IOM is considered an efficient organization with extensive field presence, implementing its many interventions through a large and decentralized network of regional offices and country offices.
A results-based approach requires robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems that provide government officials, IOM staff, partners, donors and civil society with better means to the following:
- Inform decision-making by providing timely feedback to management on intervention context, risks, challenges, results, as well as successful approaches;
- Meet accountability obligations by informing donors, beneficiaries and other stakeholders on IOM’s performance, progress made in the achievement of results and the utilization of resources;
For the purpose of the IOM Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, IOM uses the OECD/DAC definition of beneficiary/ies or people that the Organization seeks to assist as “the individuals, groups, or organisations, whether targeted or not, that benefit directly or indirectly, from the development intervention. Other terms, such as rights holders or affected people, may also be used.” See OECD, 2019, p. 7. The term beneficiary/ies or people that IOM seeks to assist, will intermittently be used throughout the IOM Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, and refers to the definition given above, including when discussing humanitarian context. - Draw lessons learned from experience to provide feedback into the planning, design and implementation of future interventions and improve service delivery.
M&E, at times, may seem challenging in the context of IOM’s interventions, where project duration may not be “long enough” to incorporate strong M&E, or where security, time pressure, funding and/or capacity constraints may hinder the rigorous implementation of M&E. For the same reasons, the benefits of M&E may go unrecognized already in the proposal writing stage, resulting in insufficient attention given to it. The IOM Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines is a good opportunity to correct those impressions and put M&E at the centre of sound performance and fulfilling the duty of accountability.
As IOM’s global role in addressing migration-related challenges has diversified and expanded, new political and organizational realities have demanded a different conceptualization of M&E, as well as reframed organizational thinking about what it constitutes and its application. These realities include the numerous operational demands, limited resources, accelerated speed of expected response and immediate visibility for impact and accountability, as well as the expected rapid integration of new organizational concepts, such as “value for money” and Theory of Change into daily work. Learning and information-sharing also channel a number of key messages and recommendations to be considered.
IOM’s internal and external environments have also undergone significant changes in recent years, with an increased focus on migration worldwide. As a United Nations-related agency, IOM is a main reference on migration, supporting the attainment of migration-related commitments of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs) and contributing to the implementation of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. IOM is also an increasingly important contributor to migration data and analysis on a global scale, including for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and is praised for its operational and pragmatic approach to managing migration, in line with its mandate and the Migration Governance Framework (MiGOF). Furthermore, IOM is internally guided by the Strategic Vision, which does not supersede IOM’s existing MIGOF. But while MIGOF sets out a set of objectives and principles, it does not set out a focused direction of travel. The Strategic Vision is intended to do this. The Strategic Vision also intends to strengthen IOM’s capacity to contribute to the SDGs or the Global Compact for Migration, as well as other existing cooperative frameworks. This chapter will provide an overview of both monitoring and evaluation as key components and an overview of RBM at IOM; it will also outline the differences between monitoring and evaluation and explain how M&E together are relevant to IOM’s strategic approach and objectives.
Over the last 15 years, international actors have increasingly shifted to RBM. RBM supports better performance and greater accountability by applying a clear plan to manage and measure an intervention, with a focus on the results to be achieved.
At IOM, RBM is defined as a management strategy that sets out clear objectives and outcomes to define the way forward, and uses specific indicators to verify the progress made. RBM encompasses the whole project cycle: planning, managing implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation.
The aim of RBM is to provide valuable information for decision-making and lessons learned for the future, which includes the following:
• Planning, setting the vision and defining a results framework;
• Implementing interventions to achieve the results;
• Monitoring to ensure results are being achieved;
• Encouraging learning through reporting and evaluation.
Among other aspects, an RBM approach requires strong M&E, as well as knowledge management.
In 2011, IOM adopted a conscious RBM approach at the project level as seen in the first edition of the IOM Project Handbook. The 2017 version of the IOM Project Handbook provides yet more detailed guidance on RBM and has made the use of a results matrix a requirement to improve IOM’s work.
