UNESCO REACTS TO UN HIGH-LEVEL PANEL REPORT "DELIVERING AS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000424

SIPDIS

FROM USMISSION UNESCO

STATE FOR IO/UNESCO SAM BROCK AND KELLY SIEKMAN
IO/S LISA SPRATT
IO/EDA GEORGE DRAGNICH

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNESCO AORC UNGA PREL PHUM SOCI EAID
SUBJECT: UNESCO REACTS TO UN HIGH-LEVEL PANEL REPORT "DELIVERING AS
ONE": A CHALLENGE OR AN OPPORTUNITY?

REFS: A) 06 State 187687


1. This is a guidance request, see para 4.


2. Summary: After some initial hesitation, UNESCO's Director
General Matsuura is engaging member states on the results of the UN
high level panel report "Delivering as One." In a recent
standing-room-only information session attended by UNESCO staffers
and diplomats, the DG's chief of staff and director of strategic
planning both put a positive spin on the report. They said that the
report emphasizes sectoral expertise in the national development
process, and that this constitutes an opportunity for specialized
agencies. But the director of Strategic Planning later confided to
US Mission Officer: "We succeeded in getting a link between
national development plans and specialized agencies, but otherwise
we lost a lot." Although the secretariat stressed the need in some
cases to "seek to modify...what are after all at this stage only
proposals," UNESCO does intend to be proactively engaged. This
includes participation in the seven pilot country offices to be
established this year. Of course, this will have budgetary
implications, the secretariat notes, and is one reason that the DG
gives for needing a zero real growth 2008-9 budget, with the
ultimate goal of securing real growth. (Other implications for
UNESCO are outlined in paragraph 9).


3. At the information meeting, the DG's chief of staff Elizabeth
Longworth reported that she chairs UNESCO's working group on UN
reform. In terms of UNESCO's efforts to shape the reform process,
D'Orville described the high-level panel as something of a "closed
shop." But DG Matsuura himself made two appearances before the
panel, and there were four UNESCO interventions in all. Secretariat
staff participated and will continue to participate in the
sub-committee of the High-Level Committee (HCLM) on Budget
(represented by UNESCO HR Director Dyane Dufesne) and the Chief
Executive Board (CEB) High-Level Committee on Programs (represented
by D'Orville). Looking forward, the DGs of the specialized agencies
will meet in March to seek a common position on the role of the
specialized agencies within UN reform. The CEB meeting in April is
another key meeting.


4. Comment: Perhaps the reservations expressed and questions posed
by UNESCO and other UN specialized agencies on the high-level panel
report can inform the USG strategy. UNESCO is clearly worried that
its limited in-country influence will be even further diminished.
We continue to stress to our colleagues here that the panel's
findings have not been officially adopted. But the impact of the
"Delivering as One" proposals on the UNESCO secretariat appear so
far to be somewhat positive; there seems to be a realization that a
more targeted approach at the field level is needed, as competition
from other agencies looms. Post Requests additional guidance on the
High-Level Panel Recommendations as they pertain to specialized
agencies in order to prepare for the DG's February 16 information
meeting with member states on this subject. End summary and
comment.


5. UNESCO Secretariat organized an hour-long forum on the
"Delivering as One" report within the context of the "60 minutes to
Convince" series. Highlighting the degree of interest in this
topic, the audience was standing room only, unprecedented for this
series of weekly information sessions; much of the audience was
drawn from the secretariat. On the panel were Elizabeth Longworth,
recently appointed chief of Staff of DG Matsuura, and Hans
D'Orville, UNESCO's Director of Strategic Planning. Longworth
reported that she chairs a Working Group on UN Reform in which
D'Orville and Director of Field Offices Lamia Salmon also
participate.

DG's Office: A Challenge, but also an Opportunity...


6. Longworth began by professing herself pleased by the level of
interest evidenced by the size of the audience, expressing regret
that she had not been able to have representatives from UNESCO's
field offices participate in the panel. She described the evolution
of UN reform efforts since 1997, noting that the report of the
high-level panel was one of several recently issued UN reports
pertinent to UNESCO. Longworth characterized the conclusions of the
panel's report as "going to the heart of program delivery
in-country," stressing that they would "have impact on UNESCO's work
at all levels." Sounding a theme that she rehearsed throughout the
session, she declared "this exercise represents not only a
challenge, but an opportunity for UNESCO." Longworth outlined the
findings of the high-level panel regarding the UN system,
highlighting the need for reform, a weak financial base, a
"supply-driven" approach to programming; she concluded that the
report constituted "a loud call for change" to a system that had
"lost its edge as a source of development knowledge."

Strategic Planning: An Opportunity, but Also a Challenge

7. In his presentation, Strategic Planning Director D'Orville
focused on the potential impact of the report of the High-Level
Panel, saying that at stake is the future of the UN system in the
development sector, and the achievement of internationally agreed
development goals. Regarding the report's impact on specialized
agencies, D'Orville struck a positive tone: "the emphasis the report
puts on sectoral expertise in the national development process
constitutes an opportunity for specialized agencies," but he also
stressed "we must capitalize on this."


