Risk-based evaluation of UNESCO's capacity to deliver;...

Internal Oversight Service Evaluation Section

IOS/EVS/PI/17 REV.

Original: English

Risk-Based Evaluation of UNESCO’s Capacity to Deliver

Internal Oversight Service

Evaluation Section

February 2009

ii

Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1 2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1. CONTEXT / BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3 2.2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THE EVALUATION..................................................................................... 3 2.3. THE DISCIPLINE OF RISK MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................... 4

2.3.1. The Components of the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) – Integrated Framework...................... 5 2.3.2. Limitations of ERM .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.3.3. The Current Exercise Viewed in the Context of ERM .......................................................................... 7

2.4. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT......................................................................................................................... 7 3. BEST PRACTICES IN RISK MANAGEMENT........................................................................................... 8

3.1. HISTORY OF RISK MANAGEMENT AT UNESCO........................................................................................... 8 3.2. RISK MANAGEMENT IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ......................................................................................... 9

3.2.1. UNDP Enterprise Risk Management Policy ........................................................................................ 9 3.2.2. Strengthening Risk Management at the UN World Food Programme (WFP) ................................... 10 3.2.3. Risk Management at the European Commission................................................................................ 11

3.3. BEST PRACTICE IN RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.............................................................. 12 4. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 14

4.1. RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 14 4.2. METHODOLOGY APPLIED ........................................................................................................................... 14

4.2.1. Development of On-line Surveys........................................................................................................ 14 4.2.2. Interviews with Key Stakeholders and Mapping of Previous Evaluation Findings ........................... 15 4.2.3. Risk Prioritization.............................................................................................................................. 15 4.2.4. Development of Action Plan Models.................................................................................................. 16

4.3. LIMITATIONS AND FOCUS........................................................................................................................... 16 4.3.1. Participation ...................................................................................................................................... 16 4.3.2. Survey Design .................................................................................................................................... 17 4.3.3. Priority Programme Areas................................................................................................................. 17 4.3.4. Input from Senior Management ......................................................................................................... 17 4.3.5. Risk Perceptions................................................................................................................................. 17

5. KEY RISKS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 34 C/4 EXPECTED OUTCOMES ................ 18 5.1. TOP TEN RISKS IDENTIFIED BY THE COLLEGE AND RANKED VIA ON-LINE SURVEYS................................. 18 5.2. PRIORITIZATION OF KEY RISKS - RISK MAP (IMPACT/LIKELIHOOD) .......................................................... 19 5.3. COMPARISON OF THE TOP 10 RISKS BETWEEN HEADQUARTERS, FIELD OFFICES AND THE SECTORS ......... 19 5.4. OTHER RISKS HIGHLIGHTED BY SURVEY PARTICIPANTS IN THE ON-LINE SURVEYS.................................... 21 5.5. RISKS IDENTIFIED THROUGH INTERVIEWS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND IN EARLIER EVALUATION

REPORTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 6. NEXT STEP: DEVELOPMENT OF AN ACTION PLAN......................................................................... 23 7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AN INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK AT

UNESCO ............................................................................................................................................................. 24 8. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CURRENT RISK ASSESSMENT EXERCISE ............................. 26 ANNEXES:.......................................................................................................................................................... 27

A. GLOSSARY ON RISK MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................... 27 B. TOP 10 RISKS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE HEADQUARTERS AND FIELD OFFICE ON-LINE SURVEYS ................ 29 C. RISK MATRIX FOR HEADQUARTERS RESULTS .......................................................................................... 31 D. RISK MATRIX FOR FIELD OFFICE RESULTS .............................................................................................. 33 E. RISK MATRIX FOR COMBINED RESULTS................................................................................................... 35 F. OTHER RISKS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE COMMENTS FROM SURVEYS PARTICIPANTS AT HEADQUARTERS AND

FIELD OFFICES .................................................................................................................................................. 37 Staffing......................................................................................................................................................... 37 Organizational Design and Accountability.................................................................................................. 37 Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 37

G. ON-LINE SURVEY FOR SECTOR DIRECTORS AND SECTION MANAGERS AT HEADQUARTERS .................... 40 H. ON-LINE SURVEY FOR DIRECTORS OF FIELD OFFICES, INSTITUTES AND CENTERS ................................... 47 I. LIST OF 34 C/4 EXPECTED OUTCOMES FOR WHICH NO RATINGS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ........................ 55 J. MODEL ACTION PLAN FOR THE TOP 10 RISKS IDENTIFIED THROUGH SURVEYS ...................................... 56 K. MODEL ACTION PLAN AND FOLLOW-UP MATRIX .................................................................................... 57 L. LIST OF DOCUMENTATION REVIEWED...................................................................................................... 58

iii

List of Abbreviations

ADG – Assistant Director General

BFC – Bureau of Field Coordination

BOC – Bureau of the Comptroller

BSP – Bureau of Strategic Planning

COSO – Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission

CRO – Chief Risk Officer

DG – Director General

EC – European Commission

EO – Expected Outcome

ERM – Enterprise Risk Management

ICS – Internal Control Standards

IOS – Internal Oversight Service

MTS – Mid-term Strategy

OAC – Oversight and Advisory Committee

RM – Risk Management

SPO – Strategic Programme Objective

UNDP – United Nations Development Programme

WFP – World Food Programme

34 C/5 – Biennial Strategy (Programme and Budget) for 2008-2009

34 C/4 – Mid-Term Strategy for 2008-2013

1

1. Executive Summary

The 2008-2009 UNESCO Biennial Evaluation Plan (34 C/5) called for an evaluation of the

Organization’s Capacity to Deliver the Mid-Term Strategy (MTS) (34 C/4) for 2008-2013. While the

initial aim of the evaluation was to capture the overall institutional capacity preliminary analyses

showed that an assessment of the entire organizational capacity framework was too broad and not

focused enough. The most sensible way forward, which was acceptable to stakeholders and presented

to the Executive Board in its 180th session (180 EX/5 II.para 20), was to follow a methodology based

on risk assessment. The proposed approach embraced the assessment of the overall institutional risks

for the capacity to deliver against the expected outcomes of the 34 C/4 which had been identified by

the College of ADGs in early 2008.

The objective of the evaluation was thus set to focus primarily on the assessment and prioritization of

the types and levels of risks associated with the attainment of the 34/C4 Strategic Programme

Objectives and their respective Expected Outcomes. In July 2008, the approach was endorsed by the

College of ADGs, which had identified an initial list of 29 major risk areas facing the Organization

during a two-day retreat in February 2008 on “Risk Management in UNESCO”. The present exercise

aims to identify, assess and prioritize the key risks for the Organization.

This report also gives an overview of the methodology and results of the present risk assessment

exercise and compares this approach with the current best practices in risk management in other

international organizations. Finally, the report provides a roadmap for introducing a house-wide risk

management methodology, and ways of strengthening the Risk Assessment approach for future

programme planning and decision-making.

The discipline of Risk Management has become a widely-recognized approach adopted by a large

number of private and public organizations. It has evolved rapidly over the last decade into an

approach for promoting a culture of pro-active thinking that encourages learning from experience in

order to effectively manage the internal and external threats and opportunities for an organization. It

also supports an organization’s ability to make informed decisions and respond to higher

accountability standards.

The Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) – Integrated framework, which was developed by the

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), is widely considered

as the internationally recognized risk management framework, and provided the basic reference for

the Risk Assessment approach applied to the present exercise. Examples of best practice of integrated

risk management frameworks such as those applied at the UNDP, WFP, the European Commission or

in the private sector confirm that in order to be successful, a risk management approach needs to be

tailored to the specific needs of an organization, and take into account its business environment and

organizational structure.

The present risk assessment exercise is based on three main steps:

• Risk Identification This first step was completed by the College of ADGs during a retreat on risk management and

ensuing discussions. The College identified the main risk categories for the Organization as follows:

resourcing UNESCO’s programmes, governance, staffing, organizational design and accountability,

corporate systems, financial management, RBM, quality of programme delivery and visibility,

delivering within the UN system, and the DG mandate. Other risk areas (e.g. Africa and Priority

Gender Equality) were later identified through consultations with key stakeholders.

• Risk Prioritization The second step comprised the assessment and prioritization of risks associated with the attainment of

the 14 SPOs and their 56 respective Expected Outcomes present in the MTS. This was completed

through an extensive consultation process via on-line surveys, which allowed the ranking of the risks

2

and identification of the top 10 risk areas with the highest impact and highest likelihood in which the

Expected Outcomes may not to be achieved. The results of the current exercise showed that the most

important risks for UNESCO lie in the areas of resourcing its programmes, its organizational design

and accountability, its corporate systems and its staffing policies. The following were identified as the

top 10 risks:

1) The gap between expected and available resources;

2) Uncertainty about future regular budget and reliance on extrabudgetary funding;

3) Complex structure which does not promote intersectoral collaboration;

4) Lack of responsiveness to our clients;

5) Inadequate information and network systems;

6) Insufficient accountability;

7) Incomplete performance-based monitoring;

8) Untimely succession plan;

9) Imbalance between process control and programme delivery;

10) Predominance of central services over programmes.

Overall, of the 31 risks that were ranked in the survey, 21 were rated to be ‘high’ and the 10

remaining were rated ‘medium’, thus showing the relevance and importance of nearly all identified

risk areas in regards to their likelihood and/or impact. Surprisingly, many survey participants also

highlighted the risks connected to the lack of staff competence, experience and training.

• Risk Management Response The third and final step consists of the development of an action plan to mitigate the prioritized risks.

This requires further input and it was decided to address these risks in an organizational risk

management framework.

The present exercise focuses on diagnosing UNESCO’s strategic, programmatic and operational risk

areas. Other risk management activities in the Organization’s recent history may be considered as

important and complementary steps towards the development of an integrated framework, such as the

establishment of the framework pursued by the UNESCO Financial and Control Services, and the

development of a training module for managers by the Bureau of Strategic Planning. These risk

management activities at UNESCO have so far been carried out in isolation and have been limited to

the different organizational entities. At a recent meeting in October 2008, the Oversight Advisory

Committee stressed the need for the Organization to build on these efforts and to develop an

integrated risk management framework including both policy and operational guidance, with

ownership of the process and responsibilities clearly assigned.

Based on best practices of risk management in other public and private organizations, as well as

lessons learned from the current exercise, the following steps are considered as critical in moving

towards an integrated risk management framework at UNESCO:

• Formulation of action plans to mitigate risks and setup of a regular control, monitoring and

periodic reporting system;

• Consideration and review of risk tolerance at each organizational level;

• Buildup of risk management capacities and a UNESCO risk culture;

• Promotion of risk management within UNESCO through adequate communication channels;

• Establishment of periodic risk assessment and reporting schedules, and hierarchies;

• Embedding the Risk Assessment approach into future planning, management, and reporting;

• Setup of a Committee for Risk Management and definition of its mandate.

Finally, the success factors and limitations experienced during the current pilot exercise shall be used

to develop best practices for similar exercises in the future.

3

2. Introduction

2.1. Context / Background

UNESCO’s 34 C/4 Medium-Term Strategy was accepted by the General Conference as a rolling

strategy, allowing for a revision every two years so as to reflect evolving elements and processes,

such as developments in the international and regional contexts pertaining to the Organization’s fields

of competence; requirements of United Nations reform, especially at the country level in the context

of the “Delivering as One” agenda; the results and outcomes of programme activities, as well as

findings of evaluations and regular monitoring and internal and sectoral reforms and reorientations, as

well as other critical factors that could put at risk the attainment of the expected outcomes.

In this context, the 2008-2009 UNESCO Biennial Evaluation Plan (34 C/5) called for an evaluation of

UNESCO’s Capacity to Deliver the Mid-Term Strategy (34 C/4) for 2008-2013.

The evaluation of UNESCO’s Capacity to deliver the 34 C/4 intended to capture the overall

institutional capacity in terms of staffing, finance, management systems and processes and

subsequently to identify key risks and gaps in capacities by comparing these to the requirements for

the delivery of the new and demanding programme Expected Outcomes.

Preliminary analyses and results of the initiated desk study and in-house consultations confirmed the

assumption that the evaluation as planned was going to be too broad in its scope, not sufficiently

focused, and rather ambitious within the available time and financial resources. As a consequence, the

initially proposed exercise faced significant resistance from management and throughout the

Organization. An initial stocktaking through document review and interviews with field office

Directors and Senior managers at headquarters demonstrated that the most sensible way forward

acceptable by stakeholders and presented to the Executive Board in its 180th session (180 EX/5 II.

para 20), was to embrace a methodology based on risk assessment.

Based on further consultations and revisions, the exercise focused its scope by using the principles of

risk assessment as a basis. The aim of the evaluation was thus to address primarily the assessment

and prioritization of the types and levels of overall institutional risks for the capacity to deliver

associated with the attainment of the 34/C4 Strategic Programme Objectives and their respective

Expected Outcomes.

The risks identified by the College of ADGs at a “Risk Management in UNESCO” retreat in February

2008 and the Expected Outcomes as defined in the 34 C/4 Mid-Term Strategy provided the starting

point for the ranking of the identified risks (low, medium, high) in regard to the achievement of each

individual Expected Outcome. The Risk Assessment Approach was endorsed by the College on July

3, 2008. Progress reports were provided during subsequent College meetings, with the presentation of

the final results in November 2008.

2.2. Purpose and Intended Use of the Evaluation

The mandate for the original evaluation as it was called for in the draft 34 C/5 Evaluation Plan

identified its overall focus and scope as the following:

UNESCO’s performance will be judged according to how well it delivers the Medium-Term Strategy

(MTS). It is therefore essential that early in the period of the MTS all stakeholders have assurance of

success in this regard. This evaluation will assess the risks that might threaten the achievement of the

mandate. In particular, the evaluation will assess UNESCO’s capacities in terms of: staffing, finance,

management systems and processes, to meet the C/4 strategic objectives. It will identify key risks and

gaps in capacities and recommend actions which need to be taken to fully achieve the C/4 strategic

objectives.

4

In light of the proposed Risk Assessment approach, the purpose of the evaluation has been redefined

and is expected to support UNESCO in developing a medium to longer term risk identification and

management strategy in order to foresee, overcome and prevent difficulties and obstacles in the

implementation of the work programme.

In particular, the Risk Assessment approach aims to achieve the following objectives:

• To identify, assess and prioritize key risks that the Organization is facing in relation to the

delivery of the 34 C/4 Expected Outcomes;

• To provide information and examples of good practice in managing risks that may threaten

the achievement of Expected Outcomes;

• To propose a mechanism for regular review and update of the risks and action plans;

• To contribute to raising awareness and to increasing the risk management capacity in

UNESCO;

• To contribute to strengthening the Risk Assessment approach for future programme planning

and decision-making in cooperation with other services and to contribute to the development

of a house-wide risk management strategy.

Due to the limited resources and a tight timeframe, the current risk assessment exercise is primarily

based on the risks identified at the ADG Retreat in February 2008. Additional risks have been

identified in interaction with key stakeholders throughout the process. Furthermore, a desk review of

risks identified in previous evaluation reports as well as focused interviews with key stakeholders

further supported the risk identification and prioritization process.

For the purpose of this exercise, the terms as defined in the guidelines and training material for risk

management at UNESCO shall apply. These are listed in the Glossary (Annex A).

2.3. The Discipline of Risk Management

Risk Management as a part of strategic management is not an exact science, but is based on

professional judgment. It has as such been applied for a long time as an integral part of any

management approach. In recent years however, risk management has emerged as a separate

management discipline and has become a priority for governing bodies and senior management in

both public and private sector organizations. The concept of risk management has since progressively

undergone a major shift. It is increasingly recognized as an approach for promoting a culture of pro-

active thinking that encourages learning from experience and teamwork in order to effectively manage

the internal and external threats and opportunities that an organization is confronted with. Pro-active

risk management enables management to deal effectively with potential future events that create

uncertainty and to respond in a manner that reduces the likelihood of negative outcomes and increases

the opportunities for increased performance. It further contributes to an organization’s ability of

informed decision-making with a view to respond to higher accountability standards.

A number of different methodological approaches and organizational models have been developed

with variations of tools and terminology used depending on the different business approaches and

sectors and the respective contexts in which these were applied. Examples show that there is no ‘one

fits all’ approach. Although the COSO ERM (Enterprise Risk Management) - Integrated framework,

which is presented in the next chapter, is considered as the internationally recognized risk

management framework, in order for risk management to be successful, it is to be tailored according

to the specific business and needs of an organization. An overview of some best practice examples is

provided in Chapter 3.

5

2.3.1. The Components of the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) – Integrated Framework In 2004 the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) set an

important milestone for the discipline of risk management with the release of the Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) - Integrated Framework which was developed together with Price

Waterhouse Coopers and is built on the foundation of COSO’s Internal Control - Integrated

Framework. This Framework, which still serves as the broadly accepted standard and is recognized as

such within the UN context, sets up a common terminology and describes the essential components,

principles, and concepts of ERM for all organizations, regardless of their type and size. In addition to

establishing a basic definition for ERM, the framework identifies 8 interrelated components that

should be present in a risk management programme, and defines how these should be coordinated to

ensure such a programme’s effectiveness.

The Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)—Integrated Framework relates the eight risk

management components with different types of entity objectives, i.e. strategic, operations,

reporting and compliance, and connects them to all levels of an organization, enterprise

division or subsidiary, as well as business unit/process levels. It is effective only when all

eight components are present and functioning well.

The direct relationship between objectives, which is what an entity strives to achieve, and enterprise

risk management components, which represent what is needed to achieve them, is depicted in a three-

dimensional matrix in the form of a cube linking the objectives and components to achieve these to

the different organizational levels.

The four objectives categories -

strategic, operations, reporting, and compliance - are represented

by the vertical columns, the eight

risk management components by

horizontal rows, and an entity’s

units by the third dimension. This depiction portrays the ability to

focus on an entity’s enterprise risk

management as a whole, by

objectives category, by component,

entity unit, or any subset thereof.

Source: COSO Enterprise Risk Management – Integrated Framework 2004 COSO.

Enterprise Risk Management is not a strictly serial process, with one component having an impact

only on the next. It is a multidirectional, interactive process in which almost any component can and

does influence another. According to the framework, ERM can be judged as effective only when all

eight of the following components are present and functioning well:

• Internal environment: requires the setting of the risk management philosophy and strategy

and defines how it is embedded in an organization.

• Objective setting: defines what an organization desires to achieve. It includes the process of

setting objectives and ensures that the chosen objectives support and align with the entity’s

mission and are consistent with its risk appetite.

6

• Event identification: events with a positive impact are considered as opportunities which are

channeled back to the strategy and objective setting process, whereas events with potentially

negative consequences represent risks which the organization shall address through the risk

management process. This process also includes the determination of risk tolerance and

considers a variety of internal and external forces that may influence events, such as

competition, trends, economic and social forces, human resources capacities and levels of

process automation.

• Risk assessment: refers to the analysis of risks, using likelihood and impact, as a basis for

determining how they should be managed. Risks are assessed on an inherent (risks typically

linked to activities) and a residual basis (remaining risks after the implementation of risk

mitigation measures or considering measures already in place).

• Risk response: Management selects risk responses (avoiding, accepting, reducing, or sharing

risks) by developing a set of actions to align risks with the entity’s risk tolerances and risk

appetite. Whether and to what extent management selects the best risk response will depend

on the entity’s risk appetite comprising likelihood and impact of events, which cannot be

determined by the ERM framework.

• Control activities: Policies and procedures are established and implemented to help ensure

that risk responses are effectively carried out.

• Information and Communication: Relevant information is identified, captured, and

communicated in a form and timeframe that enable people to carry out their responsibilities.

Effective communication also occurs in a broader sense, flowing down, across, and up the

entity.

• Monitoring: The entity of ERM is monitored as a whole and modifications are made as

necessary. Monitoring is accomplished through ongoing management activities, separate

evaluations, or both.

