Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO

Presentation to Information MeetingOctober 4th 2010

Paris

IEE Presentation to UNESCO Information Meeting – 0ctober 2010

Purpose of this presentation

• Overview of IEE ToR and activities• Main findings and messages

• Clarify questions


Overarching ‘evaluation question’:

‘How should UNESCO position itself to address the challenges of the 21st century and make the most of prospective opportunities?’


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


Limitations of time and resources but confident in coverage achieved


Starting Framework


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


• 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


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 structuresAnd

• New organisational and cultural capacities: partnering, coordination in HQ, risk-taking and

innovation


ToR asks:‘How has UNESCO’s work impacted the policies and

strategies of Member States and what is its relevance to Member States’ policies?’


• UNESCO does not ‘make the difference’ on its own – it works with others

‘Contribution’ not ‘Attribution’ – importance of collaboration and partnering


• UNESCO is generally relevant to Member but central planning still over-emphasises corporate

goals rather than specific country and sub-regional needs


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.


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


Three main ‘narratives’ – stories people tell of UNESCO:

‘Legacy’ ‘Presence’‘Efficacy’

The first was most common and the third was rare


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’


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’


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


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


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


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


Three problems in the ‘division of competencies’• ‘Duplication’• ‘Disconnect’

• ‘Responsibility drift’

• Need for clearer focus on their core responsibilities by governing bodies and Secretariat


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


• 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’


• Lack of agreement on accountability and dissatisfaction with information provided also reinforces perceptions of ‘micro-management’

• Recommend a clearer ‘accountability framework’


Highly dispersed governance:

• Intergovernmental Committees , Conventions, Institutes

• Expert committees• Extra-budgetary resources

And• The wider UNESCO ‘network’


• 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


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


Potentials include:• Informing policy choice

• Supporting UNESCO’s values• Increasing UNESCO’s legitimacy

As well as Mobilising resources or enhancing programme

implementation


• 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’


• 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


• 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!

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO

Documents

Transcript of Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO