperation would have to be arranged un-ambiguously and in writing and it is highly unlikely that the university or academic institution would cover more than a given percentage of the running costs, say 10 or 20% of overall expenditure.

3.2.3 Models for (mixed) financing

The most promising way to finance the documentation centre seems to be a form of mixed financing, based on a system of cbntributions, and ifor the remainder of its budget drawing on a variety of different sources, both internal and external. In this. section suggestions for such models will be outlined.
It seems prudent to operate from an understanding that even if external funding can be secured to contribute to the ongoing costs of the documentat'on centre - al will at all times have to bear a very large sharei of the costs involvied&Thei. ~ raised from external sources can hardly b~ envisaged to exceed 20 or 30%. Thatiwould leave al with at least 70 or more likely 80% of the total operational costs and raises the question of how these should be distributed.
One model could be a division between a "base budget" and additional pro rata (section) contributions. The "base budget" (say 50% of the estimated operational costs) could be included in the international budget and the remainder funded by sections on a pro rata basis. Of course, the sections involved would have to make a formal commitment to contribute on this basis for a number of years. (Some contributions could take other forms, such as the provision of office space free of charge or the long-term second ment of staff to the centre.)
An alternative - and possibly more realistic option given the shortages in the international budget - would impose a much larger share (say 80 or 90%) of the total costs on sections '(on a pro rata basis) with an additional contribution of, say, 10% drawn from the international budget. Costs endured by sections could be reduced to the extentthat external funding becomes available.
Whichever system of distribution of costs is preferred, the above models would mean that al will have to be prepared to come up completely or almost completely for the expenses of the centre (on the understanding that costs for al may be reduced somewhat if and when external funding contributions become available).
It would be much riskier ahd not very sound to make budgetary provisions only for a given percentage (say 70 or 80%) of the estimated overall operational costs and leave the remainder conditional on the availability of external funding. If expectations for external funds for whichever reason do not materialize, a then unstable financial basis could endanger the operation of the project as a whole. This should be avoided at all costs.

3.3 STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

The following remarks in no way represent a sound plan for implementation of the project. They are only meant to indicate some elements for such a plan and identify some of the next steps leading towards implementation. Roughly, the process could be divided into the following phases: 1. a political decision to set up. in principle, the refugee documentation centre, funding permitting; 2. to seek and receive formal commitments from a sufficient number of sections to fund the centre; 3. concrete implementation according to an agreed plan and schedule.
Here are some elements to be taken into account in the process leading to implementation:
- It should be seriously considered to set up the refugee documentation centre for a three-year period, at the end of which the project should be reviewed in order to determine whether it has lived up to the expectations.
- Any aspects of implementation involving long-term financial commitments on behalf of the documentation centre should be conditional on a number of sections formally committing themselves to fund the project for the initial three-year period.
- More immediate steps concerning financial aspects, which appear to be crucial, include the following: agree in principle on a model for financing of the centre, make the necessary budgetary provisions7 and ask for section commitments to that end.
- A plan and schedule for phased implementation should be drawn up on the understanding that the office should be set up and staff recruited in sequences, starting with the director, but keeping in mind the minimum of three people working in the centre after the initial phase. (In addition to the director, who could also assume functions of an information officer, this could initially be a full-time information officer, a part-time office support staff, and a part-time information systems operator, the latter possibly on a consultancy basis.)
- A more immediate step following the political decision to set up the refugee documentation centie would involve the transformation of the present project working grQup into a "continuity committee~"i (or the appointment of another committee). This committee would undeirtake a number of the tasks mentioned above and in particular try~to secure financial and other commitments to the project from sections and o'thers. It would also look into possible locations for the centre.

It seems important to identify with the decision to go ahead with the refugee documentation centre next steps leading to implementation in order not to loose the momentum created around this feasibility study and thie ensueing consultation and decision-making process.



3.4 SUMMARY PART THREE

iItis -recommended that the refugee documentation centre be set up as a fully staffed operation in one central location.
This could either be in London or at another suitable location. The choice of th"e location depends on a number of criteria, the most important of them being: accessibility of the centre by phone, fax and e-mail; availability of suitable office space and the costs for rental of office premises; the costs for personnel, in particular staff salaries, and the general standard of living in the country. Other considerations relate to national laws and regulati6ns, questions of security, environment and attitudes. It should be investigated whether an al section is willing and in a position to offer to the centre office space free of charge ior at a reduced rate, or in a similar way contribute to the reduction of costs. The discussion of whether the refugee documentation centre should be set up as a decentralised or deconcentrated operation has to be seen within the overall context of the ongoing discussion on decentralisation and deconcentration within the movement. A number of criteria suggest that the documentation centre should be created as a separate entity distinct from the IS, as it can be expected that sections will take a stronger interest in and be prepared to take over more responsibility for a centre they feel they directly control.

A refugee documentation centre managed in the (1oined) responsibility of (some) sections and the IS would also be in line with the traditional approach to and division of work and responsibility within al's refugee work. On the other hand, a completely decentralized documentation centre could result in a more hesitant attitude among research teams to share internal information.
As to whether the function should be allocated to existing structures(sections or a section, groupings or a grouping) or a new structure be created for this purpose, for a number of reasons the latter option appears preferable. The creation of an international structure to set up and operate the refugee documentation centre would underline the fact that refugee work is an international responsibility. An institutional structure for the documentation centre would attest to the long-term need and commitment to refugee work.
Two possible models for a new structure, both with their strengths and weaknesses, are explored: Under the "modified deconcentrated structure" the documentation centre would be operating under IS authority, but with a large degree of Section input. Under the "modified decentralized structure" the documentation centre would be largely decentralized, but the IS would be represented on the governing board.
It is recommended that the refugee documentation centre be set up as "a modified decentralized structure". The advantages of this model include greater clarity of roles and responsibilities and a greater potential to attract financial commitments from sections and external funding.
It is recommended that the structure would employ its own staff and that the documentation centre, once fully developed and in place, would have up to five staff.
The question of how to secure the necessary funds to set up and operate the refugee documentation centre remains a difficult one. Whichever option is finally chosen, the movement will have to make a clear and conscious decision to invest substantially in such an undertaking.
Possible sources for funding from within Amnesty International are the internatiorial budget, a system of section contributions, cost recovery systems, or a model featuring elements of each. Unless ~ funds can be raised externally,ieither for the j~ternaUonal ibudget allowing for an ei~pansion 6f program work or specifically for the refugee documentation centre, major fu~ding sections would, at any rate, have to make~ia icommitment to cover for the expenses of the centre.
Opportunities for external funding, in particular relating to set-up costs, should be further explored. Possible targets include IGO's, foundations and universtities. While it appears unlikely that external funding could be secured for more than a small percentage of overall expenses, costs endured by al could be reduced to the extent that external funding becomes available.
Finally, a number of steps for a phased implementation of the project have been indicated. They include an approach to sections to formally commit themselves to fund the project for an initial three-year period.