UNESCO GENEVA GROUP TO TACKLE MEDIUM-TERM (2008-

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 006136 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO STATE FOR IO/UNESCO JANE COWLEY E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC EAID SOCI UNESCO SUBJECT: UNESCO GENEVA GROUP TO TACKLE MEDIUM-TERM (2008- 2013) STATEGY IN ADVANCE OF GENERAL CONFERENCE REFS: A) Paris 5862, B) Paris 6028 ¶1. This is a guidance request, see para 5. ¶2. The agenda of the September 13 meeting of UNESCO's Geneva group will include discussion of the medium-term strategy. This is the first time in UNESCO's history that the strategy has been discussed so far in advance of its projected adoption date (General Conference 2007). Geneva Group members are aware that early debate affords an opportunity for pro-active participation by member states in formulating the new strategy. ¶3. According to the UK, who will be chairing the meeting, the purpose of the discussion will be to agree on ideas that we wish to see featured in the medium-term strategy, for example, prioritization, results-based management, perhaps sunset clauses. In their view, it would be helpful if the General Conference gives guidelines to the Secretariat on the preparation of the draft strategy: "Otherwise, once again we will merely be reacting to a draft drawn up by the Secretariat based on a questionnaire put out by the Secretariat." ¶4. To that end, the UK has circulated in advance of the September 13 meeting a paper to serve as a basis for discussion. The text (excepted para 6) is in fact a Draft Resolution that was presented to the May 2005 Executive Board, the product of an informal Geneva Group Working Group. Given the press of time, the Executive Board adopted only a scaled-down version, mandating that the medium-term strategy would be on the agenda of the next General Conference. The text raises key points relating to reform that could be raised in the context of the medium term-strategy: a more tightly-defined set of principal priorities; ways to implement fully results- based budgeting and management; development of an organizational culture of "intersectorality"; decentralization; reorganization of programs; UNESCO's role in the context of post-emergency and post-conflict situations; improved management of extra-budgetary resources. ¶5. Guidance request/recommendation: U.S. permanent delegation requests guidance on text in advance of the September 13 meeting. Mission recommends that the Department consider the following talking points as a basis for informal consultations within the Geneva group: 
We believe it is essential that the General Conference issue clear guidance to the Secretariat and to regional groups to guide their work on the medium-term strategy. The points enumerated in point seven of the UK text are a good basis for this guidance. We believe that fundamental questions relating to the structure/format of the medium-term strategy must be raised. For whom is the strategy intended? How is it to be used? We believe that the format of the report should be altered so that it focuses more sharply on UNESCO's program activities. For members of the secretariat, the medium-term strategy should convey clear, concise guidance on how to fulfill their functions. Next steps should be clear. Target countries/regions specified. For member states, specific benchmarks should be provided so that we can track the extent to which UNESCO's programs bring about genuine change. To allow member states to do this, the document must be reader-friendly. To this end, we should consider developing guidelines, including page limits and comprehensive summaries, as appropriate. One structure to consider might be to introduce one to three overarching cross-sectoral themes: for example, capacity building. But instead of burying such cross- sector themes in the back, we might consider stating them up front. The strategy would then outline specific ways in which each of UNESCO's programs should contribute to the theme. In this way, UNESCO's programs would gain in coherence. One issue to reflect upon is whether the six-year planning time framework militates against a sharply focused document, particularly given the fact that UNESCO is going through a period of change. Perhaps reducing the framework to four years would be more workable. In any case, the strategy should be subject to periodic formal review by member states. As to the substance of the new strategy, we should strongly urge that the Secretariat take into account guidance offered by outside consultants and evaluators. This is particularly true in the case of the Education sector, where the Education ADG is engaged in a reevaluation process. Regarding process, the Secretariat should hold regular, and not less than quarterly, meetings for all member states on progress forward. The possibility of video- conferencing could be explored. This would enhance member states' ability to shape the development of the medium-term strategy. ¶6. Begin excerpt from UK Text: The preparation of a revised medium-term strategy should begin at the 33rd session of the General Conference with a discussion of the principles which should govern its preparation and drafting; (these could include): a) the possibility of identifying a more tightly- defined set of principal priorities as a clear framework for a results-based approach to programming and budgeting; b) analysis of further steps needed to implement fully results-based budgeting and management; c) the further development of an organizational culture of "intersectorality", both at Headquarters and in the field, in the light of experience with cross- cutting themes, as a means of contributing to the achievement of UNESCO's principal priorities; d) the need to review, in the light of experience with decentralization, the complementary roles of Headquarters and the field in delivering results against the Organization's principal priorities and to make recommendations on how the work of Headquarters and the field should be more closely integrated in order to have a measurable impact at country level, particularly in Member States which are classified as LDCs]; e) the case for reorganizing, on the basis of experience in UNESCO and the Wider United Nations system of outsourcing and relocation, certain programmes and certain management and other functions, in order to improve UNESCO's effectiveness and to position UNESCO more strongly within the multilateral system; f) the need to define, aim at consensus within the United Nations system on, UNESCO's role in the context of post-emergency and post-conflict situations; g) ways and means of improving the management of extrabudgetary resources in order to ensure that they are fully and effectively spent in support of UNESCO's role in the context of post-emergency and post-conflict situations. End Text. OLIVER