At a corporate level, IOM has identified a set of global results that it wants to achieve by 2023, using its MiGOF as the basis for the Organization’s work and the Strategic Vision as a “direction of travel”. This is condensed in the Strategic Results Framework (SRF). This framework specifies the highest level of desired change IOM would like to achieve. The RBM approach builds a bridge between the framework and IOM’s traditional programmes. This allows IOM to report on the results it has collectively achieved, rather than on the activities performed.
Monitoring and evaluation are important parts of RBM, based on clearly defined and measurable results, processes, methodologies and tools to achieve results. M&E can be viewed as providing a set of tools to enable RBM, helping decision makers track progress and demonstrate an intervention’s higher-level results.
Source: Adapted from United Nations Development Programme, 2009, p. 10.
| Definition | Results-based management at IOM | What it means for M&E |
| A management strategy that sets out clear objectives and outcomes to define the way forward, and uses specific indicators to verify the progress made. RBM is seen as taking a life cycle approach, including planning, managing, monitoring, reporting and evaluating. | RBM at IOM is a means to further strengthen IOM’s interventions. RBM encourages project developers and managers to clearly articulate an intervention’s objective, the desired change it aims to achieve, what is required to achieve such change, whether the desired change is achieved and how ongoing or future performance can further improve through learning. | In essence, M&E supports RBM through monitoring and measuring intervention progress towards predetermined targets, refining implementation, and evaluating changes and results to further improve future interventions. |
IOM resources
- 2017 IOM Project Handbook. Second edition. Geneva (Internal link only).
- 2018a Results-based management in IOM (Internal link only).
- 2020a RBM Results Based Management SharePoint (Internal link only).
Other resources
Kusek, J.Z. and R. Rist
- 2004 Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: A Handbook for Development Practitioners. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
- 2019 Better Criteria for Better Evaluation: Revised Evaluation Criteria Definitions and Principles for Use. OECD/Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Network on Development Evaluation.
United Nations Development Group (UNDG)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG)
- 2007 The Role of Evaluation in Results-based Management. Reference document, UNEG/REF(2007)1
Given IOM’s broad thematic portfolio and the decentralized nature of the Organization, it is important, when implementing an intervention, to provide justification for the implementation, articulate what changes are expected to occur and, moreover, how these are expected to occur. Monitoring helps do just that.
Monitoring can often be confused with reporting, which is one of the components of monitoring. While reporting only refers to the compilation, transfer and distribution of information, monitoring focuses on the collection and analysis, on a regular basis, of the information required for reporting. Therefore, monitoring encompasses the planning, designing, selecting of methods and systematic gathering and analysis of the content, while reporting summarizes that content with the purpose of delivering the relevant information.
IOM defines monitoring as an established practice of internal oversight that provides management with an early indication of progress, or lack thereof, in the achievement of results, in both operational and financial activities.
Figure 1.2. Scope of monitoring – Four key monitoring areas
Source: Adapted from IOM Regional Office Pretoria M&E presentation on Scope of Monitoring (2017).
While these are the four essential areas to monitor at IOM, additional types of monitoring are outlined in chapter 3 of the IOM Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines.
In order to standardize its approach to monitoring, IOM has developed relevant standardized tools: (a) IOM Results Matrix; and (b) Results Monitoring Framework.
Monitoring is necessary, because it continuously generates the information needed to measure progress towards results throughout implementation and enables timely decision-making. Monitoring helps decision makers be anticipatory and proactive, rather than reactive, in situations that may become challenging to control. It can bring key elements of strategic foresight to IOM interventions.
Monitoring is undertaken on an ongoing basis during the implementation of an intervention. Where possible, it is essential to ask relevant “monitoring questions” regularly.
• Planned activities are actually taking place (within the given time frame);
• There are gaps in the implementation;
• Resources have been/are being used efficiently;
• The intervention’s operating context has changed.
|
While implementing activities:
|
When measuring results:
|
| Definition | Monitoring at IOM | How to apply it |
| Monitoring is an established practice of internal oversight that provides management with an early indication of progress, or lack thereof, in the achievement of results, in both operational and financial activities. |
Monitoring at IOM is a routine – but important – process of data collection and analysis, as well as an assessment of progress towards intervention objectives. In other words, it allows for the frequent assessment of the implementation process within IOM interventions. | Due to the different thematic areas and diverse approaches to responding to country, regional or global needs and expectations, a standardized approach to monitoring IOM interventions remains challenging. Monitoring needs to be flexible enough to assess whether and how IOM’s interventions are responding to emerging needs. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the IOM Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines will provide more details on how monitoring achieves this. |
IOM resources
2017 Module 2 and Module 4. In: IOM Project Handbook. Second edition. Geneva (Internal link only).
2018b Monitoring Policy. IN/31. 27 September.
