VZCZCXYZ0004
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1021/01 3201006
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161006Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0170

UNCLAS GENEVA 001021 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR PRM 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL PHUM SMIG
SUBJECT: FIFTH IOM STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROGRAMS AND 
FINANCES 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: The fifth session of the International 
Organization for Migration (IOM) Standing Committee on 
Programs and Finance (SCPF) took place October 27-28 in 
Geneva with Ambassador Mudaran (Venezuela), SCPF Chair, 
presiding.  Member states continued discussion of the 2010 
administrative budget in advance of the 98th IOM Council 
scheduled for November 23-26; recommended the Council approve 
the revised 2009 budget; agreed to add the proposed 
Structural Review to the Council's agenda, and to raise the 
funding cap on projects under Line 1 of the 1035 Facility. 
Member states rejected a proposal from the Chair to hold a 
preliminary vote during the SCPF among the six candidates for 
External Auditor.  Unless a consensus forms around a single 
candidate before the Council meeting, members agreed to hold 
a formal vote at that time.  IOM staff gave presentations on 
the organization,s oversight and evaluation mechanisms and 
its border management programs.  IOM also reported on an 
initiative in New York to included IOM in periodic UNGA 
reporting on cooperation betwen international organizations 
and UN agencies. End Summary. 
 
---------------------------- 
Director General's Statement 
---------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) IOM Director General (DG) William Swing opened the 
SCPF by welcoming newly elected Deputy Director General Laura 
Thompson, who took office September 1.  Swing then outlined 
the aggressive agenda for IOM he has undertaken in his first 
year in office: Budget Reform (including the Program and 
Budget for 2010), Staff Rotation, and an ambitious Structural 
Review.  Swing said he understood the current global economic 
environment was not the best time to be asking for additional 
resources.  However, in the same spirit of openness and 
dialogue under which he campaigned for the Director General 
position, he wanted the 2010 Budget presentation to 
accurately reflect the needs of the organization in view of 
the unprecedented growth in projects and staffing IOM has 
experienced in recent years. 
 
-------------------------- 
Discussion of Agenda Items 
-------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Program and Budget for 2010: Ovais Sarmad, Director 
for Resources Management, presented the 2010 Program and 
Budget Report in a new, user-friendly format intended to more 
clearly set out the needs of the organization, the 
Administration,s best judgment on the resources necessary to 
accomplish strategic objectives, and the decisions member 
states needed to take at Council. 
 
¶4.  (U) The presentation document included two alternate 
scenarios for the 2010 administrative budget.  Under scenario 
one, the administrative budget would rise 2.55 percent over 
the 2009 level to account for statutory increases in core 
staffing costs mandated by the UN Common system.  Scenario 
two includes those same statutory increases as well as an 
additional 5.5 million Swiss francs (CHF) to fund IOM 
participation in the UN combined security mechanism, CHF 3.3 
million for maintenance of IOM,s new financial and human 
resources management system (PRISM), and CHF 200,000 to 
mainstream IOM,s responsibilities as UN cluster lead for 
camp coordination and camp management.  Including these items 
would increase the administrative budget by 25.74 percent 
over 2009 levels.  Mr. Sarmad noted the need for broader, 
long-term budget reform to simplify the IOM budget structure. 
 
¶5.  (U) A majority of countries who spoke at the session 
supported scenario one.  However, a number of member states, 
including Canada, Spain, France, Japan, Portugal, 
Switzerland, Turkey, the UK, and Italy, supported a zero 
nominal growth 2010 budget.  Only a single delegation 
(Ecuador) supported scenario two.  Member States agreed on 
the importance of reaching consensus on an overall budget 
level before Council, and undertaking informal discussions 
toward that end. 
 
¶6. (U) Outstanding Contributions to the Budget:  Mr. Sarmad 
also reported that the 2009 outstanding assessed 
contributions have decreased to CHF 2.8 million; twelve 
Member States have entered into repayment plans; but twelve 
others are still in arrears.  The Africa Group reported that 
discussion of arrearages has been upgraded to the 
Ambassadorial level.  Brazil reported the legislative process 
for ratification of its membership is continuing. 
 
