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