Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO

1. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Presentation to Information Meeting October 4th 2010 Paris

2. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Purpose of this presentation • Overview of IEE ToR and activities • Main findings and messages • Clarify questions

3. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Overarching ‘evaluation question’: ‘How should UNESCO position itself to address the challenges of the 21st century and make the most of prospective opportunities?’

4. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Methods have included: • Reviews of documentation including Executive Board papers and existing IOS evaluations • Visits to field offices; Institutes and Centres; Liaison Offices; UN agencies in New York and Geneva • Meetings and individual interviews with Permanent Delegations • Interviews with UNESCO staff & management • Attended Regional C/5 Consultations

5. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Limitations of time and resources but confident in coverage achieved

6. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010Starting Framework

7. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Distinguish between ‘global trends’ and ‘global architecture’ Concluded that: • UNESCO has adapted well to trends which have been relatively stable over recent times • Less well to changes in global architecture

8. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • Programmes are consistent with global trends identified • Priorities Africa and Gender will continue to be relevant • PCPD likely to grow in importance and • Environmental priorities given consequences of climate change

9. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Problem is not ‘predicting more challenges’ Rather in the face of ‘architectural changes’ there is a need for: • Greater adaptability and flexibility – rather than bureaucracy and silo-like structures And • New organisational and cultural capacities: partnering, coordination in HQ, risk-taking and innovation

10. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 ToR asks: ‘How has UNESCO’s work impacted the policies and strategies of Member States and what is its relevance to Member States’ policies?’

11. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • UNESCO does not ‘make the difference’ on its own – it works with others ‘Contribution’ not ‘Attribution’ – importance of collaboration and partnering

12. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • UNESCO is generally relevant to Member but central planning still over-emphasises corporate goals rather than specific country and sub-regional needs

13. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Profile of a ‘strong’ field presence – not always present…. • Well managed and led • Broad coverage of programmes/sectors/disciplines • Experienced senior staff –often national experts • Work together across the office • Well-integrated into regional structures • Work well with UN partners • Able to mobilise funds and resources • Have a country (or cluster/sub-regional) plan.

14. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Context matters: • The orientation of Member State Governments towards UNESCO • The stage of development and consequences for ‘needs’ • Proximity to other agencies • The quality and independence of National Commissions

15. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Three main ‘narratives’ – stories people tell of UNESCO: ‘Legacy’ ‘Presence’ ‘Efficacy’ The first was most common and the third was rare

16. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Positioning for impact? • Improvements in staffing, resourcing, planning and leadership • Strong and independent National Commissions • Strengthened partnerships • Locating in ‘hubs’ where other UN agencies and regional organisations are located • Working strategically on ‘narratives of efficacy’

17. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 UNESCO’s role in UN system? - its ‘niche’ and comparative advantage’? UN has become increasingly important to UNESCO with UN ‘reform’ and ‘system wide coherence’

18. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 UNESCO is well-positioned for new possibilities: • Partnerships with other UN agencies • New funding possibilities • Revised UNDAF rules that accommodate UNESCO • Beginning harmonisation of business processes • Recognition of ‘Non-Resident Agency’ (NRA) status • UNESCO is seen as a good UN partner – closest to other Specialised Agencies

19. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 However weaknesses ‘on the ground’, e.g. • Delivering to its mandate and leadership roles • Limited partnering capacities • Poor coordination with HQ and within HQ • Working in silos not in teams • Chasing funds

20. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Difficult to predict future UN ‘scenarios’ but current dynamics suggests need for: • Smaller number of more capable offices • More staff in the field and fewer in Paris • Ability to demonstrate that normative and policy advice works in practice • Supportive HR practices • Mobilising ‘middle income’ country capacities

21. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 The IEE’s ToR asks whether the ‘division of competences between the governing bodies and the Secretariat’ is optimal IEE has understood this to include divisions of competences within and between both governing bodies and the Secretariat

22. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Three problems in the ‘division of competencies’ • ‘Duplication’ • ‘Disconnect’ • ‘Responsibility drift’ • Need for clearer focus on their core responsibilities by governing bodies and Secretariat

23. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 IEE located UNESCO in frameworks developed for other UN evaluations. These distinguish between: • ‘Delegate and control’ – small Board with close control of the institution • ‘Direct representation’ – larger Board mainly strategic role • ‘Constituency based oversight’ – delegation from a set geographical constituencies; democratic strengths

24. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • Each model has strengths and weaknesses: Choice is to build on the existing model or to attempt radical change • IEE concluded that radical constitutional change was not practical or necessary if the existing model could be streamlined and strengthened • Need for stronger policy making and priority setting early in policy cycle & better strategic oversight – avoiding ‘micromanagement’

25. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • Lack of agreement on accountability and dissatisfaction with information provided also reinforces perceptions of ‘micro-management’ • Recommend a clearer ‘accountability framework’

26. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Highly dispersed governance: • Intergovernmental Committees , Conventions, Institutes • Expert committees • Extra-budgetary resources And • The wider UNESCO ‘network’

27. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • Great strengths to this system but UNESCO has neglected ‘network governance’ in favour of ‘institutional governance’ • Need for more coordination and sharing of expertise not centralisation • Current weaknesses of ‘scientific/expertise governance’ • Better use of subcommittees could reduce Executive Board workload

28. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 ToR asks about the contribution of Civil Society and Private Sector • Emergence of new CSPS bodies • Part of ‘global governance’ (Cardoso report) • ‘New philanthropy’ and private/public partnerships

29. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Potentials include: • Informing policy choice • Supporting UNESCO’s values • Increasing UNESCO’s legitimacy As well as Mobilising resources or enhancing programme implementation

30. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • UNESCO remains overwhelmingly & traditionally ‘intergovernmental • Over-concentrated in North • Linked with traditional NGOs and Private Sector • Current practice not adapted to new configurations of Civil Society and Private Sector • Seen as ‘instrumental’ ‘helping us implement our programmes’

31. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • Long Civil Society history in UNESCO • Strong reputation and great potential – especially with UNESCO networks, Institutes and Centres, Chairs, Schools , Clubs, National Commissions • Individual examples of innovative practice but not consistent • Weaknesses in National Commissions • Need for overall strategies

32. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Strategic focus: • Contributing to UNESCO’s goals rather than as instruments for programme delivery • Making UNESCO more accessible and less bureaucratic, especially important for NGOs • Renewing networks that can improve UNESCO’s links with scientists, researchers and communities of practice • Opening up governing bodies to CSPS inputs and representation • Capacity building for National Commissions especially through South/South cooperation

33. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 ToR asks about: 'the coherence between sectors of the Secretariat’ • Concern to leverage ‘complementarity’ – to take advantage of UNESCO’s many skills and disciplines • In the context of global challenges that require a holistic multi-disciplinary response

34. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Many past efforts to promote ‘intersectoral working’: • Cross Cutting Themes, ‘bottom-up’ and funded were moderately successful • Intersectoral Platforms have not been successful – lack of funding and sector management support • Sector silos and sector monopolisation of funds discourages cooperation

35. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 Different needs for cooperation: • Across sectors • Within sectors • Across disciplines • Across programmes • Across parts of UNESCO network ‘Problem’ is not sectors: it is creating an enabling environment for cooperation across UNESCO

36. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 What is needed? • Removing barriers to cooperation • Increasing incentives for cooperation • Identifying a few cross-cutting themes • Strengthening cross-cutting management • Implementing regular programme reviews because programmes are the main unit of operations

37. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 The IEE is required to make ‘actionable recommendations’ Five ‘Strategic Directions’ are recommended: • Increasing UNESCO’s focus • Positioning UNESCO Closer to the field • Strengthening Participation in the UN • Strengthening Governance • Developing a Partnership Strategy

38. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 This is a long-term ‘renewal’ process NOT a quick fix involving: • Cultural change: a more trusting, outward looking and innovative organisation • Building on UNESCO’s networks • Developing partnering capacities and strategies • Decentralising to a stronger but more capable field presence • Putting in place the organisational, management and HR policies that will make renewal sustainable

39. IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010 • How such recommendations are implemented will determine their success • The process of implementation will need to build trust and ownership and encourage cooperation and commitment • The IEE team is convinced that the importance of UNESCO’s work justifies the efforts that will be required THANK YOU!