Other resources
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
2011 Project/Programme Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Guide. Geneva.
While monitoring may ask the questions, “What is the current status of implementation? What has been achieved so far? How has it been achieved? When has it been achieved?”, evaluation helps, in addition, to understand why and how well something was achieved, and gives judgement on the worth and merit of an intervention. Evaluation allows for a more rigorous analysis of the implementation of an intervention, also looking at why one effort worked better than another. Evaluation enriches learning processes and improves services and decision-making capability for those involved in an intervention. It also provides information not readily available from monitoring, which can be derived from the use of evaluation criteria, such as in-depth consideration for impact, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coverage, coordination, sustainability, connectedness and coherence.
IOM defines evaluation as the systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed intervention, including a project, programme, strategy or policy, its design, implementation and results.
Evaluation can be considered a means to discuss causality. While monitoring may show whether indicators have progressed, it remains limited in explaining, in detail, why a change occurred. Evaluation, on the other hand, looks at the question of what difference the implementation of an activity and/or intervention has made. It helps answer this question by assessing monitoring data that reflects what has happened and how, to identify why it happened. Evaluation provides practitioners with the required in-depth and evidence-based data for decision-making purposes, as it can assess whether, how, why and what type of change has occurred during an intervention.
Evaluation is also critical to assess the relevance and performance of the means and progress towards achieving change. Effective conduct and the use of credible evaluations go hand in hand with a culture of results-oriented, evidence-driven learning and decision-making. When evaluations are used, they contribute not only to accountability, but also to creating space for reflection, learning and the sharing of findings, innovations and experiences. They are a source of reliable information to help improve IOM’s service provision to beneficiaries, migrants, Member States and donors. Findings, lessons learned and best practices from previous evaluations can also help enhance an intervention design and enrich the formulation of results and the results framework. Evaluations have their own methodological and analytical rigour, determined at the planning stage and depending on their intention and scope.
An evaluation can be conducted at every stage of the intervention cycle, depending on the type of evaluation being implemented. For example, an ex-ante evaluation conducted during the conceptualization phase of an intervention can set a strong foundation for a successful implementation. Evaluations conducted during implementation (for instance, real-time and midterm evaluations) are good sources for providing feedback on the status and progress, strengths or weaknesses of implementation.
Evaluation should not be confused with concepts, such as review, assessment, needs assessments/appraisals or audit. Refer to the following definitions:
| Review | According to the OECD/DAC glossary, a review is “an assessment of the performance of an intervention, periodically or on an ad hoc basis”. A review is more extensive than monitoring but less than evaluation. |
| Assessment | An assessment can commonly be defined as the action of estimating the nature, ability or quality of something. In the context of development interventions, it is often associated with another term to focus on what will be assessed, such as needs assessment, skills assessment, context assessment and results-based assessment. It can take place prior, during or after an intervention and may be used in an evaluative context. |
| Needs assessments and appraisals | Needs assessments and appraisals are tools enabling decision makers to choose and decide between optional activities, as well as refine the final design of a project or programme. |
| Audit | Audit as an activity of supervision verifying whether the existing policies, norms and instruments are being applied and used adequately. Audit also examines the adequacy of organizational structures and systems and performs risk assessments. The audit focuses on the accountability and control of the efficient use of resources. |
IOM resources
2018c IOM Evaluation Policy. Office of the Inspector General. September.
Other resources
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
2010 Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. OECD/DAC, Paris.
Although often grouped together, M&E are two distinct but related functions. Recognizing the difference between monitoring and evaluation helps those implementing interventions understand that the two are indeed complimentary, as well as mutually beneficial functions. The main difference between them is their focus of assessment, as well as the timing in which each is conducted.
