“Sudan is the world’s largest displacement and humanitarian crisis, but the aid efforts so far have not been enough. We call for more aid, and more access to it.”
“Displacement in Sudan is accelerating, but humanitarian aid is not keeping pace. Urgent funding, protection and unhindered humanitarian access are essential.”
One of these recent posts was posted on X by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). And the other by the UN Refugee Agency, or UNHCR. But it is impossible to tell which organization was responsible for each appeal, as they say almost the same thing and in a very similar way. That is no coincidence, as the division of labor between the two UN organizations has become increasingly blurred, calling into question the need for their separate existence.
While this issue is not an entirely new one, the notion of an IOM-UNHCR merger has assumed a new relevance now that the UN is downsizing and the UN80 reform initiative has put the question of restructuring the world body firmly on the international agenda.
While both organizations were established immediately after World War II and intended to deal with the mass movement of people, there were some important distinctions between the two for many years. UNHCR’s remit was to provide protection and solutions for refugees who had been forced to escape from their own country as a result of persecution and armed conflict. IOM’s role was to manage the planned movement of people from one country and continent to another, including those searching for jobs and new opportunities.
Although the work of both organizations was initially focused on postwar Europe, UNHCR expanded more quickly into other crisis-affected areas, growing rapidly in size and status as it did so. For many decades, IOM remained as an intergovernmental organization but outside the UN system, and most of its work consisted of arranging the transportation of refugees who had been selected for resettlement by UNHCR.
Staff members in both groups were aware of the pecking order established by these arrangements. When I joined UNHCR in 1987 and naïvely asked about the organization’s dealings with IOM, I was told by a senior colleague: “Don’t worry about them. They are just a glorified travel agency.”
But both organizations — and the relationship between them — have changed substantially over the past 30 years. From its early focus on the defense of refugee rights, UNHCR has expanded the scope of its activities to many other groups of people, including asylum-seekers and irregular migrants; former refugees who had returned to their countries of origin; stateless and internally displaced populations (IDPs); and victims of natural disasters.
In doing so, UNHCR was transformed from a legally oriented entity to one that was involved in every aspect of emergency relief, including camp construction, shelter provision and food distribution, healthcare and education as well as long-term tasks such as the economic development of refugee-populated areas and post-conflict reconstruction.
These developments led the agency into an increasingly competitive relationship with IOM, which, from the 1990s onward, pursued an aggressively expansionist strategy, especially related to the world’s growing IDP population and an anticipated surge of climate migrants. At the same time, IOM’s earlier focus on the planned movement of people was replaced by a much broader concern for the wellbeing of mobile — and potentially mobile — people: unauthorized migrants stranded in transit countries; migrant workers caught up in armed conflicts and other crises; unsuccessful asylum-seekers who needed assistance to return to their countries of origin; and citizens of low-income countries who might be tempted to migrate in an unauthorized manner because of poverty and unemployment.
While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that the activities of IOM and UNHCR are entirely duplicative in nature, both have to a considerable extent become all-purpose aid agencies, with their work focused on, but not restricted to, people who are on the move for one reason or another. At the same time, in its efforts to become much more than a logistics agency, IOM has expanded its involvement in functions in which UNHCR had previously taken a lead: humanitarian and protection policy development, data collection and analysis and engagement with nongovernmental organizations and the private sector.
The blurring line between IOM and UNHCR can be illustrated with specific cases. In Bangladesh, for example, IOM has been assigned a leading role regarding exiled Rohingya from Myanmar, largely because the authorities in Dhaka did not want to recognize them as refugees and because it felt more comfortable dealing with an agency that lacked UNHCR’s explicit protection mandate.
In South America, the two organizations agreed to appoint a joint special envoy for Venezuelans who had left their country, given the impracticality of dealing separately with those moving to escape from political violence and those whose motivation for departure was predominantly economic. In countries such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar and Sudan, both IOM and UNHCR are providing aid to displaced and war-affected populations, with the division of labor between the two organizations not immediately apparent.
As to the UN’s worldwide role in addressing large-scale movements of people, the organization’s response has been strongly conditioned by the need to satisfy the ambitions of IOM and UNHCR alike. Thus, in the aftermath of the massive 2015-2016 influx of people to Europe from the Mideast, Africa and Asia, IOM was given a leading role in forming the Global Compact on Migration, while the negotiation of an entirely separate Global Compact on Refugees was entrusted to UNHCR.
While this arrangement might have averted a turf war between the two entities, it also ignored the growing complexity of human mobility, epitomized by the increasing recognition that refugees, asylum-seekers, people who are being smuggled across borders as well as disaster and trafficking victims often move alongside each other in what has become known as “mixed migratory movements,” using the same routes and means of transport.
