UNESCO REFORM: F/A EXPERTS MEETING HIGHLIGHTS BRASILIA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 006614 SIPDIS FROM USMISSION UNESCO STATE FOR IO/UNESCO KELLY SIEKMAN, IO/S LISA SPRATT E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNESCO AORC EAID SUBJECT: UNESCO REFORM: F/A EXPERTS MEETING HIGHLIGHTS BRASILIA OFFICE, UPCOMING BUDGET DEBATE REFS: A) PARIS 2961 B) PARIS 03450 ¶1. Summary and INTRODUCTION: At the September 27-29 meeting of UNESCO's Financial and Administrative (f/A) experts' group, the U.S, delegation: raised questions on the legal risks posed by the Brasilia office, underlining the Executive board's fiduciary responsibilities and urging that Brasilia remain on the agenda of the Board; supported draft decisions devised by the Geneva Group of donor nations on extrabudgetary funds and a new evaluation strategy that will promote transparency and program coherence; and obtained additional information on the new merit-based promotion scheme including assurances that it would be used only in very rare circumstances. The meeting was also an opportunity to gauge the plans of other donor member states on the budget ceiling (2008-9). ¶2. The F/A experts' group is comprised of 12 outside experts from capitals charged with "examining from a strictly technical point of view the administrative and financial aspects of the decisions and issues that the Executive Board refers to it." The U.S. was represented at the F/A experts' group by IO/S Lisa Spratt. Because decisions taken at the F/A experts' group set the tone for subsequent debate at the Executive Board, U.S. membership in the experts' group continues to be an important tool to advance our reform agenda at UNESCO. It is perhaps for this reason that during a recent meeting of the Bureau of the Executive Board, the Brazilian delegation questioned whether the F/A experts' group should continue to exist. END SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION BRASILIA OFFICE ¶3. The Secretariat's presentation on this issue focused on efforts to re-orient the programs of the office. The U.S. intervention raised questions about ongoing transition plans, management shortcomings and outstanding legal risks, stressing the fiduciary responsibility of the member states of UNESCO's Executive Board and the need to keep the issue on the agenda of the Board. South Africa's intervention was to the point: "Are these problems behind us?" India and Colombia intervened to support Brazil's assertion that the problems with the Brasilia office are symptomatic of larger problems of management of UNESCO field offices (a point later refuted by the Secretariat); India tried to have the issue put off so that it is not raised at the Executive Board until Spring 2008 (179th Executive Board). Brazil, as an observer, stressed the costs entailed by continuing surveillance of the Brasilia office and asked for an accounting of these costs. Japan intervened, but only to ask for clarification on a technical point. The UK, the other Group I representative on the F/A experts' group, did not intervene. ¶4. In response to U.S. questioning, the Secretariat acknowledged that UNESCO's antenna offices in Brazil do not enjoy diplomatic immunity, absent an agreement with the Brazilian government. The legal advisor reported that the issue of whether UNESCO's claim to diplomatic immunity in the civil suit brought by the Brazilian government is still pending before the Brazilian supreme court. The Secretariat said that UNESCO is still transitioning work with the SIPDIS Brazilian Ministry of Health. Progress on this transition strategy is going slower than expected, as there is concern on the impact on the Ministry of Health. They now expect the transition to be completed by mid-2009, given commitments made to the Brazilian government. ¶5. The decision adopted by the F/A experts' group calls for the Director General to "report back to it promptly on any significant new developments, but in all circumstances not later than its 177th session (fall 2007)." The issue will come before the Combined meeting of the P/X and F/A commissions on October 7. Strategies on Evaluation And Extrabudgetary Funds Key to Reform ¶6. The F/A experts Group approved a revised draft decision that will strengthen UNESCO's evaluation function. The draft decision mandates the use of the evaluation function as a strategic tool, calling for evaluations that are broader in scope as well as closer links between evaluations undertaken and the implementation of the new Medium-term Strategy (2008-13). (Note: This draft decision was devised by a Geneva Group drafting group hosted by the U.S. delegation. End note). The importance of the evaluation function in increasing transparency at UNESCO is highlighted by the fact that India (at the suggestion of Brazil) tabled language asking the Director General to specify the amount of money to be spent on evaluations in the next budget (comment: with the intention, we suspect, of taking aim at this expenditure. End Comment). ¶7. The F/A experts' Group also approved a new plan on the management and programming of extrabudgetary funds that was