Monitoring, on the one hand, focuses on whether the implementation is on track to achieving its intended results and objectives, in line with established benchmarks. Evaluation, on the other hand, can provide evidence on whether the intervention and its approach to implementation is the right one, and if so, how and why changes are taking place. Evaluation also highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the design of the intervention. In other words, while monitoring can provide information on how the implementation is doing, evaluation can go a step further and demonstrate whether the expected change has been attained, whether the intervention contributed to that change (impact analysis/evaluation) and whether the intervention itself and its approach were the most suited to address the given problem.
In terms of timing, while monitoring tracks an intervention’s progress and achievement of results on an ongoing basis, throughout implementation, evaluation is usually a one-off activity, undertaken at different points of an intervention’s life cycle.
Keeping the vertical logic in mind when monitoring an intervention is useful, as it can help understand the specific level of result, which is being monitored, and, moreover, how individual results contribute to the overall implementation objectives.
The following two diagrams show monitoring and evaluation in relation to the vertical logic. Chapter 3 of the IOM Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines will further elaborate the vertical logic. Note that the two diagrams include indicative questions that pertain to monitoring and evaluation, and that there may be many other questions applicable in the context of vertical logic that are not included in the following figures.
Figure 1.3. Monitoring and vertical logic
Figure 1.4. Evaluation and vertical logic
Source: Adapted from IFRC, 2011. See also OECD, n.d.
| Key differences between monitoring and evaluation | |
|---|---|
| Monitoring | Evaluation |
| Monitoring is the continuous, systematic collection of data/information throughout the implementation of an intervention as part of intervention management. It focuses on the implementation of an intervention, comparing what is delivered to what was planned | Evaluation is a scheduled, periodic and in-depth assessment at specific points in time (before, during, at the end of or after an intervention). It is a specific process that assess this success of an intervention against an established set of evaluation criteria. |
| It is usually conducted by people directly involved in implementing the intervention. | It is usually conducted by people not having directly participated in the intervention. |
| It routinely collects data against indicators and compares achieved results with targets. | It assesses causal contributions of interventions to results and explores unintended results. |
| It focuses on tracking the progress of regular or day-to-day activities during implementation. | It assesses whether, why and how well change has occurred and whether the change can be attributed to the intervention. |
| It looks at production of results at the output and outcome level. | It looks at performance and achievement of results at the output, outcome, as well as the objective level. |
| It concentrates on planned intervention elements. | It assesses planned elements and looks for unplanned change, searches for causes, challenges, risks, assumptions and sustainability |
Other resources
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)
2011 Project/Programme Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Guide. Geneva.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
n.d. OECD DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance.
This section focuses on the strategic orientation at IOM
What it states
The Strategic Vision spans 2019–2023 and is the Director General’s articulation of how IOM as an organization needs to develop over a five-year period in order to meet new and emerging responsibilities at the global, regional, country and project levels. The Strategic Vision will guide the Organization into the future and turn IOM’s aspirations into reality.
It has a number of different components, including the following:
- Strategic goals, outlining what IOM should be in 2023;
- Strategic priorities, based on a landscape assessment of what the next decade will bring, according to three main pillars of work: resilience, mobility and governance (more detailed in the SRF);
- Drivers for success, outlining areas of institutional development that will be needed to fully realizethe goals of the Organization.
The Strategic Vision is operationalized through the SRF, which defines four overarching global objectives for the Organization, accompanied by a limited number of long-term and short-term outcomes and outputs that articulate how these highest-level objectives will be reached. These high-level results and the key performance indicators that help measure them can and should be used within projects and programmes to ensure alignment with the Strategic Vision and other key global frameworks like the SDGs and the Global Compact for Migration.
- Internally, the Strategic Vision strengthens corporate identity at a critical moment, offering a common narrative about what is important about IOM’s work, issues in which the Organization expects to engage further, and how it wishes to strengthen as an organization. All staff, and particularly chiefs of mission, play a crucial role in understanding and embodying the vision at the country level.
- Externally, this document offers staff a framework for engaging in strategic discussion with Member States and other stakeholders and aims to bring coherence to IOM’s external brand.
Here are some ways on how to use the Strategic Vision and the related Strategic Results Framework
a) Be familiar with the Strategic Vision and the institutional results framework.
b) Where possible, projects should be aligned to the SRF at the outcome or output levels.
c) Regional and country offices should align any future country or regional strategies with the Strategic Vision and the SRF, although they still have flexibility to adjust for local needs.