So what’s next? In 2016, when the respective global compacts were established, IOM joined the UN system, thereby ending one characteristic that distinguished the organization from UNHCR. In the days of President Biden’s administration, rumors circulated in the humanitarian world that the United States (which was providing 45 percent of IOM’s budget and 40 percent of UNHCR’s) favored merging the two organizations.
Such suspicions were strengthened when the US orchestrated the ousting of IOM’s director-general, a former EU commissioner, António Vitorino of Portugal, and campaigned assertively on behalf of a US citizen, Amy Pope, who had been an adviser on migration and homeland security to Presidents Biden and Barack Obama, respectively. Following her election to the post (she was Vitorino’s deputy), Pope embarked on a vigorous personal publicity campaign, her public statements leaving no doubt about the organization’s ambitions and its lack of deference to UNHCR and its mandate.
Since the beginning of 2025, the story of the two rival agencies has taken another twist. With the election of Donald Trump as US president and the introduction of his aggressive migration policy, there is speculation as to whether IOM’s Pope can remain in her post. At the same time, a competition is starting as to who will succeed the longstanding UNHCR chief, Filippo Grandi, an Italian whose term ends in December. So far, a German, a Swiss and a French national are candidates.
Does this moment represent an opportunity to merge the two organizations? And will the UN’s sway be hurt by the drastic cuts being made to humanitarian funding by the US and other major donor states?
Confronted with the stringent budget situation, the UN is proposing ways to reduce expenses, avoid duplication and rationalize the sprawling structure of the world body. According to a leaked document, a primary concern is to “merge multiple entities into a single humanitarian entity.” This might be achieved by “integrating OCHA, UNHCR and IOM,” or by creating a “UN Refugee and Migration Agency, merging UNHCR and IOM.” [OCHA is the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs]
UN Secretary-General António Guterres must present his final plans to the General Assembly by July, when countries can react to the proposals formally, but he met with the Assembly this week to preview his agenda.
Regardless of member states’ reaction, the obstacles to such mergers are considerable. Bringing together the IOM and UNHCR, with different histories, cultures, statutes, structures, funding systems and governing bodies will be messy. It will certainly involve staff reductions, increasing the anger that the personnel of both organizations have already expressed on the matter.
Some parties within and outside the two agencies will certainly resist an amalgamation, especially those who believe that a merged entity will weaken the UN’s ability to protect refugees. Those concerns will be reinforced by IOM’s recent agreement to assist the Trump administration with the “self-deportation” of unauthorized immigrants.
In response to questions that PassBlue posed to UNHCR about a possible merger (IOM did not respond to our inquiry), a spokesperson said: “IOM and UNHCR are two separate organizations with distinct mandates. In the current severely constrained funding environment, we are, together with all UN humanitarian agencies and partners, including IOM, exploring ways to bring greater efficiencies across the sector.”
But will that approach be enough to satisfy the demands of powerful member states that are determined to cut the UN’s humanitarian aid expenses and who might not be averse to a restructuring that reduces the pressure to respect the legal rights of refugees?
This is an opinion essay.
We welcome your comments on this article. What are your thoughts on merging the two agencies?
Jeff Crisp is a research fellow at the Center for Refugee Studies in Oxford, UK, and was previously head of policy development and evaluation at the UN Refugee Agency from 2006-2013.
There was never an operational logic to build up two slightly different organizations doing similar work that trumped the extra cost implications. What Mr. Crisp does not spell out is that UNHCR and IOM grew in parallel because those who fund them wanted it that way. Since 40 percent plus of funding for each comes from USA we can look to the Americans to enlighten us as to why they were happy to build an inefficient system with their resources. Was part of the motivation based on wanting to foster competition in the hope that internal systems would be chivvied into become more efficient? Did the USA want to channel their resources via an entity with one of their own in the drivers seat after not being able to secure the top spot at UNHCR? What we can be sure of is that the minutes of meetings of the boards of directors for these two agencies will not be enlightening.
It’s obvious to the SG that the UN only needs one entity to deliver UNHCR and IOM’s outputs. It has always been obvious to everyone at operational levels and likely to many previous SGs too. The mandates and other bits of paper can be modified with relative ease. We can anticipate Byzantine levels of special committees and meetings, and much blather from senior managers defending their positions.
The same issues apply to the rest of the UN80 agenda. Many of us cried, for example, when UN Women was created. At the operational level all it meant was one more senior official at meetings in capital cities with little capability to deliver outputs at the local level. Those UN entities with the operational capabilities in place would have loved to have the extra $500,000 in their annual budgets – the cost of this official – to deliver the relevant outputs. Yet the politicos at the global level charged by their governments to vote for expanding the numbers of agencies never knew enough about operational infrastructure and how to deliver outputs to realise the mess they were creating.