mandated by the 174th (spring 2006) meeting of the Executive Board, based on an initiative pressed by the Geneva Group of donor nations (reftels). This new plan sets guidelines for more transparency in the management of extrabudgetary resources - including ensuring that management costs are borne by the donors - and for the harmonization of these resources with the priorities set in UNESCO's program and budget. This is important, given the fact that the extrabudgetary resources that UNESCO receives each year nearly total its regular budget. ¶8. The debate on human resources policy was an opportunity for the U.S. to press the need for consultation with the International Civil Service Commission on any merit-based promotion scheme. In response, The Secretariat made clear that the scheme would only be used in rare cases to recognize outstanding achievement, and that any such promotion would be subject to review by a panel. This agenda item was an opportunity for other member states, notably Russia, to underline that the current policies to encourage internal recruitment disadvantage under-represented member states. Others, especially the UK, stressed the need to evaluate the results of staff training schemes. Budget Ceiling: Playing it Close to the Vest ¶9. On the agenda item relating to the program and budget, the focus of attention for the group was the Ceiling for the new budget (2008-9). The member states that intervened played it very close to the vest. The UK said that it is far too early to discuss a budget ceiling, expressing the hope that the new Medium-Term Strategy would bring far-reaching changes; the UK stressed the need to focus on MDGs, to reduce the number of sub-activities, and to encourage results-based programming. The U.S. emphasized the need for continued program prioritization to be undertaken prior to discussions of budget level. Russia expressed sympathy for the interventions of The UK and the U.S.; he said that it might be time to discuss "an approach, rather than figures", proposing an "adjusted ZNG". He also commented that after two biennia of ZNG, it is probably not feasible to continue at this level. Slovenia voiced support for the interventions of the US and the UK, as did Colombia. Japan also said that it is too early to set a budget ceiling, given that the strategic planning exercise is still in its early stages. (Note: in a luncheon with U.S. participants in the F/A experts' group meeting, the Japanese delegation said that ZNG is the GOJ policy for international organizations, but said that exceptions to the ZNG policy can be made when well justified. End Note.) ¶10. (Note: at a meeting of the Geneva Group of donor nations that preceded the Executive Board, member states intervened as follows: The Netherlands "zero growth with a little adjustment"; France "option 2, a 3-4 percent increase"; Italy "not ready to take a position"; Switzerland "usually supports zero real growth for all UN institutions"; Sweden "no decision on budget"; Spain "Zero real growth, will follow consensus". Canada confided privately that it had received instructions for ZNG. End Note.) A Role For UNESCO in African Immigration ¶11. This agenda item - an attempt by the African Group to get UNESCO to deal with the problem of illegal migration from sub-Saharan Africa - illustrates the F/A experts' role as gatekeeper, even on policy issues to be considered by the full Executive Board. According to the Senegalese DCM who presented the agenda item, many African youth are immigrating illegally because their educations don't equip them to find jobs in their own countries; the African Group would like UNESCO to use its competences in the areas of education and Social and Human Sciences to stem the tide of migration and enable youth to remain in their home countries. (Note: the Senegalese DCM also confided to the Mission that a goal is to counter the appeal of Islamic extremism. End Note.) The original draft decision proposed by the African group called on UNESCO to organize a youth conference in Western Africa aimed at seeking solutions, and for the establishment of a fund to address this problem, financed via a 1 euro tax on cash transfers from African laborers in France to their families. The skepticism of the ADG for Africa was very clear in his presentation. He noted that that the proposal for a conference needed further study, that UNESCO could not levy a tax, and that there is a UN group currently developing proposals on the immigration issue. Member states intervening on this issue agreed, particularly on the issue of the tax. ¶12. The F/A experts' group concluded with a drafting session that resulted in a draft decision that was much less ambitious than the original text, excising any reference to a tax. The new draft decision -- which will be forwarded to the Program and Financial Commissions of the Executive Board -- invites UNESCO to study how it can address the problem via technical and vocational education programs, in consultation with other concerned institutions. It also suggests highlighting the issue at the Youth Forum to be convened at the fall 2007 General Conference. Oliver