2.3.2. Limitations of ERM

Enterprise Risk Management aims to benefit an organization; however, beneficial use of the

framework will depend on the quality of its use in a given institutional context. Basic limitations may

result from the reality that judgments in decision-making can be faulty, with regard to tailoring the

framework to the institutional needs, or with regard to judgments for the identification and

prioritization of identified needs. Decisions on responding to risk and establishing controls need to

consider all the specificities of the given institutional framework, as well as required human

resources, relative costs and expected benefits. Breakdowns can occur because of human failures such

as simple errors or mistakes, controls that are inappropriate or circumvented, and management’s

ability to override ERM decisions. These limitations preclude the organization from having absolute

assurance as to the achievement of its objectives.1

ERM does not provide absolute assurance for the full achievement of objectives. The

judgments in identification and setting of priorities and decisions in responding to risks and

levels of establishing controls cannot be determined or scientifically guaranteed by the

ERM framework.

1 Source: COSO Enterprise Risk Management – Integrated Framework 2004 COSO.

7

2.3.3. The Current Exercise Viewed in the Context of ERM

The current exercise mainly covers the steps of Risk Diagnosis and the initial steps for the

development of a Risk Response, whereas the establishment of an organization-wide risk monitoring

process, which demonstrates an increasing level of maturity in an organization’s approach to risk

sensitivity and responsiveness, is not envisaged in the current exercise’s objectives. However, this

forms an integral part of the wider objectives to which this exercise can contribute. The results could

then feed into an organization-wide risk management process, and the subsequent steps would aim to

achieve:

• The development and implementation of a systematic, periodic and organization-wide risk

management framework;

• The systematic implementation of a risk-based decision-making, planning and control

framework;

• The establishment and recognition of strategic risk management responsibilities;

• Contribution to the development of a UNESCO-wide risk management approach in line with

UN reform.

2.4. Structure of the Report

The introductory Chapters 1 and 2 set up the framework by providing the background and purpose for

the current exercise and to explain how it relates to the discipline of risk management, Chapter 3

introduces the history of risk management at UNESCO in order to put the current risk assessment

exercise into an organizational context. It also provides a brief outline of current best practices in risk

management in other organizations (in the UN and the EC) and in the private sector.

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 provide more detailed explanations of the applied Risk Assessment approach, the

methodologies used and the related methodological limitations and challenges discussed throughout

the current exercise. These chapters are structured around the three key steps of the risk assessment

process, i.e. risk identification, risk prioritization and the first steps towards the development of a risk

management response for the identified key risks. The report further highlights the results in terms of

risk ratings and prioritization obtained from the on-line surveys and other data collection methods and

introduces a template for a model action plan to respond to the top risks identified during this

exercise.

Chapters 7 and 8 provide recommendations for further steps towards setting up an integrated and

regular risk monitoring and review system at UNESCO and outline the lessons learned from this

exercise. Detailed information on the results of the on-line surveys and data analysis are provided in

the Annexes.

It should be noted that the present report does not intend to provide a full set of guidelines or a

handbook for risk management. References to existing guidelines and training material, as well as a

full list of reference documents, can be found in Annex L.

8

3. Best Practices in Risk Management

Risk Management is an ever evolving discipline. Current major challenges consist in

developing an organization-specific integrated risk management framework and an

organization-wide risk policy. The establishment of clear roles and responsibilities to lead

and implement the process is a crucial element for success.

Risk Management is an ever evolving discipline. Most UN risk policies in the past mainly discussed

the process of risk identification and assessment on an individual, entity or organizational level. The

current major challenges lie in developing an organization-specific integrated risk management

framework and an organization-wide risk policy. One aim is to establish an organization-wide risk

profile (risk tolerance and risk appetite) that will become integral part of programming and

management processes at all levels of an organization. Risk management practice requires constant

monitoring and regular review, in light of changes in programme environment and the risk landscape.

The establishment of governance structures (central risk management functions such as an operational

task force and an advisory body, as well as a secretariat) with clear roles and responsibilities to lead

and implement the process is a crucial element for success.

3.1. History of Risk Management at UNESCO

Until the year 2000, UNESCO had no house-wide, systemic risk assessment or risk management

approach in place. Risk assessment and risk management were based on either sporadic or ad-hoc

activities, and although regularly carried out during the priority-setting consultations for defining the

Organization’s medium-term strategies, awareness of the potential role and important contribution of

a harmonized and formalized risk assessment in the programme planning stage was low.

This approach was considered as sub-optimal and Governing Bodies called for a more systemic

approach. In 2000-01, IOS introduced the notion of risk management and undertook a first

organization-wide risk assessment exercise. The exercise identified risks in five categories (relevance,

governance, reform, esprit de corps and resources) that could lead to a failure by the Organization to

achieve its objectives, as well as a failure to deliver high value to its Member States and other

stakeholders through the efficient and effective delivery of its programmes. This first attempt

involved all senior management and shaped the direction of the first IOS strategy for the 2002-2003

biennium. The process was highly welcomed, but the absorptive capacities and supporting processes

were insufficient to gain significant leverage and recognition throughout the Organization. As a result,

only few improvements took place, such as the introduction of delegation of authority, or the

enhancement of internal control and procurement guidelines.

In 2005, IOS arranged for a discussion on risk management at the College of ADGs to assess which

risks already had effective established controls and what control mechanisms needed to be established

to address the remaining (residual) risks. In response, IOS developed an approach and a set of training

materials which were provided to management to pursue the strengthening of UNESCO’s risk

management capacities. From the outset, it was considered a prerequisite that the ownership of risk

management had to lie with line management rather than with the oversight function. One of the key

challenges addressed was how to best integrate risk management into UNESCO’s planning processes.

In 2007, IOS, supported by risk management consultants, developed a concept paper and educational

materials to take further steps towards establishing institutional risk management in UNESCO.

The proposed approach highlighted the importance of integrating risk management within results-

based management (RBM) and planning and performance assessment. It also underlined that the

understanding of ownership and the concept of risk assessment by management was the foundation

for the successful implementation and use of results. The Director General subsequently endorsed this

approach and designated the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) to act as a “champion” for risk

9

management. A training programme has been established and will be offered in the new 2008/2009

training catalogue for managers and senior programming officers to:

• Present the concept of risk management,

• Assist managers to introduce risk management into their regular activities with the aim of:

o improving efficiency and service delivery,

o making more reliable decisions and having increased confidence in achieving set

objectives,

o supporting innovation, and

o constraining threats to acceptable and manageable levels.

In 2007, a house-wide workshop on risk management, that included representatives of UNESCO field

offices, was facilitated. In February 2008, a Senior Management (College of ADGs) Retreat focused

on the topic of risk management in UNESCO which resulted in the identification of a list of 29

organizational risks in the following priority areas:

• Resourcing UNESCO’s programmes

• Governance

• Staffing

• Organizational Design and Accountability

• Corporate Systems

• Financial Management

• RBM, quality of programme delivery and visibility

• Delivering within the UN system

• DG Mandate.

Priority Gender Equality and Africa, which are defined as the priorities in all fields of competence

throughout the duration of the Medium-Term Strategy were subsequently added to a list of 31

identified potential risk areas.

The current exercise, which stems from the Capacity to Deliver the 34 C/4 Evaluation which was

transformed into a Risk Assessment approach in the summer of 2008, is based on these 31 risk areas.

3.2. Risk Management in Other Organizations

3.2.1. UNDP Enterprise Risk Management Policy

Prior to 2007, UNDP was practicing various risk management processes, which were fragmented and

housed in different units. There was no organization-wide Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)

system in place. However, the very nature of the Organization with a presence in 166 countries

exposes it to a wide range of environmental, financial, programmatic, operational, organizational,

political, regulatory and strategic risks. In response, UNDP recently developed an ERM framework in

order to facilitate strategic planning and decision-making.

The main objectives of the ERM at UNDP are “to integrate existing UNDP risk management tools

and processes into one comprehensive system and enable the organization to clearly identify,

prioritize and manage risks (threats and opportunities) from all sources to increase [the] value to

stakeholders and better achieve [its] development objectives.”2 In order to facilitate this process,

UNDP created an ERM Policy and an ERM Guide to provide the necessary tools and procedures and

to define the roles, responsibility and accountability levels needed to ensure proper risk management.

2 UNDP Enterprise Risk Management Policy, February 14, 2007, page 4.

10

UNDP’s ERM framework is not designed to manage specific or individual risks. Its aim is to set up

the mechanism and methodology in order to allow the Organization to have a common system for

managing its risks. The ERM policy proposes a cycle of five simple steps that are designed to assist

each UNDP unit in creating its own risk profile:

1. Identification: the first step is a list of all risks which may affect the Organization’s goals;

2. Assessment: this step allows the assigning of weights to the identified risks in terms of

likelihood and impact;

3. Prioritization: this step introduced a mapping technique that allows all the weighted risks to

be placed on a Risk Map according to their likelihood and impact;

4. Action Plan: in response to the Risk Map, this step provides guidelines in considering the

best course of action for the identified risks;

5. Reporting & Monitoring: this final step encourages staff to report, monitor and communicate

on the risks that they have identified and on the previous four steps of the ERM process, so

that the Organization’s workforce as a whole can stay informed of the process.

UNDP’s ERM was not designed solely for managers and decision makers, but is intended to be used

by all staff who should be aware of the Organization’s risks and contribute to proactively anticipating,

assessing, and managing risks. Finally, it is important to mention that the ERM Policy and Guide do

not aim to eradicate risk taking, but to encourage risk awareness and making educated and informed

decisions.

3.2.2. Strengthening Risk Management at the UN World Food Programme (WFP)

Uncertainty is inherent in many of the activities undertaken by the WFP. The very nature of hunger

and its relation to crisis, whether chronic or acute, makes the WFP’s work more risk prone; therefore,

it has to be ready to respond to sudden needs anywhere, at any time. Furthermore, the importance of

risk management was recognized even more following the large-scale crises in southern Africa, the

Horn of Africa, Iraq and the Indian Ocean region.

In October 2003, the Executive Board of the WFP decided to institutionalize and sustain the risk

management approach and asked OEDO (WFP’s Oversight Office) to lead and assist management in

this exercise. The Programme’s ongoing work on risk management helped identify several internal

risks that needed to be managed such as those relating to staff and skills, systems and plans, projects

and programmes, resources, information and data, as well as external risks. The driving force behind

the new strategy was the need to not only increase awareness of the risks that the Programme is

facing, but also to develop mitigation strategies for these risks.

Risk management workshops were organized at headquarters, in country offices and in regional

bureaus to discuss the Programme’s objectives, identify key risks and their consequences, prioritize

any residual risks, and rank risks according to their likelihood (over the course of 12 months) and

impact. The workshops also engaged in root cause analyses, a more detailed look into the root causes,

consequences of the untreated risk and a determination of key risk drivers and their relationships.

Finally, they encouraged staff to develop action plans to mitigate the identified risks and risk registers

to keep track of risks profiles for each organizational entity.

Following the workshops, WFP developed a risk management policy and strategy based on the ERM

framework of the Committee of Sponsoring Organization’s of the Treadway Commission. This

strategy was presented to the WFP Executive Board in November 2005. Its aim is to “embed a

systematic, effective and sustainable approach to managing risks and opportunities throughout the

WFP that adds value to decision-making and is clearly linked to achievement of the objectives and

results.”3 Though the process of WFP’s is very similar to that of the UNDP, it includes an extra risk

identification step and it involves active management and staff participation in the following phases:

3 WFP Enterprise Risk Management Policy, November 2005.

11

1. Establishing the context,

2. Identifying inherent risks,

3. Considering controls,

4. Assessing remaining risks,

5. Managing risks,

6. Monitoring and reporting.

Ownership of risk management at the WFP rests with management who must handle risks proactively,

determine risks tolerance on a case-by-case basis, balance the cost of managing risks with the

anticipated benefits, and take appropriate and timely measures to minimize and contain consequences.

However, several entities within the WFP are responsible for the implementation of the risk

management policy:

• the Executive Board provides guidance and direction;

• the Executive Director is charged with promoting a culture of risk management;

• the Audit Committee provides oversight and makes sure that the policy is properly managed;

• the Office of Internal Audit provides independent assurance on risk processes, control

activities and reporting;

• and, the External audit will independently assess the effectiveness of risk management as part

of its risk-based audit approach.

The overall aim of the WFP is to integrate risk management into its strategic planning process, so that

major risks and opportunities can be incorporated into the WFP strategic plan.

3.2.3. Risk Management at the European Commission

In order to strengthen the existing management and control structures and meet clients requirements

and expectations for sound management and enhanced quality results, the European Commission

introduced risk management practice in the framework of a wider reform package for introducing

activity-based management, modernized accounting and internal control systems in the year 2000.

Risk management at the European Commission has since been considered as a tool to support both the

achievement of performance and compliance objectives.

As part of this administrative reform (White Paper 2000), the Commission developed a common

framework for internal control - the 24 Internal Control Standards (ICS) - which encompassed risk

management, to be implemented in all Commission services as one of the management ‘best

practices’. This framework was further revised and the Internal Control Standards for Effective

Management were adopted by the Commission in 2007. Within the new framework, risk management

has been strengthened, with ICS6 on risk management being one of the 16 standards and basic risk

management principles (such as the adoption of controls for identified risks) to apply to all internal

control standards for effective management.4

The first internal control and self-assessment risk exercise was conducted by several Directorate

Generals (DGs) in 2001. Later, some Directorates launched their own internal risk management

initiatives. Progressively, the European Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service encouraged

the Commission to formalize risk management and in its 2004 Synthesis report, the Commission

committed itself to setting up a Commission-wide risk management approach. A communication on

risk management prepared by the Directorate Generals for Budget was issued in October 2005

(Towards an effective and coherent risk management in the Commission services) elaborating on the

Commission-wide risk management approach. Besides the Communication, an implementation guide

and various guidance documents were also provided by the Directorate Generals for Budget. The first

formal risk management exercise including all services in the Commission was linked to the 2006

Annual Work Programmes. Almost all the Directorate Generals applied the Commission’s risk

4 European Commission, Risk Management for Mangers (Training Module 2008)

12

management methodology to their draft Annual Work Programme objectives or activities for 2006 at

2005 year-end. Risks considered “critical” and corresponding action plans were reported in their 2006

Annual Work Programmes.

The 5 main categories of the Commission’s risk typology are clustered around the root causes:

• External environment;

• Planning processes and systems;

• People and the Organization;

• Communication and information;

• Legality and regularity.

Responsibilities for risk identification, assessment and management are shared, with accountabilities

for different levels of risks in relation to the objectives defined at the various hierarchy levels. Staff is

taking an active role in identifying, assessing and managing risks in day-to day operations, head of

Units and Directors are responsible and accountable for risks and effective risk management for

Unit/Directorate objectives. The Director General is ultimately responsible for the risks related to

objectives at the Directorate General level, as well as for developing a risk management strategy. The

respective Commissioner who is consulted on the Annual Management Plan is to be informed of

critical risks in the respective Directorate Generals. Internal Audit and Internal Control sections

provide guidance, tools and facilitation in the risk management process for the Directorate Generals.

In order to ensure that risk management exercises remain manageable and effective, the European

Commission concentrates its efforts on the 5 to 10 top risks at each level of the organization

(Unit/Directorate/DG). These top risks are documented in a one sheet table, the risk register, which

serves as a monitoring tool and for reporting to the next level of the hierarchy. Risks at Unit and

Directorate level are reported to the higher levels. Risks reported from the bottom up may necessitate

a reassessment at the top level as these could be of cross cutting or strategic nature for the respective

Directorate General.

3.3. Best Practice in Risk Management in the Private Sector

Certain approaches, such as the integrated ERM framework, have been accepted as best

practice and the discipline has found its way into the mainstream of business practice to be

further supported by technology and academic research.

The discipline of risk management in the private sector has evolved rapidly within the past decade and

underwent a major shift in focus in a number of interconnected ways, as confirmed in the results of a

recent study carried out by the Economist Intelligence Unit5 in 2007, which involved more than 200

executives around the world. The objective of the research was to identify the broad principles of the

risk management discipline that are starting to emerge as a body of best practice. The enhanced

recognition of the value of regular risk management practice was due to increasing levels of

uncertainty and increasing complexity in organizational structures, wider geographical spread as well

as more demanding stakeholders and the continued proliferating of regulation.

Key findings from the study demonstrate that practices of enterprise risk management, which

historically have a longer tradition in the private sector, are similar to those that progressively

permeated the risk management practice in the public sector.

The report primarily confirms the shifting focus in attitudes towards risk assessment, from an

initially narrowly focused finance function to become an overarching discipline involving all levels of

an enterprise, with the ultimate responsibility for risk moving up to the boardrooms rather than being

assigned at business unit management levels. The key objectives and benefits expected from risk

5 The Economist Intelligence Unit 2007: Best practice in risk management - A function comes of age.

13

management are increasingly focusing on non traditional risks, such as risks identified in areas such

as human capital, protecting the corporate image and enhancing reputation, or those linked to the

regulatory compliance, rather than the management of credit risks and risks of financial losses.

Drivers of the risk management function are both internal, with an increasing number of demands

from the Boards, and external such as increasing regulators on corporate practices and demands from

investors for greater disclosure and accountability. The establishment of a professional profile of an

enterprise risk function (Chief Risk Officer, CRO) is becoming common practice in most companies,

with the responsibility for developing and implementing the risk management framework being

clearly assigned to an appointed Risk Manager. However, the need for a dedicated CRO depends on

the established organizational structure and networking practices in an organization.

Investment in resources for risk management is expected to increase even further. It is suggested to

concentrate on three main areas: People (up-skilling), processes and software. One of the major

problems, the accurate quantification of risk in terms of successful data collection and measurement

of likelihood and impact remains a major challenge. Risk awareness as a corporate value facilitates

and is considered a key for success in risk management. A strong and harmonized organizational risk

culture is required to permeate every hierarchical layer of an organization. Setting the organizational

risk environment is crucial and must be reflected in the systems and processes established for the

ongoing risk monitoring.

Lack of time and resources are considered as the biggest barriers to effective risk management.

Lack of clarity in responsibility and reporting lines, as well as unclear governance of the risk

management process are mostly hindering the success. The lack of integration between risk and

other organizational functions beyond the finance sector are crucial, in particular with the human

resources function, considering the increasing importance of human capital risks.

Certain approaches, such as the integrated ERM framework, have been accepted as best practice and the discipline has found its way into the mainstream of business practice. It is

expected to be further supported by technology and academic research.

14

4. Approach and Methodology

4.1. Risk Assessment Approach

The Risk Assessment approach was developed by IOS using the list of organizational risks identified

by the College of ADGs and the Expected Outcomes from the UNESCO Mid-Term Strategy (MTS)

for 2008-2013, the 34 C/4. This approach, which was endorsed by the College of ADGs in July 2008,

introduced an interactive process comprising three main phases: risk identification, risk prioritization

and the risk management response.

The main purpose of the Risk Assessment approach is to assess and prioritize the level of

risk associated with the attainment of Expected Outcomes that can be found in the MTS.

(The current MTS outlines 14 Strategic Programme Objectives (SPOs) and 56 respective

Expected Outcomes.) The aim of the exercise was also to identify the top risk areas of the

highest impact/likelihood where the Expected Outcomes may not to be achieved.

Most of the organizational risks used for this approach were identified at the “Risk Management in

UNESCO” retreat of the College of ADGs in February 2008. Additional risks (Africa and Priority

Gender Equality) were identified during this process.

To analyze these risks, IOS created the following conceptual model in the form of a matrix that

enables the prioritization of risks (Please see Annexes C, D and E for detailed results):

SPO 1 SPO 2 Expected

Outcome 1a Expected

Outcome 1b Expected

Outcome 1c Expected

Outcome 2a Expected

Outcome 2b Risk N° 1 risk rating risk rating risk rating risk rating risk rating Risk N° 2 risk rating risk rating risk rating risk rating risk rating Risk N° 3 risk rating risk rating risk rating risk rating risk rating

The Expected Outcomes are listed along the X-axis under their respective SPOs and the risks along

the Y-axis. This model allowed the risks to be ranked as low, medium, high or non applicable for each

Expected Outcome via on-line surveys. The rankings were then compiled and averaged to find the top

ten risks for the Organization as a whole (see Section 5.1). This exercise was then backed up by data

from earlier face-to-face interviews and the mapping of previous evaluation findings to identify

additional top risk areas and produce a prioritization model of the identified risks.

The third phase of the IOS approach started with the development of a model for a risk management

response. This phase aims to define an action plan to mitigate the risks and use/optimize

opportunities. Following the prioritization of top organizational risks, this exercise produced a sample

action plan for the top ten risks that will allow for a coordinated management response to these risks.

