09. Appendix 5 Options for allocation of function to section(s) or grouping(s) Underlag till styrelsemöte 1-2 maj 1997

APPENDIX 5: OPTIONS FOR ALLOCATION OF FUNCTION TO SECTION(S) OR GROUPING(S)

1.) Section(s)

As stated before, much of al's refugee work, in particular on individual cases, is presently undertaken by individual sections. Against the background of this work and experience gained it were sections pushing the idea to develop a structure to deal with refugee-related information requests in a more efficient manner. it would therefore be rational to allocate this function to a section who would act on behalf of the movement or a number of sections collaborating with each other.
On the other hand, such an approach could involve certain dangers and pitfalls. From the beginning, the number of individual sections possibly willing and in a position to take on such an additional task would be very limited. If instead a model of cooperation is pursued, that is several sections undertaking the task in cooperation with each other, the number of sections willing to join such an endeavor would rise substantially. This would also enable smaller sections to join the project.
Delegating the task to one section only may also pose the danger that methods of work and the style employed by that section may - conscientiously or not - influence the work of the documentation centre. Differences in approaches developed in different sections even within the same geographical region and different political and cultural climates could not be easily absorbed by a centre operating on experience gained with refugee work in one particular section only

Delegating the responsibility to only one section would make it more difficult for other sections to actively contribute to the development of the work of the centre and may lead to less interest on their part. Other questions which would need further clarification relate to international democratic decision making, control of the work of the centre and ~ of the section, to which the function will be allocated, to the international movement. If a number of sections will collaborate on this task, formal mechanisms to deal with these questions would have to be developed and put in place.

In more general terms, a word of caution and the following observations seem to be appropriate: There is only limited experience within al with decentralizing a function of the international movement to a section or sections. While it is now recognized that international functions could be entrusted to national structures rather than keeping the strict distinction of international functions in the international structure and national functions in the national structures, experiments in the past with the delegation of certain responsibilities to a section without at the same time establishing a solid structure and providing the necessary funding to carry out this function have been rather negative. ~ case in point is the Clearinghouse on Human Rights Education Material run for a number of years by a small group of volunteers from the German Section.) The funding of ~riy decentralized activity needs to be clear from the beginning and the budget would need to be transferred along with the function. The same applies in the area of decision-making. If sections were asked to take on decentralized projects and to fund them, then obviously they would have to seek additional funds or cut down in other areas of their work. Sections may also find it unreasonable to decentralize a task without at the same time decentralizing the responsibility for this task; if the decision-making could not be transferred together with the task itself then such a proposal would not be viable. It should also be noted that sections may feel more inclined to take on a task in an area of work in which the section is already strong in, in both financial and human resources terms, and that, since smaller sections may not have the power or resources to undertake decentralized tasks. the gap between small and large sections may increase.

2.) Grouping(s)

In theory, a program activity could be decentralized to the groupings or one grouping. But groupings at this point have very little experience with long-term coordinated activities and seem to be ill-equipped to undertake major program activities. Apart from the fact that the composition of the groupings is open to change (and has in fact been changed not long ago), there seems to be in general some dissatisfaction with the way groupings are operating. While they produce certain benefits, in that they enable larger sections to better understand problems encountered by smaller sections, and serve as an instrument for the informal exchange of views and ideas, they are not considered important by sections and have no real decision-making power, less so staff and a budget allowing for sustained program activities.