Excellent reflection Jeff, indeed the three have to consolidate their mandates in a comprehensive way and become ONE so to attend the needs of the people (displaced, migrants, refugees) without three bureaucracies so to achieve effectiveness and efficiency!
It is very important to note that there are salient differences between the two entities, neither of which are Specialized Agencies as referenced in Articles 57 and 63 of the UN Charter. The term “agency” is used very loosely and at times carelessly, which only invites confusion. And these differences would greatly complicate any merger unless the various Member States on the respective governing bodies get themselves aligned and sing off the same songsheet across the system.
UNHCR, if I recall correctly, did start out as a short-lived Specialized Agency in the very early days of the UN, but then became a “Related Entity”, or a “Fund/ Programme” of the UN Secretariat, as used to be defined in the the SGs annual report on the composition/ demographics of the Secretariat. Whilst it does have some autonomy, if I am not mistaken, its Chief Executive is appointed by the SG on the recommendation of the UNHCR governing body. Just like UNICEF, UNDP, UNWOMEN, UNFPA, UNJPSF, UNRWA, UNITAR, UNOPS, UNITAR, ITC, ICSC and the ICJ. I will stand corrected but I believe this to be the case in general, hence the Chief Executives of these are usually referred to an “Executive Director”. In effect, they Funds and Programmes such as UNHCR are more part of the UN and under the authority of the SG than other more autonomous entities such as the Specialized Agencies and their joint programmes.
Special titles may apply to the respective Chief Executives in the case of UNHCR (High Commissioner), UNDP (Administrator) and others such as UNJSPF and the ICJ, but that’s the general theme. Just like WFP which, despite its size, is actually a joint programme of the much smaller FAO and the UN and not a Specialized Agency in its own right: its Chief Executive is also an Executive Director, appointed jointly by the SG and the FAO Director-General.
IOM, on the other hand, is a UN Related Organization (UNRO), although it frequently represents itself as an Agency. Such organizations include CTBTO, OPCW, ITLOS, ISA and WTO. Also IAEA but that was granted the rights of a Specialized Agency back in the 1950s, when it was formed, by the GA. So there is a clear distinction between UNROs and Specialized Agencies, and their rights, if the UNGA makes this distinction. As importantly, the UN Charter is silent on UNROs and they are in association with the UN on a completely difference basis than the Specialized Agencies. The latter are part of the UN System through ECOSOC (Articles 57 and 63).
IOM, probably like all the other UNROs and the Specialized Agencies, has its own membership and own governing body, and its Chief Executive is appointed by that body, probably without reference to the SG other than as a courtesy. Their Chief Executives are generally referred to as Director-Generals, although as for the UN Related Entities/ Funds and Programmes and the joint programmes, there will be variations to this. IOM did have the option, when it finally joined the UN System and relinquished its INGO status, as reference by the author, of becoming a Specialized Agency. It chose not to.
So whilst the UN Secretariat (under the authority of the SG) may very well merge, wind-up, abolish or otherwise decide the fate of its own myriad Offices and Departments, and may have some influence on the way forward for its 13 Related Entities/ Funds and Programmes, it would seem that neither the SG no has no real authority over the quite autonomous Specialized Agencies and UNROs. In fact, some of the Specialized Agencies (but not UNROs) predate the UN but anywhere between weeks and decades, often many decades. They are brought together in the UN by co-ordination, not control (hence the Chief Executives Board for Co-ordination).
Talk of merging entities is easy until you discover that the Devil is in the detail, and autonomy is precious. In many cases, it would be a bit like mating dogs and cats. A lot of effort and pain for not result. There are often good reasons for them being different species.
That’s a very legalistic response! The article does actually point out the many difficulties that stand in the way of a merger, and does not assume that they will be overcome. As for the supposedly ‘careless’ use of the word ‘agency’. I write in my capacity as a humanitarian commentator and I’m not bound by the arcane conventions of the UN! My dictionary says that an agency is “a business or organization providing a particular service.” And that will do for me.
Perhaps, Jeff. But legalities are very important when it comes to such mergers. Best not to dismiss them too readily. And as for the term “agency”, it is indeed used generically within the UN system to describe everything from departments and offices to UNROs, Funds and Programmes and yes, even (correctly) Specialized Agencies. This does not mean that it is used correctly, regardless of your dictionary’s very broad definition. I prefer the UN Charter.
I don’t think I dismissed the legalities too readily! “Bringing together the IOM and UNHCR, with different histories, cultures, statutes, structures, funding systems and governing bodies will be messy.”