It will now require further contribution from managers in encouraging a regular review and update of

risks for this Organization, as well as the strengthening of the Risk Assessment approach for future

planning.

4.2. Methodology Applied

4.2.1. Development of On-line Surveys

In order to develop a risk prioritization model, IOS collected data for the conceptual model matrix.

Three separate on-line surveys were designed with an on-line tool (Survey Monkey) and sent to all

Directors and Section Chiefs at headquarters, all Directors of field offices and institutes, and the five

sectoral ADGs. The purpose of the on-line surveys was to allow these senior management officials to

rate the identified organizational risks for each Expected Outcome in the MTS.

15

The first on-line survey was sent to Directors and Section Chiefs at headquarters through the

respective ADGs of the five sectors on August 1, 2008. They were asked to select their sector and

division and consequently select the Expected Outcomes of their sections’ responsibility in order to

rate all 31 organizational risks in relation to these outcomes.

On September 3, 2008 another on-line survey was sent via the Bureau of Field Coordination (BFC) to

the Directors of all 50 field offices, including cluster offices and regional bureaus, and of the 11

UNESCO Institutes and Centers. Upon selection of their respective field office or institute they were

asked to select the SPOs that their particular offices are working on and rate the risks for all related

Expected Outcomes.

Finally, at the same time an on-line survey was sent to the five sectoral ADGs who were asked to rate

the risks for all Expected Outcomes in their respective sectors. However the ADGs surveys were

finally not completed and are therefore not reflected in the current results. There were no major

problems associated with the completion of the on-line surveys with the exception of some phone

calls and e-mails from individuals who experienced minor technical difficulties. The on-line surveys

allowed IOS to populate and to complete the risk matrixes (Annexes C and D) with risk rankings for

all, but 7 of the 56 Expected Outcomes.

4.2.2. Interviews with Key Stakeholders and Mapping of Previous Evaluation Findings

While developing the concept paper for the Capacity to Deliver evaluation in the fall of 2007,

members of IOS met with senior management and field office directors at headquarters in preparation

of the desk study. Individuals were asked to identify key capacity issues – the gaps in capacity as well

as strengths – that influence UNESCO’s performance. These views were later considered for the

validation of identified risks during the risk prioritization phase. (See Section 5.5)

A mapping of previous evaluation findings with the aim of identifying recurrent risks that had come

up in earlier evaluation reports demonstrated that several of these risks match the organizational risks

identified by the College of ADGs. These additional findings further backed up the exercise of risk

prioritization and helped reduce some of the limitations resulting from the survey. (See also Section

5.5)

4.2.3. Risk Prioritization

Upon receipt of the survey results, the two conceptual model matrixes (one for headquarters and one

for field offices) were populated with the risk ratings provided by the survey participants for each

individual Expected Outcome. For each risk, at each rated Expected Outcome, a value was attributed

that would facilitate the ranking. The calculation of values was based on the following scale:

Risk rating Value Not Applicable (N/A) 0 Low (L) 0.2 Low-Medium (LM) 0.4 Medium (M) 0.6 Medium-High (MH) 0.8 High (H) 1

All individuals’ rankings were taken into consideration when calculating the final risk value. For

example, if 3 people ranked a particular risk, 2 chose Low and one chose High, the final result would

be an average of the three figures with the two ‘Low’ responses representing two-thirds of the value

and the ‘High’ response representing one-third. This technique was used to populate, during the first

step separately, the headquarters and the field offices conceptual models.

16

After compiling the results from the headquarters (Annex C) and Field Office (Annex D) surveys, a

final conceptual model matrix was created using the combined results (Annex E). Once again, the

figures reflected the weight of the responses from headquarters and field office staff.

The completion of the combined conceptual model matrix allowed IOS to proceed with the overall

prioritization of risks. This led to the identification of the top risk areas with the highest

impact/likelihood where the Expected Outcomes are threatened not to be achieved (See Section 5.2).

The exercise also produced separate prioritization models ranking risks for each of the five sectors

and for SPO 14. (See Section 5.3)

i.e.:

• Risk priorities by headquarters

• Risk priorities by field offices

• Risk priorities by sector.

The results allowed IOS to focus on the top 10 risks in the combined matrix for the elaboration of a

model action plan (See Chapter 6). Furthermore, the exercise demonstrates that certain Expected

Outcomes appear of less concern at both headquarters and field offices or may even be obsolete, as

they have not been rated and do not appear to be priority areas for the staff who participated in the

assessment. (Annex I.)

4.2.4. Development of Action Plan Models

The risk prioritization exercise provided the basis for the development of an action plan to address, in

a first step, the top ten risks in the most appropriate and timely manner (Annex J). This initial action

plan shall provide the starting point for continuous monitoring and review of risks and the actions

taken. A second model risk monitoring tool (Model Action Plan and Follow-up Matrix as provided in

Annex K) indicates the initial, current and future importance of the identified risk in terms of their

likelihood and impact, the timelines and responsibilities for actions to be taken, as well as the

expected results. It is recommended to foresee a regular review in intervals of no longer than 6

months to report on the progress of actions taken and to review the importance of each risk.

4.3. Limitations and Focus

As for all data obtained from surveys the interpretation of results has to be carefully considered and

conclusions have to be drawn with caution. However, in consideration of the following aspects the

exercise can clearly highlight trends and flag exceptions and differences in perceptions which should

give rise for deeper analysis in relation to specific risks and their root causes in the framework of the

Specific Programme Objectives.

This exercise used on-line surveys to identify the key risks for the organization and

establish a prioritization model. Results were limited by the design of these surveys as well

as the participation rate, which was uneven between the sectors. The surveys also failed to

obtain data for all programme areas, which may be due to relevant staff not participating

in the survey or an indicator of the obsolete character of some of the Expected Outcomes.

4.3.1. Participation

The risk prioritization model is based on findings from the on-line surveys that were sent to directors

and managers at headquarters and in the field. These surveys obtained the risk perception level for the

31 identified organizational risks and the 56 “34 C/4 Expected Outcomes”. Users were asked to rate a

large number of risks of very different significance and this represented a major challenge to the

exercise in itself. By September 30, 2008 the Headquarters survey was completed by 89 people, who

had rated one or several of the Expected Outcomes with a total result of 71 ratings provided; whereas

17

the Field Office survey was completed by 57 people from 32 offices and institutes providing 112

ratings.

Despite the high overall participation, one of the main limitations of the surveys is the unbalanced

participation rate. Some of the Expected Outcomes were rated by several people (up to 11 for some);

however, most were rated by just one or two people. (The Field Office survey produced more accurate

results, as most Expected Outcomes were ranked by several individuals. The Headquarters survey

produced more limited results in that each Expected Outcome was rated by one or two individuals,

with the exception of four that drew multiple participants.) Therefore, the analysis of each risk is

relying on the perception of a relatively limited sample of UNESCO staff members from each sector.

However, the difference in response rates by SPOs and Expected Outcomes can also be a meaningful

indicator for the prioritization not only of risks, but also for the relative importance of Expected

Outcomes.

4.3.2. Survey Design

Another factor that may have an impact on the prioritization of risks is linked to the survey design.

Given the rather extensive and time consuming exercise, the on-line surveys did not separately

measure the perceptions of levels of likelihood and impact of each risk per outcome. Managers from

headquarters and field offices were asked to rate the risks as ‘High’, ‘Medium’, ‘Low’ or ‘Not

Applicable’ in relation to each Expected Outcome in their field of activity. Therefore, from the start

the survey did not require participants to distinguish between likelihood and impact for each risk. This

rating of likelihood and impact for each risk was carried out in a second step during consultations and

in particular for the identified 10 top risks (See Section 5.2).

4.3.3. Priority Programme Areas

One of the other limitations is that it was not possible to obtain data for all Expected Outcomes

through the on-line surveys. The Field Office survey produced more comprehensive results than the

Headquarters one, but both demonstrated that there are certain Expected Outcomes in the 34 C/4 that

are overall of less concern. This can be interpreted in different ways: either these Expected Outcomes

are not considered to be priority risk areas, that they do not constitute priority programme areas, or

that none of the respective programme managers was in a position to complete the survey within the

given timeframe. For example, Expected Outcomes under SPO 8 were not rated at all in both surveys

in addition to Expected Outcomes 7c, 10b, 10d, 10e and 14e and several others that produced different

results between the two surveys. However, the reasons for these shortfalls cannot be fully explored

within the current exercise but might be taken up for further consideration during discussion of the

present survey results in the sectors and units.

4.3.4. Input from Senior Management

As the initial 29 risk areas had been identified by the senior managers at the ADG Retreat in February,

a second survey was initially planned to involve senior managers who would provide their ratings of

the risks. This would have allowed IOS to compare the perceptions of the UNESCO senior

management with those of the managers and staff from the operational levels. The discussions and

individual interviews with ADGs partly compensated for this limitation.

4.3.5. Risk Perceptions

When considering the survey results, it should be remembered that the results obtained are based on

staff perceptions of risks in relation to the achievement of individual Expected Outcomes, which do

not necessarily need to be identical to the actual levels of risks that the Organization is facing.

Perceptions of lower risk in some areas might also be an indicator for low risk awareness, or risk

unawareness in relation to specific Expected Outcomes, which could be considered a risk in itself.

18

5. Key Risks for the Implementation of the 34 C/4 Expected Outcomes

The results of this exercise demonstrate that the key risks for UNESCO were identified in

the areas of Resourcing its programmes, its Organizational design and accountability, its

Corporate systems and its Staffing policies.

5.1. Top Ten Risks Identified by the College and Ranked Via On-line Surveys

The two on-line surveys allowed directors and managers to rate 31 identified risks (35 including

subcategories) in relation to the Expected Outcomes of their respective areas of expertise. Results

were compiled for the Headquarters (Annex C) and Field Office (Annex D) surveys and were then

combined to produce an overall risk matrix (Annex E). This final conceptual model was then used for

the ranking and identification of the top risks.

Of the 31 risks that were ranked, 21 were rated to be ‘High’ and the 10 remaining were rated

‘Medium’. The following table presents the top 10 risks for the implementation of the 34 C/4

Expected Outcomes, as they were rated by both headquarters and field office managers:

Rank Top 10 Risks Risk Type

1 A5: A significant gap between expected and available resources may lead to tensions in programme planning, a failure to deliver and ultimately a loss of credibility.

Resourcing UNESCO’s programmes

2

A1: Uncertainty about future levels of regular budget funding, with a broadening range of responsibilities, may mean that a failure to diversify sources of financial and other resources will compromise UNESCO’s ability to deliver on expectations. / A2a: The imperative of securing increasing levels of extrabudgetary funding may lead to: A decrease in the predictability of funding and increased “short-termism” in UNESCO’s programme development and implementation.


3

D2: The complexity of UNESCO’s structure and a lack of incentive to work across organizational boundaries may create duplication of effort or gaps in programmes, and may inhibit our ability to work intersectorally.

Organizational design and accountability

4 A4: A lack of responsive systems and processes may inhibit our ability to attract partners and put in place operational partnerships.


5

E1a&b: Corporate information systems and network applications that are not fit for purpose, as well as lack of connectivity in the field, may: Increase the challenges in implementing programme activities; consume considerable resources, with limited tangible organizational benefits.

Corporate systems

6

D3: Unresolved tension between a historical culture of micromanagement and control, a desire to delegate authority, and the diffuse nature of accountabilities within UNESCO, may challenge the assurance of stewardship of resources, and lead to a stagnation in decision-making.


7 G2: Inability to articulate, to achieve, and to report on quality results may lead to a loss of confidence in UNESCO’s ability to deliver, a loss of visibility and eventually a reduction in funding.

RBM, quality of programme delivery and visibility

8 C4: Lack of a succession plan may leave us with a significant gap in terms of competent senior staff, given the anticipated retirement of professional staff over the coming biennium.

Staffing

9 D5: An imbalance between a focus on process/control as opposed to programme delivery and quality may impinge on the financial and human resources dedicated to programme delivery.


19

10 D4: An imbalance in influence and decision-making processes between central services and the programme sectors may impact on programme delivery and quality


5.2. Prioritization of Key Risks - Risk Map (Impact/Likelihood)

The following graph represents the ‘Impact’ and ‘Likelihood’ of all 31 risks identified for the present

exercise. The overall Top 10 Risks appear in the upper right square, as these were rated with a high

likelihood of occurrence and a high potential impact. They should therefore be dealt with most

urgently and be closely monitored. The risks appearing in the upper left square of the graph are less

likely to occur, but may have a high impact if they do so. Therefore, these should be actively

monitored and reduced where possible. The risks appearing in the lower right portion of the graph

have a higher likelihood, but a low impact, so it is recommended to keep an eye on them, although

they are not of an urgent nature. Finally, the risks appearing in the lower left box have a low

likelihood of occurrence and a low impact, so they do not require urgent attention.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Likelihood

Imp

ac

t

High Impact, Low Likelihood

Medium-High Importance

High Impact, High Likelihood

High Importance

Low Impact, Low Likelihood

Low ImportanceLow Impact, High Likelihood

Medium-Low Importance

A5

C4

D4,D5 D3

E1ab

H1

G1aD1a

F2

B3,G1bC1

B2

C2

A2b

B1

C3

D1

F1

F3

F4

G3

H2

K1I1

J1

A3

A1-A2a

D2,G2

A4

H3

Note: Please see Annexes C, D and E for a full list of the 31 identified organizational risks that

appear on this prioritization model.

5.3. Comparison of the Top 10 Risks between Headquarters, Field Offices and the Sectors

During the risk prioritization phase of the current exercise, IOS established a list of the ‘Top 10

Risks’, as they were identified through the combined results of the on-line surveys. However, it is

interesting to note the various differences between the way these risks are perceived at headquarters,

in the field offices and among the different sectors.

20

The following graph represents the ‘Top 10 Risks’ (E1a and E1b are represented separately) as they

were ranked overall, by headquarters, by the field offices and by the different sectors.

Comparison of the Top 10 Risks Among the Sectors

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

A5: A1: D2: A4: D3: G2: C4: E1a E1b: D5: D4:

Top 10 Risks

COMBINED FO HQ ED SC SHS CLT CI SPO14

Me

diu

m R

isks

Med

ium

-Hig

h R

isks

Hig

h R

isks

Only five of the ‘Top 10 Combined risks’ are also ranked both in the ‘Top 10 for Headquarters’ and

the ‘Top 10 for Field Offices’. These are the risks A5, A1 and A4 that fall into the “Resourcing

UNESCO’s programmes” category, risk D2 that deals with “Organizational design and

accountability” and risk E1b that deals with “Corporate systems” (please see Table in Section 5.1).

The rankings of these risks vary depending on the survey. (Please see Annex B for the Top 10 Risks

for Headquarters and Field Offices respectively.)

The following risk appears only in the ranking of the ‘Top 10 Risks for Headquarters’, though it is not

in the overall Top 10:

Rank Risk Risk Type

3

B2: Lack of confidence in the Secretariat by the Member States may lead to overly-intrusive governance processes and micro-management on the part of the governance structures, which in turn may consume significant organizational energy and resources

Governance

The following risks appear only in the ranking of the ‘Top 10 Risks in the Field Offices’, although

they are not in the overall Top 10.

Rank Risk Risk Type

6 C1: Lack of definition of our requirements in terms of staff profile and competencies may inhibit our abilities to attract appropriate staff, to deploy staff appropriately and to support staff appropriately.

Staffing

8

G1b: The breadth of UNESCO’s mandate poses special challenges, complicated by an inability to articulate well and focus on priorities, and may lead to: Difficulty in achieving quality programme results across the broad spectrum leading to a loss of credibility and a loss of UNESCO’s strategic position and role in the multilateral system.


21

The highest risk for the Education Sector is C4 that deals with staffing. This concern is further

supported by the comments made by survey participants as will be explained in the following section

of this report.

The highest risk for the Natural Sciences Sector is A5 (resourcing programmes), which is also the top

overall risk, with D2 (organizational design and accountability) and A1 (resourcing programmes)

coming close behind.

The highest risk for the Social and Human Sciences Sector is also A5 with A4 (resourcing

programmes) and C4 (staffing) close behind.

The highest risk for the Culture Sector is A5 with A1 (both fall into the resourcing programmes

category) and E1a (corporate systems) following.

The highest risk for the Communication and Information Sector is C4 (staffing) with D3

(organizational design and accountability) and A4 (resourcing programmes) following.

Finally, for Post-conflict and Post-disaster operations, the highest risks are E1a and b (corporate

systems), D4 (organizational design and accountability) and A1 (resourcing programmes).

5.4. Other Risks highlighted by survey participants in the On-line Surveys

After completing the ranking of the 31 identified risks in the on-line survey, participants were asked

for their comments on any additional risks that may be affecting UNESCO. Many of these risks fall

into the already identified categories of the current exercise, but do not necessary appear in the Top 10

ranking. Most of them focus on Staffing issues and Organizational design and accountability. The full

list can be seen in Annex F.

5.5. Risks Identified through Interviews with Key Stakeholders and in Earlier Evaluation Reports

In the fall of 2007, IOS staff met with a number of senior management officials and field office

directors who were present at headquarters in order to discuss potential risks for the Organization.

Following these interviews, an issues paper was produced that outlined risks in the following

categories:

• Intersectoral and multidisciplinary approaches

• Decentralization

• Knowledge

• Strategic partnerships

• UNESCO’s roles as a catalyst and a neutral broker

• Human resources and staff capacities

• Recruitment and rotation policies

• Administrative processes

• Management systems and processes

• Results-based management

• Reporting processes

• Organizational structures

• UN reform

• What UNESCO is trying to deliver

• Measures of capacity

• Extrabudgetary sources

22

• Intersectoral communication

• Governance structures.

Many of these areas were later incorporated into the 31 organizational risks used for the present

exercise.

In early 2008, IOS also undertook a review of all evaluation reports from the 2003-2007 period in

order to identify the major risks disclosed in the evaluations. Further evaluation reports from 2008

were examined prior to the completion of this exercise. Some of the risks identified in the reports can

be matched up to the 31 main risks used for this approach, while others can be classed into additional

categories. The following is a summary of the main risks identified in the evaluation reports:

• Lack of exit strategies for many programmes;

• Strategic approach and evidence of training is not clear in programming;

• Poor understanding of the roles and accountabilities for activities between units, regional

bureaus and national offices;

• Lack of communication/coordination between headquarters and field offices is leading to

programme overlap and ineffective use of resources;

• Limited resources to fulfill the mandate;

• Lack of ongoing monitoring and user feedback mechanisms on programme delivery;

• Poorly articulated project objectives and mechanisms;

• Strategic alignment of UNESCO’s activities is not always taken into consideration;

• Deviation of programme priorities from original plan in order to match priorities of donors;

• Low quality or missing monitoring information.

Numerous additional programme-specific risks were identified throughout the process.

23

6. Next Step: Development of an Action Plan

Following the identification and prioritization phases of the Risk Assessment approach, the next step

is to develop an action plan. In order to make risk management effective and keep documentation and

reporting to a manageable level, it is recommended to focus on the identified key risks (Top 10

Risks). The development of a comprehensive and realistic action plan requires the active involvement

of stakeholders from UNESCO’s senior management and from the operational levels of all sectors. A

relevant consultation process through interviews with key stakeholders and on-line consultations

should be launched for the purpose of formulating an action plan and ensuring agreement and

feasibility of the proposed actions.

As a result, the action plan would outline the responsibilities, accountabilities and timelines for

mitigating the risks, as well as report on the progress. The following is a simplified model for the

elaboration and monitoring of relevant actions:

Risk Description Risk Type

Likelihood / Impact

Description of Actions

Responsibility

Timeline/Deadline

C4: Lack of succession plan may leave us with a significant gap in terms of competent senior staff, given the anticipated retirement of professional staff over the coming biennium.

Staffing High / High

Development of human capital and succession plan

HRM, Sector management etc.

December 2009

24

7. Recommendations for an Integrated Risk Management Framework at UNESCO During a meeting with the Oversight Advisory Committee (OAC) on October 28, 2008, it was

recommended that UNESCO take measures towards establishing a more integrated risk management

framework, including policy and operational guidance. The current risk assessment exercise and

discussions with key stakeholders demonstrate that the Organization already has a number of relevant

complementary risk management activities in place, such as the internal financial risk and control

framework developed progressively by BOC, or the training module on risk management developed

by BSP and offered in the 2008/2009 training catalogue. However, the respective activities are

isolated and one of the major challenges will be to identify the gaps and steps necessary to connect the

different elements and combine the various efforts in the framework of a house-wide risk

management strategy.

