UNESCO: STRIVING FOR RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT AT THE WORLD

UNCLAS PARIS 004511

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION TO UNESCO PARIS

STATE FOR IO/UNESCO CRISTINA NOVO
STATE FOR OES SHIRA YOFFE
STATE FOR IO/S LISA SPRATT
STATE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DAS HOFFMAN
STATE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NPS STEPHEN MORRIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC SCUL KSCA SENV UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: STRIVING FOR RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT AT THE WORLD
HERITAGE COMMITTEE - REFLECTION FIRST



1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY: On May 30, 2006, consultant Bruno
Lefevre gave a presentation about his work to institute Results
Based Management (RBM) at the World Heritage (WH) Center. He was
one of two consultants hired to examine the RBM framework and World
Heritage System model, and propose a roadmap toward RBM; the project
is funded by the UN Foundation, an American NGO. The purpose of the
meeting was for Lefevre - who retired from UNESCO in 2005 -- to get
feedback and opinions on this presentation from interested
delegations before his formal presentation to the entire WH
Committee at its July 2006 meeting in Vilnius. Participants noted
the abstract quality of Lefevre's work so far, and the fact that not
much progress has been made in presenting recommendations. In a
side discussion, the Lithuanian Ambassador, President of the World
Heritage Committee, said she did not expect the DG to raise the
issue of WH Center autonomy at Vilnius, though she reported that
talks are ongoing. The delegations present at the briefing were:
the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France,
Lithuania, Japan and St. Lucia. END SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION.

ON WH REFORM, "PROCESSES," NO RECOMMENDATIONS YET


2. Lefevre's presentation did not evoke specific reforms. Instead,
the consultants have identified the "processes" of what Lefevre
termed the "World Heritage System" including the Committee, the
Centre, and the Advisory Bodies. In this schema, the consultants
identified core, management, and support processes. Within each
"process", the consultants identified outputs, output indicators,
outcomes and outcome indicators. After detailing these processes,
the consultants proposed four steps to implementing RBM: 1. Define
an overall WH Center strategic plan. 2. Re-organize the WH Center
around processes. 3. Set up measurement system. 4. Restructure
WH Committee governance. In response to questions, Lefevre said he
would present specific recommendations at the 2008 WH Committee
meeting.


3. Many at the briefing thought the presentation would be too
technical to gain broad support and enthusiasm among the
participants at the Vilnius meeting. Both Lithuania and the UK
suggested there be less jargon in the presentation in order to make
it more accessible. The UK reminded the consultant that many of
those at the meeting would not be experts in, or even necessarily
aware of, RMB. Japan agreed with Lithuania and the UK, saying that
the presentation would be improved by stating up front what the
objectives were.


4. Others, including Belgium, expressed surprise and disappointment
that the consultants had so far only identified "processes," but had
not finalized concrete recommendations. The UK said that the
consultant should make clear in the presentation that further
recommendations would be forthcoming.


5. Note: The week following the briefing, the UK and St. Lucia
(former chair of the WH Committee) expressed concern to the U.S.
Delegation that Lefevre's work was not founded on a thorough audit
or evaluation of the World Heritage Committee. The UK posited that
Lefevre might not be sufficiently independent in his approach - ie
unwilling to make strong recommendations -- given his previous
career at the UNESCO secretariat. (Bruno Lefevre retired in December

2005. He was responsible for RBM training at the Bureau of
Strategic Planning. He had previously served as Director of UNESCO
Offices in Ghana and in Cambodia.)
End Note.

WILL WH CENTER AUTONOMY BE ON THE VILNIUS AGENDA?


6. Finally, concern was raised, particularly by Canada, that the
model of the WH Center used by the consultants was already outdated.
She questioned whether the WH Center was in fact spending 100
percent of its resources on World Heritage matters. Because of the
reform of the Cultural Sector, encouraged by the DG and the new ADG
for Culture, there was concern among some in the room that the WH
Center staff would be spending less time on World Heritage issues,
as it spends more time on other cultural issues.


7. There was also the question of whether or not issues relating to
the "autonomous" status of the WH Center would be raised at the
Conference in Vilnius. Lithuania, who holds the WH committee
presidency this year, is meeting with the Director General the week
of June 12; she said would raise this question with him, but
confided that she was fairly sure the topic would not be raised in
Vilnius.
OLIVER