Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Presentation to Information Meeting July 6th 2010.

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO

Presentation to Information MeetingJuly 6th 2010


In this presentation we would like to inform UNESCO’s Permanent Delegations about:

• The work that has been completed• The stage we are at in the overall IEE project• Emerging findings and key ideas; and• Types of recommendations that follow


It is also important to say what we are NOT going to do this morning:

• We are not going to present a final report or all our main conclusions and recommendations

• These will be presented to the October Executive Board meeting and relevant reports will be circulated in advance


Since the previous information meeting in June we have:

• Met with all electoral groups and where requested with individual ambassadors

• Coverage of field locations: Addis Ababa, Dakar and Accra; Buenos Aires and Costa Rica; Bangkok, New Delhi & Beijing; Doha and the Iraq office in Amman

• Attended all the DGs ‘Consultation Meetings’ preparatory to the next C/5 – in Rabat, Kampala, London, Port O Spain & Changwon


Activities (continued):• Interviewed members of the Secretariat individually and in

groups across all sectors & from all central management units• Met twice with the DG in order to be informed about current

plans and strategies• Visited New York and Geneva to meet both those involved in

& leading the UN Reform process; and UNESCO’s UN partners• Reviewed extensive documentation from the Executive Board

and the General Conference; from Sector based programmes – Workplans and programme files; from IOS evaluations and other UN reports & evaluations


To start with some ‘high level’ conclusions

FirstAlthough, forward-looking IEE has also considered UNESCO’s

constitution and mandate – and concluded that there is no reason to suggest changes. Indeed we have found the

ambition to:‘build peace in the minds of men’

of continuing relevance also in the 21st century and have used this and similar statements as ‘evaluative criteria’ against which to assess the activities and strategies of UNESCO


SecondUNESCO is not starting from a blank slate – many necessary

changes have been put in place over the last 10 years For example

In administrative procedure, reporting results, strategic planning, prioritising Africa and Gender, decentralisation, starting to build evaluation awareness, strengthening links

with the UN

This has laid the foundations for necessary future change


ThirdUNESCO still faces systemic and fundamental problems that

carry serious risks (reputational, financial and operational) and will require sustained attention over many years

Comparing UNESCO with other UN agencies – both Funds and Programmes and Specialised Agencies (e.g. UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, FAO, UNAIDS & UNHCR) – many have implemented

fundamental programmes of ‘renewal’ and ‘modernisation’ to address similar problems to those that UNESCO faces


FourthOur ‘diagnoses’ often confirm previous in-house reviews; JIU reports; IOS evaluations; Executive Board and Secretariat task

forces recent and historical

Many past reports and recommendations have not led to action. For this reason one question that we have also asked is why it

is so difficult to implement change in UNESCO?


There are a number of answers to this question, for example:

• Limited capacities to manage change and translate knowledge into action

• Lack of a consensus on problems or solutions (or both) which limits or prevents debate

• Low levels of trust and a widely shared belief that most change will yield negative consequences for groups and individuals

• A tendency to argue for a narrow rather than collective interests


Answering questions in IEE ToR

We can already begin to provide preliminary answers to questions in our ToR. What follows should be regarded as

‘emerging findings’ & may be revised


The challenges that UNESCO faces in the future and how to deal with them

• UNESCO has identified demographic, environmental, technological, socio-economic and cultural ‘challenges’ that are global, mutually reinforcing and mostly persistent

• Challenges become relevant to UNESCO when they impinge on its mandate – e.g. threatening peace or sustainable development; or its delivery modalities

• UNESCO’s mandate is wide ranging, with risks of over-extension, fragmentation and unrealistic expectations: identifying challenges for which UNESCO has a comparative advantage is vital

• UNESCO’s ability to deliver requires appropriate resources and strategies, in particular partnerships with other agencies, political consensus, aligned HR practices, adequate funding

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCOWhether UNESCO has had impact addressing these challenges• UNESCO ‘s reporting focuses on ‘results’ not impacts – weak

evaluation culture and limited investment in impact assessment

• Effects and impacts are co-produced with partners & only obvious in the longer term – makes assessing UNESCO’s contribution difficult

• Good examples of beneficial impacts for member states but also underperformance: weak offices, limited skills, small scale activities, poor coordination with HQ

• Weakness in service delivery but strength in leading global efforts with multiple stakeholders – e.g. global inter-governmental programmes


The division of competences between Governing Bodies & the Secretariat

• The ‘division of competences’ clearer in Basic Texts than in practice: e.g. confusion about priority setting, politicisation of UNESCO, micro-management

• Overlapping governance arrangements with semi-autonomous Committees (Conventions, Scientific Programmes, Category 1 Institutes) reinforced by low percentages of Regular Budget support

• UNESCO’s governance rates highly on ‘legitimacy’ and ‘representation’ criteria but less highly on ‘transparency’ and ‘efficiency’