“A risk management framework should be developed including policy and operational

guidance. Risks identified at the retreat should be prioritized, grouped, and ownership

should be established with responsibilities assigned.” Minutes of the OAC meeting of 28

October 2008.

Based on the review of best practices of risk management practices in other public and private

organizations as well as lessons learned from the current exercise, a number of critical success factors can be identified and should be considered and discussed for the elaboration of an integrated

risk management framework at UNESCO:

• The risk management framework needs to be tailored to the business and structure of the

Organization;

• The commitment to risk management must lie with management ensuring the allocation of

necessary time and resources;

• Action plans that are realistic and feasible within the organizational framework need to be

formulated, implemented and monitored;

• Responsibilities and accountabilities for implementing the strategic and operational risk

framework need to be established at each level throughout the Organization;

• The level of risk tolerance for the Organization, and for each hierarchy level needs to be

agreed upon;

• Capacities, relevant expertise and skills to manage risks effectively need to be built up

throughout the Organization.

The following recommendations give some possible next steps forward in order for UNESCO to

build on the results of the current exercise as well as other ongoing risk management activities, and to

progressively develop an organization-wide and organization-deep risk management and control

framework tailored to its needs.

1) Formulate action plans to mitigate risks and set up a regular control, monitoring and periodic reporting system. The development of action plans is an important step for the mitigation of risks. It is essential that

relevant stakeholders, i.e. risk owners, actively participate in the formulation of action plans and

consequently in their follow up, as well as the implementation and monitoring processes. Mechanisms

for accountability and periodic reporting should wherever possible be aligned with the existing RBM

reporting cycles.

2) Consider and review risk tolerance at each organizational level. Risk self assessment exercises should be carried out periodically at the departmental/unit/field office

levels. Depending on the level of risk tolerance in the different spheres of the Organization, thresholds

of risk acceptance should be established in relation to each risk for each of the specific programme

25

objectives (see Risk Matrixes in Annex C, D and E). These risk levels may differ between sectors,

between headquarters and field offices and between the different organizational hierarchy levels.

UNESCO must establish these risk tolerance levels for the Organization as a whole and throughout

the different levels in order to define at what levels and to what extent risk mitigation measures and

control will be required.

3) Build up risk management capacities and a UNESCO risk culture. Managers throughout the Organization should systematically participate in the newly offered training

modules and contribute to establishing an encouraging environment that requires applying risk

management to day-to-day management operations. Risk management competences should be

considered in job descriptions and during performance assessment discussions. Vacancy

announcements for new positions shall, where appropriate, include risk management capacities as a

requirement or desirable asset.

4) Promote risk management within UNESCO through adequate communication channels. A webpage on risk management in UNESCO could be established offering access to literature and

training material as well as an on-line training and self assessment features. Risk Management at

UNESCO could be proposed as a topic for one of the upcoming 60 minutes sessions.

5) Establish periodic risk assessment and reporting schedules, and hierarchies. Risk assessment exercises and respective reporting to senior management should be conducted

periodically. Appropriate periodic assessment and reporting schedules as well as reporting lines shall

be set up for the different sector/service/unit levels. Regular reporting on the establishment of the

integrated risk management framework will be also required to the biannual meetings with the

Oversight Advisory Committee.

6) Embed the Risk Assessment approach into future planning, management, and reporting. The risk management perspective should be included in the process of the development of the C5

biannual work programmes in a way to allow a regular review and necessary adaptation of the

identified risk framework. It is recommended to investigate possibilities to integrate these steps into

the programming and monitoring modules in SISTER/FABS.

7) Set up a Risk Management Committee and define its mandate. As an initial step it is proposed to set up a Risk Management Committee with agreed-upon

deliverables and a mandate, including the formulation of an action plan for the risks identified in this

exercise and the assignment of responsibilities and accountabilities for the implementation of the

above recommendations.

Given the decentralized nature of UNESCO’s activities, it is not recommended to establish a separate

risk management function. The nature of an integrated risk management framework requires a

systematic approach of integrating risk awareness and risk management into management best

practices within the entire Organization. The proposed Risk Management Committee should take the

lead in steering the process and in coordinating the different elements and risk management activities

in a coherent manner. It shall ensure that decisions from senior management be based on an informed

decision-making process.

26

8. Lessons Learned from the Current Risk Assessment Exercise

Risk awareness is the first step of managing risks: The risk identification exercise carried out

during the Risk Management at UNESCO retreat of the College of ADGs in February 2008 fulfills the

strategic aspect of setting the risk environment at UNESCO. However, in order to establish an

integrated risk framework for UNESCO, similar brainstorming exercises should be carried out at the

different organizational levels. Brainstorming exercises at the unit/sector levels would contribute to a

deeper analysis and understanding of risks by individual staff and thus enhance the establishment of

an organization-wide risk framework.

Design and participation in surveys: Surveys and in particular on-line surveys are an excellent tool

to reach a large number of stakeholders and obtain relevant input from individuals located throughout

the Organization and in particular in the field offices. However, the considerable length and time

involvement for completion of the survey was considered as not motivating for some respondents and

had an impact on the participation rate. Although response rates were satisfactory overall, it cannot be

fully ensured that risk ratings represent a balanced organization-wide perspective. In the future,

participation rates for similar exercises could be defined proportionally in line with the size and

relevant importance of sectors/services. The survey could also be used as a tool to establish the risk

tolerance in terms of likelihood and impact at the time of the rating of the risks.

Need to define risk events and responsibilities at the different levels of the hierarchy: Regarding

the focus of the survey, it cannot be excluded that some of the risks that were formulated by senior

management may have been perceived from a more operational perspective by the respondents

completing the survey. Ideally, the survey should have been completed in parallel by senior

management. A comparative risk rating would have provided insight on whether and to what extent

perceptions differ between senior management and staff.

External risks, i.e. risks linked to the external environment outside UNESCO (geopolitical,

macro-economic risks, natural disasters, external partners etc.) are not explicitly covered in the

current risk assessment exercise. Although inherently considered in some of the risk categories,

external risks could become a separate risk category in the future.

It is essential to define responsibility/accountability for the formulation of the action plan: The

current exercise, which is built on the risks that were identified by the College of ADGs, focused on

the assessment and prioritization of these risks. However, the role and perspective of IOS precludes

itself from the active elaboration of action plans. In order to establish timely and relevant action plans,

the proposal and formulation of possible actions by stakeholders could be taken into consideration and

combined at the time of the risk rating.

Identified risks should be clearly analyzed and distinct from the outset: Each risk event should be

treated separately in order to facilitate the drafting and monitoring of an action plan. Risk events

should be broken down to manageable levels wherever possible. During the stage of the definition of

action plans, overlaps between different risk categories may become apparent. A deeper analysis in

regard to this aspect is important prior to the rating and prioritization of risks as it can contribute to

avoid such overlap at a later stage. Some risks, such as reputational risks, which are inherent in a

number of other risk categories, might be re-considered in regard to their importance and may be

placed in separate risk categories.

Parallel Risk assessment for Central and Support services: The exercise mainly considers the

operational /programme side of the Organization. However, a similar exercise could be carried out in

regard to the objectives and expected outcomes of central and support services, which are essential for

the functioning of the organizational programme delivery.

27

Annexes:

A. Glossary on Risk Management

Action plan: A tool that outlines the steps to take for the mitigation of risks. It specifies the activities

that need to be carried out, responsibility and accountability functions, as well as the timeline and

resources required.

Controls: Measures such as policies and procedures that help ensure that risk responses are carried

out. They include preventive, corrective, directive and detective controls. (See also: internal control)

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): A model framework developed by the Committee of

Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) that serves as the broadly accepted

standard for risk management. It is a process whereby an organization optimizes the manner in which

it takes risks. It relates eight essential components of the risk management process with the different

types of risk categories to support four objectives (strategic, operations, reporting and compliance).

ERM is a multidirectional, iterative process in which almost any component can and does influence

another. Hence, it is effective only when all components are functioning well and are applied

throughout an organization. (See also: Risk Management and Integrated Risk Management)

Escalation point: The tolerance level where risk is transferred to a higher level of management with a

higher risk appetite and better adapted means of dealing with a risk. (See also: tolerance level and risk

appetite/tolerance)

Exposure: The consequences, as a combination of impact and likelihood, which may be experienced

by the organization if a specific risk event occurs. (See also: impact and likelihood)

Horizon scanning: Systematic activity designed to identify, as early as possible, indicators of change

in risks searching for potential future disruptive challenges, opportunities and threats. Many problems

can be turned into opportunities when spotted early.

Impact: The positive or negative implications of risk.

Importance: The combination of likelihood and impact, taking account of the actions already taken

and controls already in place. (See also: action and control)

Inherent risk: The risk in the absence of controls or actions that management may take to alter the

likelihood of occurrence and/or the severity of impact. (See also: residual risk)

Integrated Risk Management: A continuous, pro-active and systematic process to understand,

manage and communicate risk from an organization-wide perspective and at every organizational

level. It feeds into the informed decision-making and planning process. (See also: Risk Management

and Enterprise Risk Management)

Internal control: A type of risk response comprised of the policies, procedures and other actions

implemented by an organization in order to manage risk. (See also: controls)

Likelihood: A qualitative or quantitative description of probability.

Residual risk: The risk remaining after the implementation of risk response strategies and actions to

mitigate inherent risks, assuming that the action is effective. It represents the actual exposure of the

organization. (See also: inherent risk)

28

Risk: An uncertain event with the potential to influence significantly the achievement of an

organization’s objectives and performance positively (thus creating an opportunity), negatively (thus

producing a threat), or both.

Risk appetite/tolerance: The threshold level of acceptance of the likelihood and impact relative to the

importance of a specific objective.

Risk assessment: The evaluation of risk in terms of the severity of its impact and likelihood of

occurrence with the aim to produce a risk ranking and prioritization model. Risks are assessed on an

inherent and a residual basis. (See also: risk matrix and risk profile/register)

Risk categories: Risks can be internal (strategic, programmatic, operational, financial…), external

(political, economic, socio-cultural, technological, legal or regulatory, environmental, staff

security…) or both (relationships, partnerships, reputation…).

Risk Management: A structured approach to manage major risks facing the Organization. The

process aims to identify, assess, develop strategies to manage/mitigate it and implement the strategy

through people, processes and systems, thus managing uncertainty throughout the entire organization.

(See also: Integrated Risk Management and Enterprise Risk Management)

Risk matrix: A simple model for reflecting the importance (likelihood and impact) of risks to inform

the discussion on risk acceptance or mitigation.

Risk priority: Emerges as a result of a completed risk assessment. The higher the importance of a risk,

the higher is the priority to address it. The critical risks (key risks) should be managed with urgent

priority and regularly monitored. (See also: risk assessment).

Risk profile/register: A model that captures the essential information of risk management: the

identification of risk, its importance in terms of impact and likelihood, and any action taken so far or

any further action required to manage it.

Risk response: Addressing risk through one of the following approaches:

- Tolerate: accept a risk, and therefore take no action to alter the perceived impact and/or

likelihood of a risk.

- Treat: take action(s) (i.e. implement internal controls) to reduce the impact and/or likelihood

of a risk materializing

- Transfer: share part or shift all of the risk to another entity.

- Terminate: avoid or eliminate the risk, for example by terminating an activity.

The choice depends on the entity’s risk tolerance and appetite.

Risk strategy: The overall organizational approach to risk management as defined by the

organization. It should be documented and easily available.

Tolerance level: The cutoff line between acceptable and unacceptable exposure to risk. (See also:

escalation point)

Vulnerability: The combination of the impact that a risk may have on the achievement of the

organization’s objectives and the likelihood of it occurring.

29

B. Top 10 Risks as Identified by the Headquarters and Field Office On-line Surveys

Top 10 Risks at Headquarters

Rank Risk Risk Type

1





3

B2: Lack of confidence in the Secretariat by the Member States may lead to overly-intrusive governance processes and micro-management on the part of the governance structures, which in turn may consume significant organizational energy and resources.

Governance

4



5





7 D5: An imbalance between a focus on process/control as opposed to programme delivery and quality may impinge on the financial and human resources dedicated to programme delivery.


8 C4: Lack of a succession plan may leave us with a significant gap in terms of competent senior staff, given the anticipated retirement of professional staff over the coming biennium.

Staffing

9

E1b: Corporate information systems and network applications that are not fit for purpose, as well as lack of connectivity in the field, may: Consume considerable resources, with limited tangible organizational benefits.

Corporate systems



30

Top 10 Risks in the Field Offices and Institutes

Rank Risk Risk Type



2

E1ab: Corporate information systems and network applications that are not fit for purpose, as well as lack of connectivity in the field, may: Increase the challenges in implementing programme activities; Consume considerable resources, with limited tangible organizational benefits.

Corporate systems

3





5



6 C1: Lack of definition of our requirements in terms of staff profile and competencies may inhibit our abilities to attract appropriate staff, to deploy staff appropriately and to support staff appropriately.

Staffing



8

G1b: The breadth of UNESCO’s mandate poses special challenges, complicated by an inability to articulate well and focus on priorities, and may lead to: Difficulty in achieving quality programme results across the broad spectrum leading to a loss of credibility and a loss of UNESCO’s strategic position and role in the multilateral system.


9 D4: An imbalance in influence and decision-making processes between Central Services and the Programme Sectors may impact on programme delivery and quality.


10

B1: A tendency on the part of the Secretariat to present issues in a positive light and to make overly-optimistic commitments that may lead to misunderstandings, and impact on the level of confidence that the Member States have in the Secretariat.

Governance

31

C. Risk Matrix for Headquarters Results 34 C 4 SPOs AND RESPECTIVE EXPECTED OUTCOMES

1. Strengthening UNESCO’s global lead and coordination role for EFA and providing support to national leadership in favour of EFA

2. Developing policies, capacities and tools for quality education for all and lifelong learning as well as promoting education for sustainable development

3. Leveraging scientific knowledge for the benefit of the environment and the management of natural resources

4. Fostering policies and capacity-building in science, technology and innovation

5. Contributing to disaster preparedness and mitigation

6. Promoting principles, practices, and ethical norms relevant for scientific and technological development

7. Enhancing research-policy linkages on social transformations

8. Fostering research on critical emerging ethical and social issues

9. Strengthening the contribution of culture to sustainable development

10. Demonstrating the importance of exchange and dialogue among cultures to social cohesion and reconciliation in order to develop a culture of peace

11. Sustainably protecting and enhancing cultural heritage

12. Enhancing universal access to information and knowledge

13. Fostering pluralistic, free and Independent media and infostructures

14. Support through UNESCO’s domains to countries in post-conflict situations and post-disaster situations Risk Factors (as

identified by CADGs)

1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 2g 3a 3b 3c 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 5c 5d 6a 6b 6c 7a 7b 7c 8a 8b 9a 9b 9c 9d 9e 10a 10b 10c 10d 10e 11a 11b 11c 11d 12a 12b 12c 12d 13a 13b 13c 14a 14b 14c 14d 14e 14f

A1: 0.8 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 1 0.6 0.4 0.6 1 1 1

A2:

A2a: 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.2 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 0.6 0.86 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.95 0.84 0.8 1 1 0.2 0.6 1 0.8 0.6

A2b: 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 1 1 1 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.46 1 0.6 1 0 0.8 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.9 0.76 0.6 0.8 1 1 0.2 0.4 1 0.8 0.6

A3: 1 0.4 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.46 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.68 0.68 1 0.6 1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 1 1

A4: 0.8 0.8 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.8 0.93 1 0.2 0 1 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.2 0.2 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.86 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 1 1

A: Resourcing UNESCO’s

programmes

A5: 1 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.6 0.4 1 1 0.86 0.8 1 1 0.6 1 0.86 1 1 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.84 0.6 0.6 1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 1 1

B1: 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 1 1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.46 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.6 1 0.51 0.36 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.4 0.2 0.2 1 0.8

B2: 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 1 0.6 1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.73 0.68 1 0.4 1 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.6 1 B: Governance

B3: 0.3 0.4 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 1 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.73 0.68 1 1 1 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.1

C1: 0.8 0.4 1 0.4 1 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.43 1 1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.6 1 0.68 0.68 1 0.8 1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

C2: 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.36 0.8 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.73 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.6 1 0.66 0.56 1 0.8 1 0 0.4 0.6 0.6 1 0.6

C3: 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.43 0.6 0.6 0 0 0.2 0.46 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.6 0.6 0.48 0.56 0.6 0.3 1 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 C: Staffing

C4: 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 1 0.2 0.6 1 0.4 0.73 0.6 0 1 0.2 1 0.73 1 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.77 0.76 1 0.8 1 1 0.4 0.4 1 0.6 0.8

D1:

D1a: 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.3 0 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.66 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.71 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 1 0.6

D1b: 0.6 0.8 0 0.6 0.3 0 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.73 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.2 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.75 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.4 1 1 0.8

D2: 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 1 1 1 0.2 0.73 0.8 0.2 1 1 1 0.86 1 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 1 1 1 1 0.86 0.92 1 0.8 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 1

D3: 0.8 0.6 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 1 1 1 0.86 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.95 1 1 0.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.4

D4: 0.4 0.4 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.4 1 0.8 0.86 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.86 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.95 0.84 1 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 1 1 0.6

D: Organizational Design and

Accountability

D5: 0.8 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 1 0.6 0.4 1 0.6 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.95 0.84 1 1 1 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.6 1 0.4

E1:

E1a 0.4 0.8 1 0.8 1 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.2 0.86 1 0.2 0.6 0.6 1 0.73 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.91 0.92 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 1 0.6 E: Corporate

Systems

E1b: 0.6 0.8 1 0.8 1 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 1 0.6 1 0.86 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 1 1 0.2 1 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 0.4 1 1 0.6

F1: 0.8 0.4 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.53 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.73 1 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.64 0.52 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8

F2: 0.6 0.2 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.56 0.6 0.2 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.84 0.84 1 0.3 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 1 0.6

F3: 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.53 0.6 0.2 0 1 0.2 0.46 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.26 0.2 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.2 1 0.8 0

F: Financial Management

F4: 0.1 0.3 0.2 0 0.3 0 0 0.3 1 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.2 0 0 0 0.33 1 0.6 0 0.2 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.2 0.28 0.04 0.6 0.3 1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5

G1:

G1a: 0.8 0.6 1 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.36 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.73 1 1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.77 0.84 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 1 0.5

G1b: 0.8 0.8 1 0.4 0.8 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.43 1 1 0.6 0.2 1 0.73 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.82 0.84 1 0.3 1 0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1 0.5

G2: 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 1 0.4 0.5 0.8 1 0 0.2 1 0.73 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.6 1 1 1 0.95 0.84 1 0.6 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 1 1

G: RBM, quality of programme delivery

and visibility

G3: 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.3 1 0.6 0 0.2 0 0.6 0.6 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.6 1 0.8 0.6 0.66 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8

H1: 0.6 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 0 1 1 0.8 0.1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 1 0.2 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.91 0.92 1 0.6 1 0 0.4 0.6 0.6 1 1

H2: 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.6 0 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.56 0.6 0 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.42 0.44 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.4 0.6 1 0.1 H: Delivering within

the UN system

H3: 0.4 0.1 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.33 0.6 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.46 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.8 1 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.44 0.44 0.6 0.8 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.3

I: DG Mandate I1: 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.46 1 0.2 1 0.6 1 0.86 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 1 0.4 0.6 0.51 0.4 1 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1 0.6 0.8

J: Africa J1: 0.8 0.6 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 1 0.4 0.46 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 1 0.53 0.4 1 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.6

K: Gender Equality K1: 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.46 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.51 0.36 0.6 0.8 1 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.8

L: Any Other L1: NO YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES NO No YES No NO NO YES NO NO NO

Number of Responses: 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 2 6 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 2

RANKING: N/A: 0 L: 0.2 LM: 0.4 M: 0.6 MH: 0.8 H: 1

1a. Political commitment raised and allocation of financial resources for EFA increased at the global and national levels, particularly in Africa. 1b. Progress towards EFA goals at the global, regional and country levels regularly monitored and used as input for evidence-based policies by Member States. 1c. Literacy integrated in national education systems and plans, especially in Africa, as well as in United Nations common country programming exercises in all regions, building on the United Nations Literacy Decade and Plan of Action 2003-2012. 2a. Institutional capacities in Member States enhanced through the Global Action Plan to improve access for learners at all levels. 2b. Quality education in Member States promoted with a special emphasis on education for peace. 2c. Higher education and teacher training fully integrated into national education plans and systems, especially in Africa. 2d. Educational norms and standards to foster the right to education developed, disseminated and monitored at country level. 2e. Member States in all regions assisted in integrating ICTs in teaching and learning processes at all levels. 2f. Member States advised on integrating sustainable development into curricula and learning process aimed at achieving the objectives of UNDESD. 2g. Member States in all regions assisted in developing comprehensive education sector HIV and AIDS responses.