8. D'Orville went on to highlight a number of "open questions"
regarding the "Delivering as One" approach (Comment: Such questions
are D'Orville's habitual manner of expressing skepticism. End
comment). Will designating "one leader" - an experienced regional
coordinator - imply day-to-day authority over all agencies, or
better coordination in pursuit of UN Development Assistance
Frameworks (UNDAFs)? What are the financial implications of the "one
office" approach - would costs increase if UNESCO no longer occupies
office space supplied gratis by the host government? How does the
"one program" differ from the UNDAF? Do all of the "ones" have to
be implemented at once, or can they phased - "perhaps there is no
one-size-fits-all model." In D'Orville's view, the key element is
"one program." In describing the panel's conclusions in the areas
of development, humanitarian affairs, and the environment, D'Orville
raised additional questions. Regarding humanitarian assistance, who
can access the CERF (Central Emergency Response Fund)? How will
UNESCO fit into the humanitarian affairs scheme managed by UNDG and
OCHA? On the environment, D'Orville charged, the high level
panel's report "doesn't take into account" UNEP's unique nature, and
"is ignorant" of current UN team efforts, including the WWAP (World
Water Assessment Program) and UN Oceans and UN Water.


9. Although D'Orville rejected a "one-size-fits-all approach,"
endorsing instead a "managed pluralism," he asserted that UNESCO was
determined to be "alert and pro-active" in responding to the panel's
conclusions, including in bringing the concerns outlined above "to
the table." He also signaled UNESCO's determination to be present
in the seven pilot UN offices slated to start in 2007 (subject to
review). Noting the 2012 target date for opening all of the
offices, D'Orville described this as a "mind-boggling task - can we
be in all of them, or can we make a choice?" At stake for UNESCO,
D'Orville posited, is its capacity to: contribute to the attainment
of national development priorities; reassert its thematic leadership
in education, the sciences, culture and communication and
information technology; and collaborate with other specialized
agencies. The panel's recommendations would have impact on UNESCO
in the following areas: the program management cycle; the allotment
of program resources (at the country, regional and cluster office
levels); and the need for staff training in common country
programming and results-based management. The panel's
recommendations would also have great impact on UNESCO's
decentralization scheme, now based on the cluster office model, as
well as on the role of UNESCO's National Commissions; for this
reason, UNESCO's decentralization task force has been revived.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: "THAT TRAIN HAS PASSED"


10. During the question and answer session, the U.S. queried the
panelists on the focal point for UN reform in the Secretariat. DG's
Chief of Staff Longworth said that the Bureaus of Strategic Planning
and of Field Office Coordination both play key roles in the Working
Group on UN reform that she chairs; the director of Field Offices
had just in fact returned from a trip to Viet Nam. The circle is
gradually widening, with the sector assistant director generals to
be brought into the act "as we move more concretely." The group had
recently identified ten areas in which UNESCO would need to change
to respond to panel recommendations. This working group is also
playing a liaison role vis-a-vis other UN agencies. The ADG for
Culture would have to "ensure the rightful place of culture" in
national development schemes.


11. A representative from Viet Nam asked about UNESCO's
coordination with her government in the context of the planned pilot
UN office there. She was told that UNESCO had not participated in
the drafting of the UNDAF for Viet Nam. What is needed now is a One
UN Plan that is a "UNDAF plus", to include strong elements of
education, science and culture. Concern was voiced by a staffer
from the Brasilia Office that UNESCO's administrative rules are not
sufficiently flexible to allow for in-country cooperation with other
UN agencies; another staffer expressed concern about the budgetary
implications of UNESCO's participation in the one UN offices, with
complete coverage expected in 2012. In response to both questions,
the panelists stressed necessary support and understanding from
member states. Implementing the high-level panel recommendations
would mean that "we are going to need to review how we operate"; the
potential budgetary impact of the recommendations is one reason the
DG advocates a zero real growth budget, with the goal of securing
real growth. When a science sector specialist asked how the
"Delivering as One" approach would marry with UNESCO's global and
regional approaches to environmental sciences, Longworth responded
that UNESCO's role in fostering UN cooperation marries perfectly
with UN reform. But D'Orville warned bluntly, "We can't say that
because UNESCO deals with science, we can't be part of this. That
train has passed."


12. In response to a question on next steps, Longworth stressed the
DG's quick commitment to join the 2007 pilots. But a "pro-active
response" must be balanced with a "a refusal to follow blindly - in
some cases we need to seek to modify, not follow, what are after all
at this stage only proposals." It will be important to convince
the One UN pilot countries that UNESCO can lead on UNESCO's priority
areas. Looking forward, Longworth outlined a six point action plan,
including: enhanced staff awareness; a new Medium-Term Strategy
(2008-13) presenting a clear idea of "where we are strong"; the
UNESCO Working Group on UN reform serving as a coordinating
mechanism with links to the decentralization Task Force; UNESCO
presence at key meetings; continued UNESCO efforts at internal
reform; and the DG's continued commitment to reform and to
"Delivering as One". To advance the last point, of course,
financial resources will be needed to pursue the one UN pilot
offices.
Koss