• Areas of governance weakness: scientific governance & network governance – may require different approaches


The contribution of civil society & business community• NGO liaison is well established but mainly as a vehicle for

programme delivery rather than ‘democratic engagement’• UNESCO does not automatically include civil society in its

planning & priority setting: perceived conflict with strong inter-governmental ethos

• There are specific examples of effective private sector/foundation relationship but limited by UNESCO’s mandate areas where private sector involvement is often less strong

• The Private Sector has mainly been treated as part of ‘fundraising’ – a more holistic strategy still evolving


Coherence of Secretariat work within and across sectors • More intersectoral and interdisciplinary work has been

advocated by Governing Bodies & DG for many years: implementation to date has been limited

• Incentive systems and organisational supports (financial, human resources and managerial) have not been adequate to implement this goal

• Informal inter-disciplinary work goes on within sectors and programmes but is not always well-supported

• A systematic analysis of the conditions under which cross sectoral work is necessary and beneficial has not taken place


How UNESCO is participating in UN system and reform

• UNESCO has worked effectively with other Specialised UN agencies shaping UN reform

• Opened up opportunities for: new funding, UNDAF participation and Non Resident Agency status

• Despite improvements UNESCO is not seen as reliably delivering in line with its mandate by some major UN partners – need to be aware of overlapping mandates & competition

• Perceived UNESCO weaknesses: partnering capacities and over-centralisation in HQ balanced by perceived strengths in high level capacity building


Identifying Recommendations• The IEE is required to come up with ‘actionable

recommendations’ –what can be done to meet 21st century Challenges more effectively

• Based on findings outlined earlier we have begun to identify recommendations by first specifying a number of ‘critical choice’ areas

• These are not fully developed but four are presented here to indicate thinking so far


The four critical choice areas are:

• The distribution between country; regional/cluster; and global focus to deliver better results and international

cooperation• Reconciling UNESCO as an inter-governmental body with a

UNESCO of knowledge & intellectual leadership• Improving ‘strategic focussing’ that is thematic & cross

disciplinary whilst recognising the need for specialisation and excellence

• Ensuring that UNESCO optimises its network strengths alongside its institutional governance and management

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCOThe distribution between country; regional/cluster; and global focus to

deliver better results and international cooperationIADGs including the MDGs reinforce expectations that UNESCO should

meet country needs; yet UNESCO is not a conventional 'development agency’. ‘Building peace in the minds of men’,

UNESCO’s normative role and UNESCO’s mandate emphasises international cooperation and countries working together.

Desirable Outcomes• Reconciling direct support for individual countries especially LDCs

with UNESCO’s broader peace-building role • Developing new partnerships & new ways to partner that enhance

the effectiveness & efficiency of UNESCO actions at country/regional/cluster and global levels


Reconciling UNESCO as an inter-governmental body with a UNESCO of knowledge & intellectual leadership

This dilemma goes back to the origins of UNESCO. Being a knowledge broker and managing epistemic communities still requires internal expertise. Many of UNESCO’s partners see

this expertise as weak at presentDesirable outcomes

• A better balance between political prioritisation and ‘scientific governance’

• HR policies that would invest in and strengthen UNESCO’s internal expertise on an ongoing and committed basis

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCOImproving ‘strategic focussing’ that is thematic & cross

disciplinary whilst recognising the need for specialisation and excellence

UNESCO with limited resources needs to focus its efforts. There is a broad consensus on cross cutting priorities such as

sustainable development; poverty reduction/social inclusion; and intercultural dialogue. Experts and scientists argue for

importance of specialisation and disciplines.Desirable outcomes

• An agreed means to decide which priority areas interdisciplinary work is likely to yield the greatest value added

• Criteria and mechanisms to discriminate between apparently equally relevant & excellent programmes of work

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCOEnsuring that UNESCO optimises its network strengths alongside

institutional governance and managementUNESCO is a network as well as an institution. Much of UNESCO’s

reputation & global ‘presence’ is built on networks: Scientists, NGOs, private sector partners, ‘Clubs’, Associated Schools,

Professors, National Commissions, Category 1 & 2 Institutes, UNESCO sites etc. Networks are not fully controlled or funded

by UNESCO but many more synergies are possible.Desirable outcomes

• Capabilities to steer UNESCO networks in collaborative, decentralised but also purposive ways

• Stronger recognition of ‘network UNESCO’ as a home for assets (new institutions, programmes and networks) that UNESCO creates


This presentation reported on ‘work in progress’. Most information has now been collected and analysis is underway

IEE expects to present to the Executive Board in October relevant answers & ‘actionable recommendations’ with

regard to the overarching question set:

How should UNESCO position itself to address the challenges of the twenty-first century and make the most of prospective

opportunities?

Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Presentation to Information Meeting July 6th 2010.

Documents

Transcript of Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Presentation to Information Meeting July 6th 2010.