What it states
MiGOF
| The three principles propose the necessary conditions for migration to be well-managed by creating a more effective environment for maximized results for migration to be beneficial to all. These represent the means through which a State will ensure that the systemic requirements for good migration governance are in place. |
The three objectives are specific and do not require any further conventions, laws or practices than the ones that are already existing. Taken together, these objectives ensure that migration is governed in an integrated and holistic way, responding to the need to consider mobile categories of people and address their needs for for assistance in the event of an emergency, building resilience of individuals and communities, as well as ensuring opportunities for the economic and social health of the State. |
Source: IOM, 2016b.
MiGOF is a migration system that promotes human mobility, which benefits migrants and society, when it:
- Adheres to international standards and fulfils migrants’ rights;
- Formulates policy using evidence and a “whole-of-government” approach;
- Engages with partners to address migration and related issues.
The system also seeks to:
- Advance the socioeconomic well-being of migrants and society;
- Effectively address the mobility dimensions of crises;
- Ensure that migration takes place in a safe, orderly and dignified manner.
What it states
The SDGs
IOM has helped the international community implement andmonitor progress on the 2030 Agenda through the following:
- Establishing IOM’s Institutional Strategy on Migration and Sustainable Development, which is guiding IOM in thenecessary steps to ensure that migration governance can contribute to achieving the 2030 Agenda;
- Supporting United NationsCountry Team (UNCT) and Member States integrate migration considerations into Common Country Analysis (CCAs) and United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF);
- Supporting Member States to measure and report on migration governance within Voluntary National Reviews for the High-Level Political Forum dedicated to reviewing progression the 2030 Agenda;
- Implementingjoint programming with other UN agencies and actors to ensure development actions are coherent with and complementary to efforts toensure good migration governance;
- Providing development actors and donors with the tools and support to integrate migration into development cooperation efforts for enhanced aid effectiveness;
- Supporting Member States to mainstream migration into policy planning and programming across sectors and general development planning for enhanced development impact;
- Furthering global dialogue and exchange on migration and sustainable development by supportingfora and platforms such as the Global Forum on Migration and Development;
- Developing tools to analyse gaps in migration governance such as the Migration GovernanceIndicators;
- Developing tools and providing technical assistance within the context of the UN Network onMigration to help governments and UNCTs leverage the implementation of the Global Compact for Migration for sustainable development outcomes.
As part of IOM’s effort to track progress on the migration aspects of the SDGs, IOM and the Economist Intelligence Unit published a Migration Governance Index in 2016. Based on MiGOF categories, the Index, which is the first of its kind, provides a framework for countries to measure their progress towards better migration governance at the policy level.
What do the Sustainable Development Goals mean for IOM’s work and monitoring and evaluation?
Within IOM’s institutional strategy on migration and sustainable development, IOM has committed to three main outcomes: (a) human mobility is increasingly a choice; (b) migrants and their families are empowered; and (c) migration is increasingly well-governed. To achieve these outcomes, IOM has committed to four institutional outputs: (a) improved policy capacity on migration and sustainable development through a more robust evidence base and enhanced knowledge management; (b) stronger partnerships across the United Nations development system and beyond that harness the different expertise and capabilities of relevant actors on migration and sustainable development; (c) increased capacity to integrate migration in the planning, implementation, monitoring and reporting of the 2030 Agenda; and (d) high-quality migration programming that contributes to positive development outcomes.
In relation to output (a), having a stronger evidence base on migration and sustainable development is crucial if the development potential of migration will be capitalized. Enhancing IOM’s capacity to apply quality M&E in its programming from a development perspective will be crucial in this regard. This will also help enhance IOM’s capacity to showcase how its work supports the achievement of the 2030 Agenda through high-quality programming that contributes to development outcome, as outlined in output (d). IOM also has the responsibility to support its Member States achieve the same and ensure that monitoring, evaluation and reporting on migration governance efforts is aligned with and contribute to their efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Thus, output (b) on building stronger partnerships across the United Nations development system and beyond will be crucial to ensure that migration is firmly featured in UNSDCF and other development agendas, as well as national and local policies and programming. IOM’s role as coordinator of the United Nations Network on Migration will allow the Organization to achieve this within UNCTs. IOM has developed an action plan to achieve all of this and which is driven by IOM’s Migration and Sustainable Development Unit and overseen by IOM’s organization-wide Working Group on the SDGs.