¶7. (U) Appointment of the External Auditors for the period 
2010-2012:  At the suggestion of the Chair, this item was 
moved up in the agenda.  Member States discussed a variety of 
methods to narrow down the current list of six candidates, 
 
but rejected the Chair,s suggestion to hold a straw poll 
during the SCPF.  As no consensus on a preferred process for 
making a final decision emerged from the discussions, the 
chair asked the six candidates to meet in the weeks before 
Council to try to narrow the number of candidates.  If no 
consensus emerges from that process, Member States will hold 
a formal vote at the Council session. 
 
¶8. (U) Proposed Structure Review:  Discussion of this agenda 
item took up almost half of the two-day SCPF meeting. 
Chairman of the ad-hoc Structure Review Team (SRT), Gervais 
Appave, presented a brief overview of the comprehensive 
process the team undertook.  After his presentation, nearly 
forty member states took the floor to comment on the 
proposal.  Member States were generally supportive, though 
many asked IOM to share a timeline for implementation and 
conduct a review of the implementation process as it proceeds 
over the next 2-3 years.  Some member states voiced concerns 
about the proposed location of some of the eight new Regional 
Offices.  Kenya and many other members of the Africa Group 
were particularly worried about a perceived downgrading of 
IOM's Nairobi office.  Likewise, member states around the 
Mediterranean felt there needed to be a more formal mechanism 
to coordinate efforts in that region -- possibly a regional 
or sub-regional office -- given its importance in migratory 
flows and the fact that it falls under the responsibility of 
two of the proposed new regional offices. 
 
¶9. (U) Exchange of Views on Items Proposed by Membership: 
Christophe Franzetti, Evaluation Officer in the Office of the 
Inspector General, gave a very brief overview of IOM,s 
oversight and evaluation processes.  The Netherlands noted 
the review was superficial and recommended that the 
discussion continue in more detail during the next SCPF. 
 
¶10. (U) David Knight, Head of the Technical Cooperation 
Division, discussed IOM,s global efforts to enhance 
individual country capacity for effective border management. 
IOM,s work in this area includes border management 
assessments conducted in cooperation with the applicable 
state, and technical advice and training on border management 
systems.  IOM also recently contributed a chapter to a World 
Bank publication on Border Modernization. 
 
¶11. (U) Support for Developing Member States and Member 
States with economy in transition (1035 Facility):  Mr. 
Knight also presented briefly on the 1035 Facility, noting 
the administration's request to increase the funding cap for 
projects funded under 1035 line one from USD 50,000 to USD 
100,000.  Many member states, including the United States, 
supported the increase. 
 
¶12.  (U) Staff Association Committee Statement:  Richard 
Danziger, Chairman of the Staff Association Committee (SAC), 
urged the administration to consider the impact of the 
rotation and the restructuring on IOM staff, to ensure 
equitable treatment of staff during the implementation of the 
rotation policy, and to address taxation issues for those 
staff members living in France and working in Geneva.  Mr. 
Danziger also voiced SAC,s concern with modifications to the 
staff rules and regulations that could impact taxation on IOM 
income and allowances.  DG Swing thanked the SAC for their 
statement; noted efforts made on the part of the 
administration to address these concerns and to actively 
consult with SAC during the structure review process; and 
explained that the text of concern to the SAC has been part 
of the staff rules and regulations since 2006. 
 
¶13.  (U) Report on Human Resources:  New IOM Director of 
Human Resources Michael Veltman briefed member states on the 
progress made in Human Resource Management (HRM) over the 
past year, including improvements in the transparency of 
staff rotations, the review of staff rules and regulations, 
and the extension of health insurance to local staff 
worldwide. 
 
¶14.  (U) UN Reporting Mechanism: Bob Paiva, Director of 
External Relations, described the efforts of the IOM 
administration to work more closely with the United Nations 
(UN), including pursuing pooled funds and participating in 
relevant working groups, while maintaining its separate 
observer status.  Recently, IOM has undertaken an initiative 
in New York to add IOM to a UN-produced report on cooperation 
between observer organizations and UN organizations.  This 
report, produced every two years, provides a brief 
description of UN cooperation with various organizations. 
IOM hopes inclusion in the report would raise IOM's profile 
among New York-based missions and organizations, and 
disseminate information on IOM's range of activities more 
widely.  Mr. Paiva emphasized that participation in this 
report would in no way affect IOM,s current observer 
 
relationship with the UN. 
GRIFFITHS