3a. UNESCO’s leadership for United Nations system activities in the areas of freshwater and the oceans at the global and national levels firmly established, including in United Nations system country programming exercises. 3b. Global monitoring reports produced periodically for the state of freshwater and the oceans. 3c. Principles and guidelines for sciencebased sustainable management of natural resources agreed upon and implemented in all regions through national policies. 4a. Evidence-based national science, technology and innovation policies adopted by Member States in all regions, especially in Africa. 4b. Global monitoring of science and technology (S&T) capacities and trends carried out. 4c. Institutional and human capacities in the basic and engineering sciences and energy strengthened at all educational levels, notably in Africa, LDCs and SIDS and benefiting female students. 4d. Governments assisted in the development of national policies pertaining to renewable and alternative energies and sustainable energy management. 5a. Tsunami early-warning systems established and operational in Africa, the South Pacific, the Mediterranean Sea, the North-East Atlantic and the Caribbean. 5b. Vulnerable and weakened communities prepared to cope with disasters through access and use of information and knowledge and to mitigate their impact. 5c. Governments advised and assisted in the design of policies mitigating disaster risks and impact. 5d. Contributions made to the development of national strategies for natural and human-induced disaster prevention and vulnerability reduction and included in United Nations system common country programming efforts.

6a. Normative instruments pertaining to the ethics of science and technology adopted by UNESCO reflected at national levels through pertinent legislation. 6b. National bodies/mechanisms dealing with the ethics of science and technology, in particular with issues related to bioethics, supported in all regions. 6c. Democratic debate at the national and regional levels about ethical implications of advances in science and technology fostered, in particular by ensuring networking and exchange of best practices and experiences. 7a. Platforms for dialogue and exchange between social science research and policy-makers consolidated at the international, regional and national levels, in particular regarding poverty eradication. 7b. Collaborative national and regional social science research programmes created for key issues, involving national and regional capacity-building and South-South cooperation. 7c. Science policies and establishment of national research systems promoted benefiting from South-South cooperation. 8a. Organization-wide actions formulated based on future-oriented studies concerning emerging critical ethical and social issues of relevance to UNESCO’s fields of competence. 8b. Mechanisms developed to anticipate emerging issues and risks in UNESCO’s fields of competence.

9a. Principles of cultural diversity integrated into policies, mechanisms and practices at national and regional levels. 9b. Cultural development reflected in national development plans and legislation. 9c. The role of culture in development and principles of cultural diversity reflected in South-South cooperation initiatives. 9d. Awareness about the cultural contribution of indigenous peoples to sustainable development enhanced. 9e. New cooperative mechanisms, including public-private partnerships, based on the principles of cultural diversity, developed for cultural industries and best practices in this area collected and recognized by UNESCO. 10a. Emerging challenges and obstacles to a sustained dialogue among civilizations and cultures identified. 10b. Methodologies, procedures and networks promoting dialogue among professionals developed. 10c. Mutual understanding strengthened in several regions and subregions through dialogue-related activities. 10d. Intercultural dialogue integrated as part of quality education in curricula and learning materials. 10e. Lisbon Roadmap on Arts Education implemented together with other partners. 11a. The preservation of cultural heritage and its effects on development, social cohesion and peace integrated into national and local policies. 11b. National conservation policies and processes revised to take account of global trends such as climate change, urbanization and migration. 11c. New forms of international cooperation developed to strengthen the application of the 1970 Convention. 11d. Role of museums recognized by decisionmakers as part of formal and nonformal education programmes.

12a. Conditions for freedom of expression and universal access to information and knowledge enhanced in all regions. 12b. Capacities and competencies of media and information professionals enhanced. 12c. Linguistic diversity in media and information networks enhanced. 12d. Marginalized populations and populations with special needs empowered to participate in development processes by providing access to media, in particular community media. 13a. Integrated communication and information policies conforming with the principles of press freedom, independent and pluralistic media and contributing to the development of infostructures adopted by Member States. 13b. Communication and information components integrated in United Nations interagency strategies for conflict prevention, peace-building and good governance. 13c. Assistance provided to Member States, especially in Africa and SIDS, on pluralistic media and infostructures supportive of democratic practices, accountability and good governance. 14a. Planning capacities of authorities in affected countries enhanced in UNESCO’s fields of competence to address humanitarian, recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation priorities. 14b. Timely and targeted assistance provided to affected populations and institutions within UNESCO’s fields of competence as part of the United Nations humanitarian, early recovery and reconstruction response. 14c. UNESCO’s input integrated in United Nations common needs assessments, OCHA consolidated appeals, and strategic, programmatic and funding frameworks. 14d. International standards and instruments in the fields of education, culture, science and media applicable in post-conflict and post-disaster situations implemented. 14e. Safety and security of educational, scientific, cultural and media professionals affected by conflicts strengthened. 14f. Capacities of regional organizations active in UNESCO’s fields of competence in conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts enhanced.

32

A1: Uncertainty about future levels of RB, with broadening responsibilities, may lead to a failure to diversify resources and compromise UNESCO’s ability to deliver on expectations.

A2: The imperative of securing increasing levels of extrabudgetary funding may lead to:

A2a: A decrease in the predictability of funding and increased “short-termism” in UNESCO’s programme development and implementation.

A2b: An increase in de-facto “tied” funding and therefore a reduction in UNESCO’s control over its programme implementation and ability to implement its mandate.

A3: A failure to spend all funds within the allotted timeframe may impact on our ability to attract future funds.

A4: A lack of responsive systems and processes may inhibit our ability to attract partners and put in place operational partnerships.

A5: A significant gap between expected and available resources may lead to tensions in programme planning, a failure to deliver and ultimately a loss of credibility.

B1: A tendency on the part of the Secretariat to present issues in a positive light and to make overly-optimistic commitments, and impact on the level of confidence that the MS have in it.

B2: Lack of confidence in the Secretariat by the MS may lead to overly-intrusive governance processes and micro-management on the part of the governance structures.

B3: Tensions between the planning cycles may lead to a burden of programming, planning, monitoring and reporting and divert attention and human resources from programme delivery.

C1: Lack of definition of our requirements in terms of staff profile and competencies may inhibit our abilities to attract appropriate staff, to deploy them appropriately.

C2: An unwillingness to develop or implement flexible and creative approaches to staff movement may inhibit UNESCO’s ability to respond to short term or shifting demands.

C3: A failure to implement UNESCO’s rotation policy may lead to a breakdown in UNESCO’s attempts to foster staff mobility.

C4: Lack of a succession plan may leave us with a significant gap in terms of competent senior staff, given the anticipated retirement of professional staff over the coming biennium.

D1: The current architecture, mechanisms and support structures governing decentralization may impact on our ability:

D1a: To deliver effectively at the country level.

D1b: To be an active participant in UNCTs.

D2: The complexity of UNESCO’s structure and a lack of incentive to work across organizational boundaries may create duplication of effort or gaps in programmes.

D3: Unresolved tension between a historical culture of micromanagement and control, a desire to delegate authority, and the diffuse nature of accountabilities within UNESCO etc.

D4: An imbalance in influence and decision-making processes between Central Services and the Programme Sectors may impact on programme delivery and quality.

D5: An imbalance between a focus on process/control as opposed to programme delivery and quality may impinge on the financial and human resources dedicated to programme delivery.

E1: Corporate information systems and network applications that are not fit for purpose, as well as lack of connectivity in the field, may:

E1a: Increase the challenges in implementing programme activities.

E1b: Consume considerable resources, with limited tangible organizational benefits.

F1: An inability to identify all relevant cost components and to track funding appropriately may lead to poor financial management, particularly of extrabudgetary resources.

F2: Lapses in procurement procedures may result in negative publicity and loss of organizational credibility.

F3: Qualified accounts by the external auditor may result in lack of confidence by the Member States.

F4: A failure to meet IPSAS accounting standards by 2010 may result in a qualified audit.

G1: The breadth of UNESCO’s mandate poses special challenges, complicated by an inability to articulate well and focus on priorities, and may lead to:

G1a: Difficulty in projecting concise and consistent messages regarding UNESCO’s “value-added”.

G1b: Difficulty in achieving quality programme results across the broad spectrum leading to a loss of credibility and a loss of UNESCO’s strategic position and role in the multilateral system.

G2: Inability to articulate, to achieve, and to report on quality results may lead to a loss of confidence in UNESCO’s ability to deliver, a loss of visibility and eventually a reduction in funding.

G3: Lack of anticipation may make it difficult to plan and prepare for exit from and termination of projects and programmes.

H1: Inability to fulfil commitments and effectively participate in UN reform processes, particularly at the country level, may lead to a potential loss of lead roles in our recognized areas etc.

H2: Increased investments in security may lead to an intolerable financial burden, and disruption to programmes.

H3: Violent targeted at the UN may lead to direct threats to the safety of UNESCO staff.

I1: The impending change in DG may lead to a lack of focus of the SMT, a lack of momentum, and a reduction in willingness to take risks and to tackle significant organizational issues.

J1: A failure to meet the 34 C/4 global programme priority Africa may harm UNESCO’s credibility among member states.

K1: Lack of understanding of the Priority Gender Equality and insufficient skills/capacity for gender mainstreaming in programming may lead to its insufficient integration in programming.

L1:

33

D. Risk Matrix for Field Office Results 34 C 4 SPOs AND RESPECTIVE EXPECTED OUTCOMES

















A1: 0.6 0.72 0.6 0.81 0.76 0.6 1 1 0.84 0.9 1 0.8 0.86 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 1 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 1 1 0.75 0.6 1 0.4 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.92 1 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8

A2:

A2a: 0.6 0.72 1 0.75 0.8 0.3 0.86 1 0.84 0.7 1 0.65 0.46 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.73 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.75 1 0.6 0.4 1 1 0.2 1 0.76 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4

A2b: 0.73 0.7 1 0.65 0.6 0.3 0.73 1 0.64 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.33 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.86 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.67 1 0.6 0.4 1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6

A3: 0.8 0.68 1 0.85 0.72 0.2 1 0.6 0.56 0.6 1 0.4 0.6 0.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.46 1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 1 0.2 0.6 0.2 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.8

A4: 0.8 0.82 1 0.75 0.8 0.2 1 0.6 0.56 0.7 1 0.7 0.73 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 1 0.6 0.7 1 1 0.4 1 1 0.6 1 0.84 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.2 1


programmes

A5: 1 0.73 1 0.85 0.68 0.3 1 1 0.84 0.8 1 0.8 0.73 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 0.6 1 1 1 0.6 0.85 0.6 1 0.8 1 1 0.6 1 0.84 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 1

B1: 1 0.7 1 0.75 0.36 0.1 0.86 1 0.84 0.9 1 0.7 0.46 1 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6 1 1 0.6 0 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.57 1 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.6 1 0.68 1 1 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.8

B2: 1 0.71 1 0.75 0.52 0.1 0.86 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.45 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 0 0 0.6 0.73 0.4 0 0.6 0.1 1 0 0.32 0 1 0.2 1 1 0.2 1 0.72 1 1 0.5 0 0 1 B: Governance

B3: 1 0.75 1 0.75 0.68 0.3 0.6 1 0.92 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.73 1 1 0.6 0 0 0.4 0.86 1 0.6 0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0 0.52 0 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.2 1 0.76 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

C1: 0.8 0.86 1 0.75 0.8 0.1 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.86 1 1 1 1 1 0.4 0.86 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.4 1 0 0.6 0 1 0.2 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 0.8 0.2 1 0.8

C2: 1 0.75 1 0.8 0.84 0.3 0.86 1 0.92 0.9 1 0.7 0.73 1 1 0.6 0 0 0.4 0.86 1 0.8 0 0.6 0.3 1 0 0.77 0 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 0.6 0.8

C3: 0.8 0.75 1 0.8 1 0.3 0.86 0.6 1 1 1 0.7 0.73 1 1 0.8 0 0 0.4 1 1 0.6 0 0.6 0.3 1 0 0.77 0 1 0.4 0.6 1 0.2 0.6 1 1 1 0.5 0 0 0.6 C: Staffing

C4: 1 0.71 1 0.85 0.36 0.8 0.86 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.86 1 1 1 0 0 0.4 1 1 0.6 0 0.6 0.3 1 0 0.72 0 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.6 0 1

D1:

D1a: 0.8 0.64 0.6 0.62 0.84 0.2 0.86 0.6 0.84 0.8 0.8 0.65 0.6 1 0.8 0.8 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 1 0.6 0.2 1 0.76 1 0.6 0.8 0.2 0 0.8

D1b: 1 0.64 0.6 0.37 0.84 0.2 0.86 0 0.84 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.73 1 0.8 0.8 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.6 1 0.57 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 1 0.84 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.2 0 0.6

D2: 1 0.57 1 0.67 0.68 0.6 1 1 0.92 0.8 1 0.8 0.73 1 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.86 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.6 1 0.92 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 0.8

D3: 1 0.75 1 0.7 0.92 0.6 0.53 1 0.9 0.8 1 0.9 0.6 1 1 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.86 1 0.6 0 1 0.3 1 0 0.62 0 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.6 1 0.84 1 1 0.5 0 0 1

D4: 1 0.86 1 0.62 0.76 0.6 0.66 1 0.92 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.73 1 1 1 0 0 0.8 1 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0 0.45 0 1 0.6 1 1 0.6 1 0.76 0.6 1 0.5 0.6 0.6 1


Accountability

D5: 1 0.86 1 0.75 0.64 0.2 0.8 1 0.76 0.9 1 0.8 0.73 1 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 1 1 0.6 0 1 0.3 1 0 0.8 0 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.84 0.8 1 0.8 0.2 0 0.8

E1:

E1a 0.8 0.64 0.6 0.62 0.84 0.1 0.86 1 0.6 0.9 1 0.55 0.73 1 1 1 1 1 0.8 0.66 0.6 1 1 0.6 1 1 1 0.72 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.2 1 0.64 1 0.6 1 1 1 1 E: Corporate

Systems

E1b: 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.62 0.84 0.6 0.86 1 0.6 1 1 0.65 0.73 1 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.66 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.67 0.6 1 0.4 1 0.6 0.2 1 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 1

F1: 0.8 0.55 1 0.75 0.6 0.1 1 1 0.6 0.7 1 0.8 0.73 1 0.8 1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 1 0.4 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.2 0.4 0.2 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.68 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 1

F2: 1 0.68 1 0.67 0.48 0.1 1 1 0.6 0.65 1 0.45 0.6 1 0.5 1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.53 1 0.4 0.6 1 0.1 0.6 0 0.52 1 1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.68 0.8 1 1 1 0.2 0.6

F3: 1 0.62 1 0.8 0.52 0.1 0.86 1 0.76 0.8 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0 0 0.4 0.4 1 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 1 0 0.35 0 0.6 0.4 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 1 0.5 0 0 0.8


F4: 0.8 0.35 1 0.65 0.52 0.1 0.73 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.06 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.6 0 0 0.6 0.53 1 0.6 0 0.6 0.3 0.6 0 0.35 0 0 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.44 0.8 1 0.5 0 0 0.6

G1:

G1a: 1 0.82 1 0.8 0.76 0.2 0.86 1 0.84 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.46 1 1 1 0.6 1 0.8 0.86 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.55 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.76 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6

G1b: 1 0.77 0.6 0.75 0.76 0.6 0.86 1 0.84 0.9 1 0.7 0.33 1 1 0.8 0.6 1 0.8 1 1 0.6 1 1 0.8 1 0.2 0.55 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.68 0.8 1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6

G2: 1 0.8 1 0.9 0.76 0.3 1 1 1 0.9 1 0.7 0.86 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.4 0.6 1 0.6 1 1 0.45 0.6 1 0.2 1 1 0.6 1 0.92 1 1 0.8 0 0 1


and visibility

G3: 0.8 0.77 1 0.65 0.6 0.1 1 0.6 1 1 1 0.8 0.73 1 1 1 0 0 0.8 0.53 1 0.4 0 1 0.1 1 0 0.52 0.6 1 0.2 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.92 0.8 1 0.5 0 0 1

H1: 0.8 0.68 1 0.62 0.64 0.1 0.86 1 1 1 1 0.9 0.73 0.6 1 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 1 1 0.8 0.2 1 0.8 0.6 0 0.57 0.2 1 0.8 1 0.2 0.2 1 0.92 0.8 1 0.6 0.2 0.2 1

H2: 0.8 0.53 1 0.62 0.56 0.1 0.86 1 0.64 0.45 0.3 0.45 0.53 1 0.3 0.8 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0 0.35 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 1 0.64 0.8 0.8 0.5 0 0.2 0.6 H: Delivering within

the UN system

H3: 0.8 0.51 1 0.67 0.52 0.1 0.86 1 0.65 0.65 0.8 0.25 0.73 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.2 0 1 0.1 1 0.4 0 0.6 0.2 1 1 0.2 1 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.5 0 0.2 1

I: DG Mandate I1: 1 0.75 1 0.5 0.64 0.1 0.73 0.6 0.44 0.7 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.5 0.8 0 0 0.2 0.86 1 0.2 0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0 0.47 0 0.6 0.2 1 0.6 0 1 0.68 0.6 1 0.1 0 0 0.6

J: Africa J1: 0.36 0.29 0.6 0.68 0.23 0.06 0.7 0.6 0.52 0.75 0.8 0.3 0.86 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0.4 0.66 1 0.4 0 0 0.3 0.6 0 0.35 0 0 0.6 1 0 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.3 0 0 0.5

K: Gender Equality K1: 0.41 0.52 0.6 0.48 0.6 0.06 0.7 0.4 0.56 0.7 1 0.4 0.73 0.6 0.6 0.3 0 0 0.8 0.73 1 0.2 0 0 0.1 0.6 0 0.5 0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.6 0.6 0.68 0.8 1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1

L: Any Other L1: Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes








34








































L1:

35

E. Risk Matrix for Combined Results 34 C 4 SPOs AND RESPECTIVE EXPECTED OUTCOMES

















A1: 0.66 0.72 0.8 0.83 0.77 0.6 1 1 0.87 0.73 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.76 1 0.8 0.87 1 1 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.88 0.93 1 0.4 1 0.73 0.8 0.8 0.92 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 0.9

A2:

A2a: 0.6 0.72 0.8 0.78 0.85 0.3 0.91 1 0.8 0.53 0.8 1 0.62 0.52 0.6 0.8 0.73 1 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.86 0.87 0.6 0.4 1 0.87 0.6 1 0.76 1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5

A2b: 0.69 0.7 0.8 0.69 0.65 0.3 0.82 1 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.64 0.6 0.8 0.6 1 0.3 0.75 1 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.79 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.73 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.47 0.8 0.8 0.6

A3: 0.86 0.68 0.7 0.87 0.69 0.2 0.93 0.73 0.57 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.44 0.6 0.2 1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.64 0.6 1 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.4 1 0.9

A4: 0.8 0.82 0.9 0.78 0.85 0.2 1 0.73 0.57 0.73 1 0.8 0.84 0.84 1 1 0.73 0 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.78 1 1 0.4 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.84 1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 1 1


programmes

A5: 1 0.73 0.9 0.87 0.66 0.3 0.93 1 0.8 0.66 1 1 0.84 0.76 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 0.6 1 1 0.8 1 0.8 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.93 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 0.73 0.8 0.6 0.84 1 1 0.6 0.73 0.4 1 1

B1: 0.94 0.7 0.8 0.74 0.47 0.1 0.91 1 0.8 0.73 0.7 0.4 0.64 0.68 1 0.8 0.87 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 1 0.54 0.47 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.73 0.8 1 0.68 1 1 0.5 0.2 0.4 1 0.8