What it states
The UNSDCF
It is a strategic medium-term results framework that represents the commitment of the UNCT of a particular country to supporting that country’s longer-term achievement of the SDGs. Furthermore, it is intended as an instrument that drives strategic planning, funding, implementation, monitoring, learning, reporting and evaluation for the United Nations, in partnership with host governments and other entities.
The UNSDCF explicitly seeks to ensure that government expectations of the United Nations development system will drive its contributions at the country level and that these contributions emerge from an analysis of the national landscape vis-à-vis SDG priorities. It is therefore “the central framework for joint monitoring, review, reporting and evaluation of the United Nations development system’s impact in a country achieving the 2030 Agenda [for Sustainable Development]”.
For more information regarding the UNSDCF, see The Cooperation Framework.
Key recommendations to include migration in the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework
- Establish working relations with the resident coordinator and ensure they are up to date on IOM work.
- IOM should engage fully with the new generation of UNCTs to ensure that migration issues, including displacement and other effects of crisis, are reflected in CCAs, cooperation frameworks and broader UNCT priorities.
- IOM should participate in – and where possible lead – any country-level inter-agency coordination forums around the UNSDCF to facilitate the inclusion of the perspectives of migrants and migration- affected communities in all development processes.
- Introduce IOM strategies and work in countries with cooperation frameworks, aligning outcomes, outputs and indicators. This will also facilitate country-level reporting in UN Info.
What it states 
The Migration Crisis Operational Framework
- It is based on international humanitarian and human rights law and humanitarian principles.
- It combines 15 sectors of assistance related to humanitarian activities and migration management services.
- It covers pre-crisis preparedness, emergency response and post-crisis recovery.
- It complements existing international systems (such as cluster approach) and builds on IOM’s partnerships.
MCOF helps crisis-affected populations, including displaced persons and international migrants stranded in crisis situations in their destination/transit countries, to better access their fundamental rights to protection and assistance.
What does Migration Crisis Operational Framework mean for IOM's work and monitoring and evaluation?
MCOF should be adapted to each context and can be used for analysing the migration patterns in a country and developing a strategic direction of a country together with MiGOF. Projects and programmes should be aligned to MCOF, and MCOF strategy progress should be monitored through specific and measurable results
What it states
The Global Compact for Migration is the first intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, covering all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner. It is a non-binding document that respects States’ sovereign right to determine who
enters and stays in their territory and demonstrates commitment to international cooperation on migration. It presents a significant opportunity to improve the governance of migration to address the challenges associated with today’s migration, as well as strengthen the contribution of migrants and migration to sustainable development. The Global Compact for Migration is framed in a way consistent with Target 10.7 of the 2030 Agenda in which Member States commit to cooperate internationally to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration. The Global Compact for Migration is designed to:
- Support international cooperation on the governance of international migration;
- Provide a comprehensive menu of options for States from which they can select policy options to address some of the most pressing issues around international migration;
- Give States the space and flexibility to pursue implementation based on their own migration realities and capacities.
The Global Compact for Migration contains 23 objectives for improving migration management at all levels of government. The 23 objectives can be found in paragraph 16 of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution adopting the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
IOM resources
2012 Resolution No. 1243 on Migration Crisis Operational Framework. Adopted on 27 November.
2016a IOM Chiefs of Mission Handbook 2016. Geneva (Internal link only).
2016b Migration Governance Framework. Brochure. Geneva.
2018d Migration and the 2030 Agenda: A Guide for Practitioners. Geneva.
2020b Strategic Vision: Setting a Course for IOM. Geneva.
Other resources
United Nations
2018a United Nations General Assembly Resolution 72/279 on Repositioning of the United Nations development system in the context of the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations System. Adopted on 31 May (A/RES/72/279).
2018b United Nations General Assembly Resolution 73/195 on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Adopted on 19 December (A/RES/73/195).
n.d. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
United Nations Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG)
2019 United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework – Internal Guidance.