B2: 1 0.71 0.6 0.78 0.64 0.1 0.91 1 0.67 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.66 0.76 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.5 0.75 1 0.6 0.2 0.7 1 0.7 0.5 1 0.6 0.55 1 0 0.54 0.57 1 0.2 1 0.6 0.6 1 0.72 1 1 0.55 0.53 0.5 0.6 1 B: Governance

B3: 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.78 0.71 0.3 0.67 0.87 0.87 0.66 0.7 0.4 0.68 0.76 1 1 0.47 1 1 0.5 0.45 1 0.4 0.6 0.9 1 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.65 0.6 0 0.63 0.57 0.6 0.6 1 0.87 0.6 0.6 0.76 1 1 0.55 0.4 0.3 1 0.55

C1: 0.8 0.86 0.7 0.78 0.7 0.1 1 0.87 0.87 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.58 0.92 1 1 1 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.7 1 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.4 1 1 0.5 1 0 0.64 0.57 1 0.2 0.8 0.87 0.8 0.4 1 1 1 0.5 0.47 0.8 0.6 0.7

C2: 0.89 0.75 0.9 0.78 0.83 0.3 0.74 0.73 0.87 0.86 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.76 1 1 0.73 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.55 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.1 1 0.6 0.45 1 0 0.71 0.47 1 0.4 0.8 0.73 0.8 0.5 1 1 1 0.45 0.4 0.6 1 0.7

C3: 0.69 0.75 0.7 0.74 0.9 0.3 0.74 0.47 0.93 0.86 0.8 0.4 0.54 0.68 1 1 0.73 0 0 0.1 0.35 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.1 1 0.6 0.45 0.8 0 0.62 0.47 1 0.4 0.6 0.53 0.6 0.3 1 1 1 0.35 0.13 0.1 0.8 0.6 C: Staffing

C4: 1 0.71 0.9 0.87 0.47 0.8 0.91 1 0.87 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.76 1 1 0.67 1 0.2 0.5 0.55 1 0.4 1 1 0.8 0.8 0.3 1 0.6 0.45 0.8 0 0.75 0.63 1 0.6 1 0.73 0.8 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.47 0.5 0.6 0.9

D1: 0

D1a: 0.74 0.64 0.8 0.62 0.78 0.2 0.67 0.4 0.87 0.86 0.8 0.6 0.66 0.6 1 0.8 0.73 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.6 1 0.8 1 1 0.66 0.93 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.73 0.6 0.6 0.76 1 0.6 0.6 0.33 0.3 1 0.7

D1b: 0.89 0.64 0.7 0.33 0.78 0.2 0.67 0 0.87 0.86 0.8 0.6 0.72 0.68 1 0.8 0.87 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 1 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 1 0.67 0.93 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.84 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.33 0.5 1 0.7

D2: 0.89 0.57 0.8 0.66 0.66 0.6 0.93 1 0.93 0.86 1 0.2 0.76 0.76 1 1 0.73 1 1 1 0.9 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1 0.9 1 0.6 0.83 0.87 0.6 0.6 1 0.87 0.8 0.8 0.92 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.47 0.5 1 0.9

D3: 0.94 0.75 0.8 0.73 0.89 0.6 0.62 0.87 0.85 0.73 0.9 0.6 0.72 0.68 1 1 0.73 1 1 0.5 0.65 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 1 1 0.65 0.8 0 0.79 0.83 0.6 0.6 1 0.87 0.8 1 0.84 1 1 0.75 0.67 0.5 1 0.7

D4: 0.83 0.86 0.7 0.66 0.77 0.6 0.71 0.87 0.8 0.66 0.9 0.8 0.88 0.76 1 1 0.87 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.65 0.2 0.8 0.2 1 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 1 0.8 0.6 0 0.71 0.7 1 0.6 1 0.87 0.6 0.8 0.76 0.6 1 0.65 0.6 0.8 1 0.8


Accountability

D5: 0.94 0.86 0.9 0.78 0.68 0.2 0.8 1 0.73 0.73 1 0.6 0.92 0.76 1 0.8 0.73 0.6 1 0.3 0.75 0.2 0.8 0.2 1 0.6 0.8 0.5 1 1 0.65 0.8 0 0.88 0.7 1 0.6 1 0.87 0.8 0.6 0.84 0.8 1 0.8 0.6 0.3 1 0.6

E1:

E1a 0.69 0.64 0.7 0.66 0.83 0.1 0.91 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.74 0.84 1 1 0.73 0.6 0.6 1 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.55 0.4 0.9 1 1 0.6 0.9 0.8 1 0.82 0.87 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.64 1 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.8 1 0.8 E: Corporate

Systems

E1b: 0.74 0.6 0.7 0.66 0.83 0.6 0.91 1 0.6 0.93 0.8 0.4 0.74 0.76 1 1 0.6 1 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.65 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.84 0.93 1 0.4 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.47 0.8 1 0.8

F1: 0.8 0.55 0.7 0.78 0.6 0.1 0.93 1 0.53 0.53 0.8 0.4 0.64 0.68 1 0.8 0.87 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 1 0.4 0.6 0.45 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 1 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.53 0.47 1 0.4 0.6 0.73 0.8 0.4 0.68 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.47 0.4 0.8 0.9

F2: 0.89 0.68 0.6 0.7 0.51 0.1 0.93 1 0.53 0.56 0.9 0.4 0.52 0.6 1 0.5 0.73 1 1 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.65 0.6 0.7 0.8 1 1 0.55 0.6 0 0.69 0.87 1 0.4 1 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.68 0.8 1 1 0.47 0.6 1 0.6

F3: 0.8 0.62 0.55 0.74 0.54 0.1 0.71 0.67 0.63 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.56 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.47 0 1 0.1 0.35 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.45 0.6 0.5 0.3 1 0.2 0.35 0.8 0 0.3 0.17 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.73 0.8 0.3 0.8 1 1 0.35 0.13 0.5 0.8 0.4


F4: 0.6 0.35 0.65 0.61 0.39 0.1 0.59 0.13 0.67 0.63 0.65 0.6 0.26 0.56 0.6 0.3 0.47 0 0 0 0.25 1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 1 0.6 0.45 0.4 0 0.31 0.03 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.44 0.8 1 0.4 0.07 0.1 0.3 0.55

G1:

G1a: 0.94 0.82 0.8 0.82 0.67 0.2 0.84 0.87 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.46 0.68 1 1 1 1 0.6 0.6 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.67 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.27 0.4 0.6 0.76 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.47 0.4 1 0.55

G1b: 0.94 0.77 0.7 0.78 0.67 0.6 0.84 1 0.87 0.86 0.9 0.6 0.54 0.6 1 1 0.87 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 1 0.9 1 0.2 0.69 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.53 0.8 0.6 0.68 0.8 1 0.4 0.47 0.6 1 0.55

G2: 0.89 0.8 0.8 0.91 0.72 0.3 0.87 0.87 1 0.86 1 0.4 0.58 0.84 1 1 1 0 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 1 1 0.8 1 1 0.71 0.8 1 0.2 1 0.73 0.8 0.5 0.92 1 1 0.6 0.4 0.5 1 1


and visibility

G3: 0.74 0.77 0.6 0.65 0.55 0.1 0.93 0.6 0.93 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.84 1 1 0.87 0 0.2 0 0.45 0.6 0.8 1 0.45 0.6 0.7 0.3 1 1 0.45 0.8 0 0.59 0.6 1 0.2 0.6 0.87 0.8 0.5 0.92 0.8 1 0.35 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9

H1: 0.74 0.68 0.9 0.66 0.68 0.1 0.84 0.67 1 1 0.9 0.1 0.72 0.84 0.6 1 0.73 1 0.2 0.4 0.45 0.6 0.8 0.2 1 0.6 0.9 0.6 1 1 0.9 0.6 0 0.75 0.8 1 0.8 1 0.47 0.6 0.5 0.92 0.8 1 0.5 0.47 0.4 1 1

H2: 0.69 0.53 0.9 0.58 0.62 0.1 0.77 0.67 0.7 0.56 0.45 0.4 0.52 0.56 1 0.3 0.53 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.45 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.45 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.45 0.6 0 0.39 0.37 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.47 0.6 1 0.64 0.8 0.8 0.55 0.27 0.4 1 0.35 H: Delivering within

the UN system

H3: 0.69 0.51 0.55 0.7 0.54 0.1 0.84 0.87 0.58 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.68 0 0 0.33 0 0.2 0.1 0.35 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.55 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 1 0.35 0.6 0.42 0.37 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.87 0.4 1 0.72 0.8 0.8 0.55 0.4 0.2 1 0.65

I: DG Mandate I1: 0.89 0.75 0.8 0.55 0.68 0.1 0.82 0.6 0.47 0.66 0.8 0.4 0.52 0.76 1 0.5 0.6 1 0.6 0.5 0.65 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 1 0.6 0.25 0.4 0 0.49 0.33 0.6 0.2 1 0.73 0.5 0.6 0.68 0.6 1 0.25 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

J: Africa J1: 0.49 0.29 0.6 0.71 0.27 0.06 0.67 0.6 0.53 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.76 0 0.3 0.27 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.65 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.6 0 0.35 0.8 0 0.45 0.33 0 0.6 1 0.53 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 1 0.25 0.07 0.3 0.4 0.55

K: Gender Equality K1: 0.41 0.52 0.5 0.49 0.6 0.06 0.73 0.47 0.57 0.56 0.9 0.2 0.44 0.68 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.45 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 1 0 0.35 0.6 0 0.51 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.53 0.8 0.8 0.68 0.8 1 0.35 0.47 0.4 0.4 0.45

L: Any Other L1: Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes YES Yes Yes No No No YES YES No No YES Yes NO Yes No No No NO No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes NO Yes








36








































L1:

37

F. Other Risks highlighted in the comments from surveys participants at Headquarters and Field Offices

Staffing One of the main issues highlighted by the participants of the on-line surveys is the lack of competent and experienced

staff in the regional and field offices. Participants further relate this problem to the risk of staff demobilization, lack of

training, the imbalance of staff distribution between Central Services and the field, and the country quota system.

Other participants question the recruitment process and suggest that more experienced younger officers should be

recruited into directorship positions.

Organizational Design and Accountability Many survey participants cited administrative procedures as one of the drawbacks in the organizational process. They

also pointed out the existence of excessive micromanagement and a lack of true delegation of authority. (Most of these

issues are already reflected in some of the Top 10 risks.) Other participants stressed the importance of intersectoral

cooperation as well as communication with member states policy makers. Finally, it was pointed out that when

disaster strikes, the risk that UNESCO’s field offices face is the lack of support from Headquarters, which makes the

office concerned unable to act. Without the immediate deployment of funds, the field office cannot commit to any

actions.

Resources In terms of resources, survey participants echoed the Top 10 risks by stressing the mismatch between outside demand

combined with expectations of UNESCO’s role and its resources to deliver. Others underlined the risk of dependence

on one single donor, which is shifting the Organization’s focus to a regional rather than global level. Finally, another

potential risk cited was the lack of effective coordination with member states or regional economic bodies.

Other Risks highlighted in the comments from survey participants at Headquarters

EO Risks highlighted by Survey Users Risk Type/Specific Risk

1c Mismatch between expectations of UNESCO's role and its resources to deliver Resourcing UNESCO’s Programmes, A5

1) Maintenance of available staff and avoidance of staff cuts and sudden transfers Staffing, C2

2) Intersectoral cooperation not encouraged and supported by Directors Organizational Design and Accountability, D2

3) Excessive decentralisation of funds Financial Management

4) Lack of competent counterparts in Regional and Field Offices Staffing, C1

2b

5) Heavy administrative procedures Organizational Design and Accountability, D5

2d Central service: too heavy in terms of staff. Program sector: lacks experienced staff.

Staffing

2f Risk of dependence on one single donor which is shifting focus to regional rather than global level

Resourcing UNESCO’s Programmes

2g Increased competition from other UN agencies affecting UNESCO's position in the UN division of labour

Delivering within the UN System, H1

3a Further reduction of support to freshwater priority as an interpretation of the Overall assessment of Major Programmes II & III; management constraints that may be imposed on the action of the ISP's.

3b There is a high risk of IOS (and whoever they report to) overestimating the value of the information content contained in this questionnaire

Quota of countries' representative within the Organisation, especially at the level of the senior management team

Staffing

UNESCO ability to connect to member states policy makers can be a major risk in successful implementation

Organizational Design and Accountability, D1 3c

The results could be affected if difficulties crop up in the execution of IHP-VII. It is a 6-year plan carefully crafted and reflecting water-related regional priorities and already approved by an intergovernmental council.

5a Lack of commitment in member states to establish their own national Tsunami Warning Systems

38

5b Increase in demands from UNESCO's outside partners and decrease in response capacities

Resourcing UNESCO’s Programmes

6a Failure by General Conference to clarify status of 1974 Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers and to adopt appropriate monitoring mechanisms

9e The issue of diverse staff is as important as the gender issue Staffing and Gender 10a

The increasing contraction between what is preached and the practised at the Secretariat is high risk of demobilisation and demoralisation for committed staff

Staffing

Lack of training Staffing Inadequacy of IT systems (exhibit 1: Sister, FABS, etc.) Corporate Systems

Lack of accountability Organizational Design and Accountability

Lack of responsibilization and true delegation of authority Organizational Design and Accountability, D3

Increasing burden of useless planning exercises Organizational Design and Accountability, D5

11a

In my 21 years at UNESCO, I never experienced a situation in which program execution is paralyzed as presently, by a drastically increased bureaucratic procedures and low response from central services.

Organizational Design and Accountability

12b

Excessive micromanagement and increasing administrative burden imposed by senior management

Organizational Design and Accountability, D3

a) Failure to hire enough staff specifically trained and experienced in PCPD issues

Staffing 14b b) Failure to engage with humanitarian Education Cluster and other country-level

humanitarian coordination mechanisms Organizational Design and Accountability, D1

39

Risks highlighted in the comments from survey participants at the Field Offices EO Risks highlighted by Survey Users Risk Type/Specific Risk

1a Very poor management of UNESCO human resources starting by the recruitment

Staffing

2a Low levels of funding and inadequate human resources Resourcing UNESCO’s Programmes and Staffing

2b Focus less programme and piece meal approaches

2d Not having qualified and credible personnel to carry out the required intellectual tasks

Staffing

2f Inadequate staffing levels and low levels of financial input Staffing and Resourcing UNESCO’s Programmes

2g Low resource levels and inadequate staffing Staffing

Lack of support from Headquarters may hinder implementation Organizational Design and Accountability, D1a

3a Imbalance in influence and decision-making processes between HQ and field offices will weaken UNESCO's position towards Member States and other UN agencies

Organizational Design and Accountability, Delivering within the UN system

4a Lack of effective coordination with member states or regional economic bodies may lead to failure

Resourcing UNESCO’s Programmes, A5

6b Despite developing a program of activities in 2007, no funding allocated 2008 - trying to do something with no resources at all to meet commitments expected of UNESCO

7a A programmatic and travel burden that is not recognised by the allocation of funds nor the rules

Financial Management

11a

The over-bureaucratization of the international assistance allocation for heritage (eg. WHFund) leads to lack of confidence by States and creates doubt concerning UNESCO's commitment to respond to heritage needs


12a

UNESCO needs to recruit more experienced younger officers into directorship position. UNESCO being a highly hierarchical Organization, often good ideas are ignored simply because those giving them are junior

Staffing

14a

The extreme differences in strategies, planning, and operations for post-conflict and stable situations

14c

When disaster strikes, the risk UNESCO FO's face is the lack of HQ support which makes the FO concerned unable to act. Without immediate deployment of funds, UNESCO FO can only attend UNCT meetings, but cannot commit to any actions.

Organizational Design and Accountability, D1a&b

1) Incompetent partnership with host government, national and international partners will hinder UNESCO mission and impact on programme delivery and outcome.

14f 2) Promote culture of passion among staff for learning, self-development and creativity towards work.

Staffing

40

G. On-line Survey for Sector Directors and Section Managers at Headquarters

Headquarters Survey - Capacity to Deliver - Risk Assessment Survey 1. Welcome to the Risk Assessment Survey Survey instructions: This survey will allow you to rate potential risks for expected outcomes listed in the 34 C/4 plan. The list of organizational risks was compiled at a Risk Management in UNESCO Retreat of the College of ADGs which took place between 12 and 14 February, 2008. First, you will be asked to select your sector and division. Then, you will be taken to a page with a list of Expected Outcomes that fall under the corresponding Strategic Programme Objectives (SPOs). For example, if you work in the Education sector, then you will see the corresponding Expected Outcomes for SPO1 and SPO2. Please select an Expected Outcome from this list that is most relevant to your work. You will then be allowed to rate all the risks in relation to this particular Expected Outcome. Once you have completed this task, you will be given the option to choose additional Expected Outcomes in your sector. After completing this part of the survey, you will then be asked if your work also falls under the scope of SPO 14 (cross-sectoral SPO on post-conflict and post-disaster). If you aren’t working on any of the SPO 14 Expected Outcomes, you will be able to exit the survey. However, if SPO 14 Expected Outcomes apply to your work, you will then be given the chance to rank risks in relation to them. Once you have completed this section, you will be able to exit the survey. Depending on the number of Expected Outcomes that you are working on, the survey will take around 15 to 30 minutes to complete. Your responses are automatically saved and if you wish to go back to the survey at another time, you can simply click on the link and you will be taken to the point where you left off. We thank you in advance for your time.

2. Your responsibilities within UNESCO

1. Please choose your sector:

Education – ED Natural Sciences – SC

Social and Human Sciences – SHS

Culture – CLT

Communication and Information – CI

3. Education Sector

1. Please choose your division: Executive Office (ED/EO) Division for the Promotion of Basic Education - ED/BAS Division of Higher Education - ED/HED Division for the Coordination of United Nations priorities in Education - ED/UNP Division of Education Strategies and Field Support - ED/SFS

4. Natural Sciences Sector 1. Please choose your division:

Executive Office – SC/EO Division of Basic and Engineering Sciences - SC/BES Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences - SC/EES Division of Water Sciences - SC/HYD Division of Science Policy and Sustainable Development - SC/PSD Coastal Region and Small Islands Platform - SC/CSI

41

Secretariat of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission - IOC

5. Social and Human Sciences Sector 1. Please choose your division:

Executive Office – SHS/EO Division of Social Sciences Research and Policy - SHS/SRP Division of Ethics of Science and Technology - SHS/EST Division of Human Rights, Human Security and Philosophy - SHS/RSP

6. Culture Sector 1. Please choose your division:

Executive Office (CLT/EO) World Heritage Centre - CLT/WHC Division of Cultural Objects and Intangible Heritage - CLT/CIH Division of Cultural Expressions and Creative Industries - CLT/CEI Division of Cultural Policies and Intercultural Dialogue - CLT/CPD

7. Communication and Information Sector

1. Please choose your division: Executive Office (CI/EO) Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace - CI/FED Communication Development Division - CI/COM Information Society Division - CI/INF

8. Education - Expected Outcomes

Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Education SPOs: 1. Strengthening UNESCO’s global lead and coordination role for EFA and providing support to national leadership in favour of EFA. 2. Developing policies, capacities and tools for quality education for all and lifelong learning as well as promoting education for sustainable development. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes.

1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following: SPO 1a. Political commitment raised and allocation of financial resources for EFA increased at the global and

national levels, particularly in Africa. SPO 1b. Progress towards EFA goals at the global, regional and country levels regularly monitored and used as

input for evidence-based policies by Member States. SPO 1c. Literacy integrated in national education systems and plans, especially in Africa, as well as in United

Nations common country programming exercises in all regions, building on the United Nations Literacy Decade and Plan of Action 2003-2012.

SPO 2a. Institutional capacities in Member States enhanced through the Global Action Plan to improve access for learners at all levels.

SPO 2b. Quality education in Member States promoted with a special emphasis on education for peace. SPO 2c. Higher education and teacher training fully integrated into national education plans and systems, especially

in Africa. SPO 2d. Educational norms and standards to foster the right to education developed, disseminated and monitored

at country level. SPO 2e. Member States in all regions assisted in integrating ICTs in teaching and learning processes at all levels. SPO 2f. Member States advised on integrating sustainable development into curricula and learning process aimed

at achieving the objectives of UNDESD. SPO 2g. Member States in all regions assisted in developing comprehensive education sector HIV and AIDS

responses. The scope of my work doesn't fall under these expected outcomes. Please take me to SPO 14 Expected Outcomes.

9. Natural Sciences - Expected Outcomes Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Natural Sciences SPOs: 3. Leveraging scientific knowledge for the benefit of the environment and the management of natural resources. 4. Fostering policies and capacity-building in science, technology and innovation. 5. Contributing to disaster preparedness and mitigation. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes.

1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

42

SPO 3a. UNESCO’s leadership for United Nations system activities in the areas of freshwater and the oceans at the global and national levels firmly established, including in United Nations system country programming exercises.

SPO 3b. Global monitoring reports produced periodically for the state of freshwater and the oceans. SPO 3c. Principles and guidelines for sciencebased sustainable management of natural resources agreed upon and

implemented in all regions through national policies. SPO 4a. Evidence-based national science, technology and innovation policies adopted by Member States in all

regions, especially in Africa. SPO 4b. Global monitoring of science and technology (S&T) capacities and trends carried out. SPO 4c. Institutional and human capacities in the basic and engineering sciences and energy strengthened at all

educational levels, notably in Africa, LDCs and SIDS and benefiting female students. SPO 4d. Governments assisted in the development of national policies pertaining to renewable and alternative

energies and sustainable energy management. SPO 5a. Tsunami early-warning systems established and operational in Africa, the South Pacific, the Mediterranean

Sea, the North-East Atlantic and the Caribbean. SPO 5b. Vulnerable and weakened communities prepared to cope with disasters through access and use of

information and knowledge and to mitigate their impact. SPO 5c. Governments advised and assisted in the design of policies mitigating disaster risks and impact. SPO 5d. Contributions made to the development of national strategies for natural and human-induced disaster

prevention and vulnerability reduction and included in United Nations system common country programming efforts.

10. Social and Human Sciences - Expected Outcomes

Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Social and Human Sciences SPOs: 6. Promoting principles, practices, and ethical norms relevant for scientific and technological development. 7. Enhancing research-policy linkages on social transformations. 8. Fostering research on critical emerging ethical and social issues. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes.


SPO 6a. Normative instruments pertaining to the ethics of science and technology adopted by UNESCO reflected at national levels through pertinent legislation.

SPO 6b. National bodies/mechanisms dealing with the ethics of science and technology, in particular with issues related to bioethics, supported in all regions.

SPO 6c. Democratic debate at the national and regional levels about ethical implications of advances in science and technology fostered, in particular by ensuring networking and exchange of best practices and experiences.

SPO 7a. Platforms for dialogue and exchange between social science research and policy-makers consolidated at the international, regional and national levels, in particular regarding poverty eradication.

SPO 7b. Collaborative national and regional social science research programmes created for key issues, involving national and regional capacity-building and South-South cooperation.

SPO 7c. Science policies and establishment of national research systems promoted benefiting from South-South cooperation.

SPO 8a. Organization-wide actions formulated based on future-oriented studies concerning emerging critical ethical and social issues of relevance to UNESCO’s fields of competence.

SPO 8b. Mechanisms developed to anticipate emerging issues and risks in UNESCO’s fields of competence.

11. Culture - Expected Outcomes Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Culture SPOs: 9. Strengthening the contribution of culture to sustainable development. 10. Demonstrating the importance of exchange and dialogue among cultures to social cohesion and reconciliation in order to develop a culture of peace. 11. Sustainably protecting and enhancing cultural heritage. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes.

1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following: SPO 9a. Principles of cultural diversity integrated into policies, mechanisms and practices at national and regional

levels. SPO 9b. Cultural development reflected in national development plans and legislation. SPO 9c. The role of culture in development and principles of cultural diversity reflected in South-South cooperation

initiatives. SPO 9d. Awareness about the cultural contribution of indigenous peoples to sustainable development enhanced. SPO 9e. New cooperative mechanisms, including public-private partnerships, based on the principles of cultural

43

diversity, developed for cultural industries and best practices in this area collected and recognized by UNESCO. SPO 10a. Emerging challenges and obstacles to a sustained dialogue among civilizations and cultures identified. SPO 10b. Methodologies, procedures and networks promoting dialogue among professionals developed. SPO 10c. Mutual understanding strengthened in several regions and subregions through dialogue-related activities. SPO 10d. Intercultural dialogue integrated as part of quality education in curricula and learning materials. SPO 10e. Lisbon Roadmap on Arts Education implemented together with other partners. SPO 11a. The preservation of cultural heritage and its effects on development, social cohesion and peace

integrated into national and local policies. SPO 11b. National conservation policies and processes revised to take account of global trends such as climate

change, urbanization and migration. SPO 11c. New forms of international cooperation developed to strengthen the application of the 1970 Convention. SPO 11d. Role of museums recognized by decisionmakers as part of formal and nonformal education programmes.

12. Communication and Information - Expected Outcomes

Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Communication and Information SPOs: 12. Enhancing universal access to information and knowledge. 13. Fostering pluralistic, free and Independent media and infostructures. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes.


SPO 12a. Conditions for freedom of expression and universal access to information and knowledge enhanced in all regions.

SPO 12b. Capacities and competencies of media and information professionals enhanced. SPO 12c. Linguistic diversity in media and information networks enhanced. SPO 12d. Marginalized populations and populations with special needs empowered to participate in development

processes by providing access to media, in particular community media. SPO 13a. Integrated communication and information policies conforming with the principles of press freedom,

independent and pluralistic media and contributing to the development of infostructures adopted by Member States. SPO 13b. Communication and information components integrated in United Nations interagency strategies for

conflict prevention, peace-building and good governance. SPO 13c. Assistance provided to Member States, especially in Africa and SIDS, on pluralistic media and

infostructures supportive of democratic practices, accountability and good governance.

Depending on the choice of the Expected Outcome, the user is then taken to the corresponding Risk Assessment page.

14. Risk Assessment

The following list of organizational risks was compiled at a Risk Management in UNESCO Retreat of the College of ADGs. Please rank the following risks as Low, Medium, High or Non Applicable in relation to this Expected Outcome: Each of the 56 Expected Outcomes was listed here one by one.

A. Resourcing UNESCO’s programmes

1. Uncertainty about future levels of regular budget funding, with a broadening range of responsibilities, may mean that a failure to diversify sources of financial and other resources will compromise UNESCO’s ability to deliver on

expectations.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 2. The imperative of securing increasing levels of extrabudgetary funding may lead to:

a. A decrease in the predictability of funding and increased “short-termism” in UNESCO’s programme development and implementation.

Low Medium High Not Applicable b. An increase in de-facto “tied” funding and therefore a reduction in UNESCO’s control over its programme implementation and ability to implement its mandate.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 3. A failure to spend all funds within the allotted timeframe may impact on our ability to attract future funds.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 4. A lack of responsive systems and processes may inhibit our ability to attract partners and put in place operational partnerships.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 5. A significant gap between expected and available resources may lead to tensions in programme planning, a failure

to deliver and ultimately a loss of credibility. Low Medium High Not Applicable

B. Governance

44

6. A tendency on the part of the Secretariat to present issues in a positive light and to make overly-optimistic

commitments that may lead to misunderstandings, and impact on the level of confidence that the Member States

have in the Secretariat. Low Medium High Not Applicable

7. Lack of confidence in the Secretariat by the Member States may lead to overly-intrusive governance processes and micro-management on the part of the governance structures, which in turn may consume significant organizational

energy and resources.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 8. Tensions between the planning cycles (6 year MTS and 3 year Programme and Budget, as well as discrepancies

with respect to other parts of the UN system, country level programmes and national cycles) may lead to a s significant burden of programming, planning, monitoring and reporting and divert attention and human resources

from programme delivery. Low Medium High Not Applicable

C. Staffing 9. Lack of definition of our requirements in terms of staff profile and competencies may inhibit our abilities to attract

appropriate staff, to deploy staff appropriately and to support staff appropriately. Low Medium High Not Applicable

10. An unwillingness to develop or implement flexible and creative approaches to staff movement may inhibit UNESCO’s ability to respond to short term or shifting demands.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 11. A failure to implement UNESCO’s rotation policy may lead to a breakdown in UNESCO’s attempts to foster staff

mobility.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 12. Lack of a succession plan may leave us with a significant gap in terms of competent senior staff, given the

anticipated retirement of professional staff over the coming biennium. Low Medium High Not Applicable

D. Organizational Design and Accountability 13. The current architecture, mechanisms and support structures governing decentralization may impact on our

ability: a. A decrease in the predictability of funding and increased “short-termism” in UNESCO’s programme development and implementation.


Low Medium High Not Applicable 14. The complexity of UNESCO’s structure and a lack of incentive to work across organizational boundaries may

create duplication of effort or gaps in programmes, and may inhibit our ability to work intersectorally.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 15. Unresolved tension between a historical culture of micromanagement and control, a desire to delegate authority,

and the diffuse nature of accountabilities within UNESCO, may challenge the assurance of stewardship of resources, and lead to a stagnation in decision-making.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 16. An imbalance in influence and decision-making processes between Central Services and the Programme Sectors

may impact on programme delivery and quality.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 17. An imbalance between a focus on process/control as opposed to programme delivery and quality may impinge on the financial and human resources dedicated to programme delivery.

Low Medium High Not Applicable E. Corporate Systems 18. Corporate information systems and network applications that are not fit for purpose, as well as lack of connectivity in the field, may:

a. Increase the challenges in implementing programme activities. Low Medium High Not Applicable

b. Consume considerable resources, with limited tangible organizational benefits. Low Medium High Not Applicable

F. Financial Management 19. An inability to identify all relevant cost components and to track funding appropriately may lead to poor financial management, particularly of extrabudgetary resources.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 20. Lapses in procurement procedures may result in negative publicity and loss of organizational credibility.

45

Low Medium High Not Applicable 21. Qualified accounts by the external auditor may result in lack of confidence by the Member States.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 22. A failure to meet IPSAS accounting standards by 2010 may result in a qualified audit.

Low Medium High Not Applicable G. RBM, quality of programme delivery and visibility 23. The breadth of UNESCO’s mandate poses special challenges, complicated by an inability to articulate well and

focus on priorities, and may lead to:

a. Difficulty in projecting concise and consistent messages regarding UNESCO’s “value-added”. Low Medium High Not Applicable

b. Difficult in achieving quality programme results across the broad spectrum leading to a loss of credibility and a loss of UNESCO’s strategic position and role in the multilateral system.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 24. Inability to articulate, to achieve, and to report on quality results may lead to a loss of confidence in UNESCO’s

ability to deliver, a loss of visibility and eventually a reduction in funding. Low Medium High Not Applicable

25. Lack of anticipation may make it difficult to plan and prepare for exit from and termination of projects and programmes.

Low Medium High Not Applicable H. Delivering within the UN system 26. Inability to fulfil commitments and effectively participate in UN reform processes, particularly at the country level,

may lead to a potential loss of lead roles in our recognized areas of competence, a loss of credibility and relevance and a negative impact on the resource base, both regular and extrabudgetary.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 27. Increased investments in security may lead to an intolerable financial burden, and disruption to programmes.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 28. Violent targeted at the UN may lead to direct threats to the safety of UNESCO staff.

Low Medium High Not Applicable I. DG Mandate 29. The impending change in Director General may lead to a lack of focus of the senior management team, a lack of

momentum, and a reduction in willingness to take risks and to tackle significant organizational issues.

Low Medium High Not Applicable J. Africa 30. A failure to meet the 34 C/4 global programme priority Africa may harm UNESCO’s credibility among member

states. Low Medium High Not Applicable

K. Gender 31. A lack of gender awareness and training may lead to insufficient gender consideration in programming.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 32. In your view, are there any other risks related to this Expected Outcome? If so, please enter them in the space

below:

33. Are you working on any other Expected Outcomes under YOUR SECTOR’s SPOs?

Yes No

At this point, each user was allowed to choose additional Expected Outcomes in his/her sector. Once this first part was completed, he was taken to the following page: 13. SPO 14 - Expected Outcomes

If your work plan includes activities that fall under SPO 14 (Support through UNESCO’s domains to countries in post-conflict situations and post-disaster situations), please select the Expected Outcome that you are working towards. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. If your work doesn't fall under the scope of SPO 14, you may select the last option to exit the survey. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

SPO 14a. Planning capacities of authorities in affected countries enhanced in UNESCO’s fields of competence to

46

address humanitarian, recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation priorities. SPO 14b. Timely and targeted assistance provided to affected populations and institutions within UNESCO’s fields

of competence as part of the United Nations humanitarian, early recovery and reconstruction response. SPO 14c. UNESCO’s input integrated in United Nations common needs assessments, OCHA consolidated appeals,

and strategic, programmatic and funding frameworks. SPO 14d. International standards and instruments in the fields of education, culture, science and media applicable

in post-conflict and post-disaster situations implemented. SPO 14e. Safety and security of educational, scientific, cultural and media professionals affected by conflicts

strengthened. SPO 14f. Capacities of regional organizations active in UNESCO’s fields of competence in conflict prevention and

peacebuilding efforts enhanced. I have finished rating my Expected Outcomes and would like to Exit the survey.

If the user selected an SPO14 Expected Outcome, he was taken to a page where he rated all 31 risks for that particular Expected Outcome. Otherwise, he was allowed to exit the survey.

47

H. On-line Survey for Directors of Field Offices, Institutes and Centers

Field Office Survey - Capacity to Deliver - Risk Assessment 1. Welcome to the Risk Assessment Survey for Field Offices and Institutes

Survey instructions: This survey will allow you to rate potential risks for Expected Outcomes listed in the 34 C/4 plan. The list of 31 organizational risks was compiled at a Risk Management in UNESCO Retreat of the College of ADGs which took place between 12 and 14 February, 2008. First, you will be asked to select your Field Office or Institute. If you are responsible for more than one Field Office, you will be able to select several offices. Then, you will be taken to a page with a list of the Strategic Programme Objectives (SPOs) from the 34 C/4 plan. Please select the SPO that your office is currently working on. You will then be taken to a page listing the Expected Outcomes that correspond to your chosen SPO. From this list, please select an Expected Outcome that is most relevant to your office's work. You will then be asked to rate all the risks in relation to this particular Expected Outcome. Once you have completed this task, you will be given the option to choose additional Expected Outcomes under the same SPO or a new SPO for your office. This will allow you to rank Expected Outcomes in different fields, for example in Education, Culture, and under SPO 14 (post-conflict situations and post-disaster situations). Depending on the number of Expected Outcomes that you are working on, the survey will take around 15 to 30 minutes to complete. Your responses are automatically saved and if you wish to go back to the survey at another time, you can simply click on the link and you will be taken to the point where you left off. We thank you in advance for your time. 2. Your responsibilities within UNESCO In case you are responsible for more than one Field Office, you may check several field offices and/or institutes. 1. Please select your Field Office or Institute:

Abuja Accra - Cluster Addis Ababa - Cluster Bamako - Cluster Brazzaville Bujumbura Dakar - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Education Dar es-Salaam - Cluster Harare - Cluster Kinshasa Libreville - Cluster Maputo Nairobi - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Sciences Windhoek - Cluster Yaoundé - Cluster Amman Beirut - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Education Cairo - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Sciences Doha - Cluster Iraq Khartoum Rabat - Cluster Ramallah Almaty - Cluster Apia - Cluster

48

Bangkok - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Education Beijing - Cluster Dhaka Hanoi Islamabad Jakarta - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Sciences Kabul Kathmandu New Delhi - Cluster Phnom Penh Tashkent Tehran - Cluster Moscow- Cluster Venice - Regional Bureau for Sciences and Culture Brasilia Guatemala Havana - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Culture Kingston - Cluster Lima Mexico Montevideo - Cluster and Regional Bureau for Sciences Port-au-Prince Quito - Cluster San José - Cluster Santiago de Chile Regional Bureau for Education UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning IIEP, Paris (France) and Buenos Aires (Argentina) UNESCO International Bureau of Education IBE, Geneva, (Switzerland) UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning UIL, Hamburg (Germany) UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education IITE, Moscow (Russian Federation) UNESCO International Institute for Capacity-Building in Africa IICBA, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean IESALC, Caracas

(Venezuela) UNESCO International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training UNEVOC, Bonn (Germany) UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education CEPES, Bucarest (Romania) UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education Delft (Netherlands) International Centre for Theoretical Physics ICTP, Trieste (Italy) UNESCO Institute for Statistics UIS, Montreal (Canada)

3. Strategic Programme Objectives

Please select one SPO that you are currently working on. You will be given the option to come back to this page to select additional SPOs. Once you have finished ranking Expected Outcomes under all the relevant SPOs for your Field Office, you may choose the last option to exit the survey. 1. Please select one 34 C/4 Strategic Programme Objective that you are working on:

ED 1. Strengthening UNESCO’s global lead and coordination role for EFA and providing support to national leadership in favour of EFA.

ED 2. Developing policies, capacities and tools for quality education for all and lifelong learning as well as promoting education for sustainable development.

SC 3. Leveraging scientific knowledge for the benefit of the environment and the management of natural resources.

SC 4. Fostering policies and capacity-building in science, technology and innovation. SC 5. Contributing to disaster preparedness and mitigation. SHS 6. Promoting principles, practices, and ethical norms relevant for scientific and technological development. SHS 7. Enhancing research-policy linkages on social transformations. SHS 8. Fostering research on critical emerging ethical and social issues. CLT 9. Strengthening the contribution of culture to sustainable development. CLT 10. Demonstrating the importance of exchange and dialogue among cultures to social cohesion and

reconciliation in order to develop a culture of peace. CLT 11. Sustainably protecting and enhancing cultural heritage. CI 12. Enhancing universal access to information and knowledge. CI 13. Fostering pluralistic, free and independent media and infostructures. 14. Support through UNESCO’s domains to countries in post-conflict situations and post-disaster situations. I have already ranked the risks for all relevant SPOs and wish to exit the survey.

Depending on the choice on the above question, the survey participant is taken to the corresponding SPO page.

4. SPO 1 - Expected Outcomes

49

Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Education SPO: 1. Strengthening UNESCO’s global lead and coordination role for EFA and providing support to national leadership in favour of EFA. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

SPO 1a. Political commitment raised and allocation of financial resources for EFA increased at the global and national levels, particularly in Africa.

SPO 1b. Progress towards EFA goals at the global, regional and country levels regularly monitored and used as input for evidence-based policies by Member States.

SPO 1c. Literacy integrated in national education systems and plans, especially in Africa, as well as in United Nations common country programming exercises in all regions, building on the United Nations Literacy Decade and Plan of Action 2003-2012.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Education SPO: 2. Developing policies, capacities and tools for quality education for all and lifelong learning as well as promoting education for sustainable development. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

2a. Institutional capacities in Member States enhanced through the Global Action Plan to improve access for learners at all levels.

2b. Quality education in Member States promoted with a special emphasis on education for peace. 2c. Higher education and teacher training fully integrated into national education plans and systems, especially in

Africa. 2d. Educational norms and standards to foster the right to education developed, disseminated and monitored at

country level. 2e. Member States in all regions assisted in integrating ICTs in teaching and learning processes at all levels. 2f. Member States advised on integrating sustainable development into curricula and learning process aimed at

achieving the objectives of UNDESD. 2g. Member States in all regions assisted in developing comprehensive education sector HIV and AIDS responses.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Natural Sciences SPO: 3. Leveraging scientific knowledge for the benefit of the environment and the management of natural resources. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

3a. UNESCO’s leadership for United Nations system activities in the areas of freshwater and the oceans at the global and national levels firmly established, including in United Nations system country programming exercises.

3b. Global monitoring reports produced periodically for the state of freshwater and the oceans. 3c. Principles and guidelines for science-based sustainable management of natural resources agreed upon and

implemented in all regions through national policies.

7. SPO 4 - Expected Outcomes Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Natural Sciences SPO: 4. Fostering policies and capacity-building in science, technology and innovation. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

4a. Evidence-based national science, technology and innovation policies adopted by Member States in all regions, especially in Africa.

4b. Global monitoring of science and technology (S&T) capacities and trends carried out. 4c. Institutional and human capacities in the basic and engineering sciences and energy strengthened at all

educational levels, notably in Africa, LDCs and SIDS and benefiting female students. 4d. Governments assisted in the development of national policies pertaining to renewable and alternative energies

and sustainable energy management.

8. SPO 5 - Expected Outcomes Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Natural Sciences SPO: 5. Contributing to disaster preparedness and mitigation. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

50

5a. Tsunami early-warning systems established and operational in Africa, the South Pacific, the Mediterranean Sea, the North-East Atlantic and the Caribbean.

5b. Vulnerable and weakened communities prepared to cope with disasters through access and use of information and knowledge and to mitigate their impact.

5c. Governments advised and assisted in the design of policies mitigating disaster risks and impact. 5d. Contributions made to the development of national strategies for natural and human-induced disaster

prevention and vulnerability reduction and included in United Nations system common country programming efforts.

9. SPO 6 - Expected Outcomes Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Social and Human Sciences SPO: 6. Promoting principles, practices, and ethical norms relevant for scientific and technological development. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

6a. Normative instruments pertaining to the ethics of science and technology adopted by UNESCO reflected at national levels through pertinent legislation.

6b. National bodies/mechanisms dealing with the ethics of science and technology, in particular with issues related to bioethics, supported in all regions.

6c. Democratic debate at the national and regional levels about ethical implications of advances in science and technology fostered, in particular by ensuring networking and exchange of best practices and experiences.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Social and Human Sciences SPO: 7. Enhancing research-policy linkages on social transformations. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

7a. Platforms for dialogue and exchange between social science research and policy-makers consolidated at the international, regional and national levels, in particular regarding poverty eradication.

7b. Collaborative national and regional social science research programmes created for key issues, involving national and regional capacity-building and South-South cooperation.

7c. Science policies and establishment of national research systems promoted benefiting from South-South cooperation.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Social and Human Sciences SPO: 8. Fostering research on critical emerging ethical and social issues. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

8a. Organization-wide actions formulated based on future-oriented studies concerning emerging critical ethical and social issues of relevance to UNESCO’s fields of competence.

8b. Mechanisms developed to anticipate emerging issues and risks in UNESCO’s fields of competence.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Culture SPO: 9. Strengthening the contribution of culture to sustainable development. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

9a. Principles of cultural diversity integrated into policies, mechanisms and practices at national and regional levels. 9b. Cultural development reflected in national development plans and legislation. 9c. The role of culture in development and principles of cultural diversity reflected in South-South cooperation

initiatives. 9d. Awareness about the cultural contribution of indigenous peoples to sustainable development enhanced. 9e. New cooperative mechanisms, including public-private partnerships, based on the principles of cultural

diversity, developed for cultural industries and best practices in this area collected and recognized by UNESCO.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Culture SPO: 10. Demonstrating the importance of exchange and dialogue among cultures to social cohesion and reconciliation in order to develop a culture of peace.

51

You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

10a. Emerging challenges and obstacles to a sustained dialogue among civilizations and cultures identified. 10b. Methodologies, procedures and networks promoting dialogue among professionals developed. 10c. Mutual understanding strengthened in several regions and subregions through dialogue-related activities. 10d. Intercultural dialogue integrated as part of quality education in curricula and learning materials. 10e. Lisbon Roadmap on Arts Education implemented together with other partners.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Culture SPO: 11. Sustainably protecting and enhancing cultural heritage. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

11a. The preservation of cultural heritage and its effects on development, social cohesion and peace integrated into national and local policies.

11b. National conservation policies and processes revised to take account of global trends such as climate change, urbanization and migration.

11c. New forms of international cooperation developed to strengthen the application of the 1970 Convention. 11d. Role of museums recognized by decisionmakers as part of formal and nonformal education programmes.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Communication and Information SPO: 12. Enhancing universal access to information and knowledge. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

12a. Conditions for freedom of expression and universal access to information and knowledge enhanced in all regions.

12b. Capacities and competencies of media and information professionals enhanced. 12c. Linguistic diversity in media and information networks enhanced. 12d. Marginalized populations and populations with special needs empowered to participate in development

processes by providing access to media, in particular community media.


Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following Communication and Information SPO: 13. Fostering pluralistic, free and independent media and infostructures. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

13a. Integrated communication and information policies conforming with the principles of press freedom, independent and pluralistic media and contributing to the development of infostructures adopted by Member States.

13b. Communication and information components integrated in United Nations interagency strategies for conflict prevention, peace-building and good governance.

13c. Assistance provided to Member States, especially in Africa and SIDS, on pluralistic media and infostructures supportive of democratic practices, accountability and good governance.

17. SPO 14 - Expected Outcomes Please select one of the Expected Outcomes that you are working towards under the following SPO 14: Support through UNESCO’s domains to countries in post-conflict situations and post-disaster situations. You will be given the option to come back to this page and select additional Expected Outcomes. 1. Please choose only 1 Expected Outcome among the following:

SPO 14a. Planning capacities of authorities in affected countries enhanced in UNESCO’s fields of competence to address humanitarian, recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation priorities.

SPO 14b. Timely and targeted assistance provided to affected populations and institutions within UNESCO’s fields of competence as part of the United Nations humanitarian, early recovery and reconstruction response.

SPO 14c. UNESCO’s input integrated in United Nations common needs assessments, OCHA consolidated appeals, and strategic, programmatic and funding frameworks.

SPO 14d. International standards and instruments in the fields of education, culture, science and media applicable in post-conflict and post-disaster situations implemented.

SPO 14e. Safety and security of educational, scientific, cultural and media professionals affected by conflicts strengthened.

52

SPO 14f. Capacities of regional organizations active in UNESCO’s fields of competence in conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts enhanced.

18. Risk Assessment

The following list of organizational risks was compiled at a Risk Management in UNESCO Retreat of the College of ADGs. Please rank the following risks as Low, Medium, High or Non Applicable in relation to this Expected Outcome: Each of the 56 Expected Outcomes was listed here one by one.

A. Resourcing UNESCO’s programmes

1. Uncertainty about future levels of regular budget funding, with a broadening range of responsibilities, may mean

that a failure to diversify sources of financial and other resources will compromise UNESCO’s ability to deliver on expectations.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 2. The imperative of securing increasing levels of extrabudgetary funding may lead to:

a. A decrease in the predictability of funding and increased “short-termism” in UNESCO’s programme development and implementation.


Low Medium High Not Applicable 3. A failure to spend all funds within the allotted timeframe may impact on our ability to attract future funds.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 4. A lack of responsive systems and processes may inhibit our ability to attract partners and put in place operational partnerships.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 5. A significant gap between expected and available resources may lead to tensions in programme planning, a failure

to deliver and ultimately a loss of credibility.

Low Medium High Not Applicable B. Governance 6. A tendency on the part of the Secretariat to present issues in a positive light and to make overly-optimistic

commitments that may lead to misunderstandings, and impact on the level of confidence that the Member States

have in the Secretariat. Low Medium High Not Applicable

7. Lack of confidence in the Secretariat by the Member States may lead to overly-intrusive governance processes and micro-management on the part of the governance structures, which in turn may consume significant organizational

energy and resources.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 8. Tensions between the planning cycles (6 year MTS and 3 year Programme and Budget, as well as discrepancies with respect to other parts of the UN system, country level programmes and national cycles) may lead to a s

significant burden of programming, planning, monitoring and reporting and divert attention and human resources from programme delivery.

Low Medium High Not Applicable C. Staffing 9. Lack of definition of our requirements in terms of staff profile and competencies may inhibit our abilities to attract

appropriate staff, to deploy staff appropriately and to support staff appropriately. Low Medium High Not Applicable

10. An unwillingness to develop or implement flexible and creative approaches to staff movement may inhibit UNESCO’s ability to respond to short term or shifting demands.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 11. A failure to implement UNESCO’s rotation policy may lead to a breakdown in UNESCO’s attempts to foster staff

mobility. Low Medium High Not Applicable

12. Lack of a succession plan may leave us with a significant gap in terms of competent senior staff, given the anticipated retirement of professional staff over the coming biennium.

Low Medium High Not Applicable D. Organizational Design and Accountability 13. The current architecture, mechanisms and support structures governing decentralization may impact on our

ability: a. A decrease in the predictability of funding and increased “short-termism” in UNESCO’s programme development and implementation.

Low Medium High Not Applicable

53

b. An increase in de-facto “tied” funding and therefore a reduction in UNESCO’s control over its programme implementation and ability to implement its mandate.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 14. The complexity of UNESCO’s structure and a lack of incentive to work across organizational boundaries may create duplication of effort or gaps in programmes, and may inhibit our ability to work intersectorally.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 15. Unresolved tension between a historical culture of micromanagement and control, a desire to delegate authority,

and the diffuse nature of accountabilities within UNESCO, may challenge the assurance of stewardship of resources,

and lead to a stagnation in decision-making.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 16. An imbalance in influence and decision-making processes between Central Services and the Programme Sectors may impact on programme delivery and quality.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 17. An imbalance between a focus on process/control as opposed to programme delivery and quality may impinge on

the financial and human resources dedicated to programme delivery. Low Medium High Not Applicable

E. Corporate Systems 18. Corporate information systems and network applications that are not fit for purpose, as well as lack of

connectivity in the field, may: a. Increase the challenges in implementing programme activities.

Low Medium High Not Applicable b. Consume considerable resources, with limited tangible organizational benefits.

Low Medium High Not Applicable F. Financial Management 19. An inability to identify all relevant cost components and to track funding appropriately may lead to poor financial

management, particularly of extrabudgetary resources. Low Medium High Not Applicable

20. Lapses in procurement procedures may result in negative publicity and loss of organizational credibility. Low Medium High Not Applicable

21. Qualified accounts by the external auditor may result in lack of confidence by the Member States. Low Medium High Not Applicable

22. A failure to meet IPSAS accounting standards by 2010 may result in a qualified audit.

Low Medium High Not Applicable G. RBM, quality of programme delivery and visibility 23. The breadth of UNESCO’s mandate poses special challenges, complicated by an inability to articulate well and

focus on priorities, and may lead to:

a. Difficulty in projecting concise and consistent messages regarding UNESCO’s “value-added”. Low Medium High Not Applicable

b. Difficult in achieving quality programme results across the broad spectrum leading to a loss of credibility and a loss of UNESCO’s strategic position and role in the multilateral system.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 24. Inability to articulate, to achieve, and to report on quality results may lead to a loss of confidence in UNESCO’s

ability to deliver, a loss of visibility and eventually a reduction in funding.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 25. Lack of anticipation may make it difficult to plan and prepare for exit from and termination of projects and programmes.

Low Medium High Not Applicable H. Delivering within the UN system 26. Inability to fulfil commitments and effectively participate in UN reform processes, particularly at the country level, may lead to a potential loss of lead roles in our recognized areas of competence, a loss of credibility and relevance

and a negative impact on the resource base, both regular and extrabudgetary.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 27. Increased investments in security may lead to an intolerable financial burden, and disruption to programmes.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 28. Violent targeted at the UN may lead to direct threats to the safety of UNESCO staff.

Low Medium High Not Applicable I. DG Mandate 29. The impending change in Director General may lead to a lack of focus of the senior management team, a lack of momentum, and a reduction in willingness to take risks and to tackle significant organizational issues.

54

Low Medium High Not Applicable J. Africa 30. A failure to meet the 34 C/4 global programme priority Africa may harm UNESCO’s credibility among member

states. Low Medium High Not Applicable

K. Gender 31. A lack of gender awareness and training may lead to insufficient gender consideration in programming.

Low Medium High Not Applicable 32. In your view, are there any other risks related to this Expected Outcome? If so, please enter them in the space below:

33. Are you working on any other Expected Outcomes under the SPO #? If your answer is NO, you will be given the option to choose a different SPO.

Yes No

If the user answered Yes, he was allowed to choose additional Expected Outcomes under the same SPO. Otherwise, he was given the option to choose a different SPO and corresponding Expected Outcomes.

55

I. List of 34 C/4 Expected Outcomes for Which no Ratings Have Been Provided

STRATEGIC PROGRAMME OBJECTIVE 7: Enhancing research-policy linkages on social transformations.

Expected Outcome 7c: Democratic debate at the national and regional levels about ethical

implications of advances in science and technology fostered, in particular by ensuring networking and

exchange of best practices and experiences.

STRATEGIC PROGRAMME OBJECTIVE 8: Fostering research on critical emerging ethical and social issues.

Expected Outcome 8a: Organization-wide actions formulated based on future-oriented studies

concerning emerging critical ethical and social issues of relevance to UNESCO’s fields of

competence.

Expected Outcome 8b: Mechanisms developed to anticipate emerging issues and risks in UNESCO’s

fields of competence.

STRATEGIC PROGRAMME OBJECTIVE 10: Demonstrating the importance of exchange and dialogue among cultures to social cohesion and reconciliation in order to develop a culture of peace.

Expected Outcome 10b: Methodologies, procedures and networks promoting dialogue among

professionals developed.

Expected Outcome 10d: Intercultural dialogue integrated as part of quality education in curricula and

learning materials.

Expected Outcome 10e: Lisbon Roadmap on Arts Education implemented together with other

partners.

STRATEGIC PROGRAMME OBJECTIVE 14: Support through UNESCO’s domains to countries in post-conflict situations and post-disaster situations.

Expected Outcome 14e: Safety and security of educational, scientific, cultural and media

professionals affected by conflicts strengthened.

56

J. Model Action Plan for the Top 10 Risks Identified Through Surveys

Estimate Risk Level (0 to 4)

ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN Risk Description Risk Type

C/4Expected Outcomes Most

Affected Likelihood Impact Description (sample actions) Owner(s) Timeline



ED: 1a, 2e, SC: 3ab, 4bcd, 5a, SHS: 6ac, 7a, CLT: 9acde, 10a, 11c, CI: 13bc, SPO14: 14df

4 4

•



ED: 2de, SC: 3b, 4b, 5ab, SHS: 7a, CLT: 9cd, 10ac, 11c, CI: 12ad, 13b, SPO14: 14d

4 3.5

•



ED: 2e, SC: 3a, 4bc, 5abc, SHS: 6a, CLT: 9cd, 10a, CI: 12a, SPO14: 14d

3 3

•



ED: 2d, SC: 3a, 4bc, 5b, SHS: 6ac, CLT: 9c, 11bc, CI: 12ab, 13b, SPO14: 14df

3 2.5

•

E1a&b: Corporate information systems and network applications that are not fit for purpose, as well as lack of connectivity in the field, may: Increase the challenges in implementing programme activities; Consume considerable resources, with limited tangible organizational benefits.

Corporate Systems

ED: 2e, SC: 3a, 4bc, 5ac, CLT: 9bc, 10c, 11c, CI: 12a, 13b, SPO14: 14d

3.5 2.5

•



SC: 4bc, 5ab, CLT: 9cd, CI: 12ad, 13bc, SPO14: 14d

3.5 3

•



ED: 2f, SC: 3a, 4bcd, CLT: 9cd, 10a, 11c, CI: 12a, 13bc, SPO14: 14df

3 3

•


Staffing

ED: 1a, 2e, SC: 4bc, 5a, SHS: 6ac, 7a, CLT: 9c, 11c, CI: 12ad, 13abc

2.5 3.5

•



ED: 2e, SC: 3a, 4b, 5b, SHS: 7a, CLT: 9cd, 11c, CI: 12a, 13c, SPO14: 14d

2,5 3

•



SC: 4bc, SHS: 7a CLT: 9d, 11c CI: 12a, 13c, SPO14: 14d

2.5 3

•

57

K. Model Action Plan and Follow-up Matrix

Objective of the action plan / risk to manage: list the risk here

Initial Importance: Current Importance: Future Importance: Action plan owner: Action plan deadline:

Risk Issue Raised Mitigation Measures

Already in Place Possible Mitigation

Measures Possible Action

Required Responsibility / Timeline Priority

1.

2. 3. 4.

58

L. List of Documentation Reviewed

Articles on the Discipline of Risk Management and its Methodologies:

• Foresight meeting 7 July - Jérome Glenn (US) Millennium Project Director

• Promoting Institutional & Organizational Development: A Source Book of Tools and Techniques, Department for International Development - David Wilson and Lindsay Beaton

• Recent Practices in Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS – Measuring Institutional Capacity,

USAID Centre for Development Information and Evaluation - Alan Lessik and Victoria

Michener:

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/e6/c0.pdf

• INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT, A Framework for Strengthening Organizational Capacity for IDRC's Research Partners – Charles Lusthaus, Gary Anderson, and Elaine

Murphy: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9371-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

• Risk Analysis Methodologies: http://pachome1.pacific.net.sg/~thk/risk.html

• Evaluating Capacity-Building Efforts for Nonprofit Organizations - Paul Connolly and Peter

York

• Bringing ERM Into Focus, Internal Auditor June 2003 – Christy Chapman

• Best practice in risk management, A function comes of age, Economist Intelligence Unit, 2007

• Operating risk in emerging markets, Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006

• World risk: Alert - Confessions of a risk manager, The Economist, August 11, 2008

• Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework, Executive Summary, Committee of

Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, September 2004

• Applying COSO’s Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework, a presentation by

the Institute of Internal Auditors

National Risk Assessment Frameworks:

• Canadian Best Practices in Risk Management, Treasury Board of Canada: http://www.tbs-

sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/riskmanagement/rm-rcbp1_e.asp#_Toc456762767

• Capacity and Institutional Assessment: Frameworks, Methods and Tools for Analysis,

Prepared for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Policy Branch, June 1996 -

Peter Morgan and Suzanne Taschereau

• The Orange Book, Management of Risk - Principles and Concepts, HM Treasury, October 2004

• Institutional Capacity Building: Tanzania, End of Program Evaluation Report, December

2005, African Youth Alliance, Pathfinder International

Risk Assessment in other International Organizations:

• Strengthening Management in UNICEF: An examination of UNICEF management based on evaluative materials produced over the past five years, identifying areas for improvement, UNICEF, John J. Donohue

• WFP Enterprise Risk Management Policy, Rome, 7–11 November 2005, WFP/EB.2/2005/5-

E/1

• Best Practices in Oversight & Enterprise Risk Management at WFP, presentation at the 35th

RIAS, Paris, 9 – 11 June 2004

• UNDP Enterprise Risk Management Policy, Drafted by Kaori Kawarabayashi and Vikram

Singh, February 14, 2007

• UNDP Risk Management Guide, Drafted by Kaori Kawarabayashi and Vikram Singh, February

14, 2007

• Risk Management for Managers, European Commission Participant’s Manual, June 2008

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/e6/c0.pdf

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9371-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

http://pachome1.pacific.net.sg/~thk/risk.html

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/riskmanagement/rm-rcbp1_e.asp#_Toc456762767



59

• Communication to the Commission from Ms Grybauskaité in Agreement with the President and Vice-President Kallas: Towards en effective and coherent risk management in the Commission services, Brussels, 20 October 2005

• Reports of the Task Force on Risk Management, International Monetary Fund, 2005-2008

UNESCO Documents:

• The internal Oversight service’s (IOS) activities for 2001 and strategy for 2002-2003, 164 EX/35

• Report of the Director-General on the activities of the Organization in 2000-2001, communicated

to Member states and the Executive Board in accordance with Article VI.3.b of the Constitution,

32 C/3

• Comments by the Director-General on the implementation of the internal oversight service

strategy in 2002-2003: Annual Report 2003, 169 EX/28

• Approved Programme and Budget 2006-2007, 33 C/5

• Approved Programme and Budget 2008-2009, 34 C/5

• Medium Term Strategy 2008-2013, 34 C/4

• Comments by the Director-General on the implementation of the Internal Oversight Service (IOS)

strategy in 2006-2007: Annual Report 2006, 176 EX/38

• Biennial Evaluation Report on the activities and results of all UNESCO decentralized bodies, 167

EX/14

UNESCO 2007 Risk Management Approach Documents:

• Risk Management: a proposed approach for UNESCO, Memo from April 5, 2007,

IOS/2007/Memo.061

• Risk Management: a proposed approach for UNESCO, Paper with 5 annexes

o Annex A: DRAFT UNESCO Risk Management Policy

o Annex B: DRAFT Risk Management Training Material

o Annex C: DRAFT Step-by-step guide to risk-informing decision-making and planning

Risk-based evaluation of UNESCO's capacity to deliver;...

Documents

Transcript of Risk-based evaluation of UNESCO's capacity to deliver;...