Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO

1. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Presentation to  Joint Meeting of the PX and FA Commissions

2. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO • Brief presentation as input into your debate • Minimise repetition of what is in reports and previous presentations • Focus on key points that may help you discuss follow-up

3. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO The IEE was set up to answer the ‘evaluation question’: ‘How should UNESCO position itself to address the challenges of the 21st century and make the most of prospective opportunities?’

4. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO In overall terms the answer has been: • There is an urgent need for a comprehensive renewal process • This should begin now but should also be expected to continue over several years • It will require leadership and cooperation across the Secretariat and Governing Bodies

5. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Reasons for IEE conclusion: • Over 60 years UNESCO has only partially adapted its ways of working and governance to shifts in ‘global architecture’ • These include changes in global structures such as ‘Regionalisation’ & UN reform, emergence of new actors in Civil Society and the Private Sector, nature of developmental challenges and expectations of Member States

6. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO This is expressed in UNESCO as a: • A lack of focus – weak programmes survive alongside strong programmes • An ethos & incentives that discourage cooperation across UNESCO & the UNESCO community • Weak ‘partnering capacities’ • A silo-like and over centralised structure that does not realise UNESCO’s potential synergies • A traditional form of ‘intergovernmentalism’ that does not reach out to new global actors

7. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Consequently UNESCO faces: • Reputational and operational risks • Severe funding constraints • A lack of flexibility and innovativeness • Other international actors occupying its ‘space’ - there are missed opportunities

8. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO But many positive findings: • Acknowledgement of UNESCO’s purpose and mandate – especially when UNESCO delivers • Strong, world class programmes (e.g. in oceanographic & freshwater research, world heritage, press freedom, biosphere reserves etc.) • A unique (if underutilised) network of Institutes, scientists, National Commissions, Clubs, Schools, UNITWIN Professors

9. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Also evidence of ‘impact’ when UNESCO is: • Closely aligned to Member State and international needs • Working effectively with partners including regional partners (e.g. African Union) • Able to demonstrate links between normative and operational activities • Is sufficiently resourced and managed in the field • Is strategically focussed

10. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO There has already been some progress reforming UNESCO: • Early reforms in 1999/2000 – 21st century Task Force • Re-engagement with UN with positive results • Many reports, ‘Task Forces’, ‘working groups’ and evaluations Much is known already BUT • Slow and limited implementation – poor organisational memory, weakness following up and managing change

11. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO The IEE recommends five ‘Strategic Directions’: • Increasing UNESCO’s Focus • Positioning UNESCO Closer to the Field • Strengthening Participation in the UN • Strengthening Governance • Developing a Partnership Strategy Deliberate choice not to present a detailed ‘plan’

12. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO The IEE sees these as: • Necessary for UNESCO’s success and survival • Feasible - impractical recommendations have been avoided • Implicating Governing Bodies as well as Secretariat • Requiring cultural as well as organisational change • Needing detailed planning and coordination • Depending on trust and ownership for their success

13. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Strategic Direction One: Increasing UNESCO’s Focus This aims to achieve synergies and reduce barriers to cooperation through: • Selection of clear but few cross-cutting priorities • Closer consultation with partners including UN • Regular programme reviews to assess relevance & possible exit strategies • Using programming methods that better link activities to desired outcomes • Supportive administrative, HR and planning systems

14. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Strategic Direction Two: Positioning UNESCO Closer to the Field This aims to improve relevance, effectiveness and impact through: • A smaller but better resourced field presence • Regional and sub-regional priority setting • Emphasising international cooperation networks • Becoming less HQ focussed • Improving staff mobility across organisation

15. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Strategic Direction Three: Strengthening UN Participation This aims to continue UNESCO’s influence on UN ‘reform’ & learn from others in UN system through: • Dialogue with UN partners formulating programmes • Strengthening New York Office • Encouraging ‘policy coherence’ among Member State representatives in Paris, capitals, New York etc • Strategic dialogue with UN HQ about UNESCO’s ‘intellectual’ contribution

16. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Strategic Direction Four: Strengthening Governance This aims to clarify the division of labour & cooperation between UNESCO’s three organs: • Better access to independent advice • An agreed accountability framework • Use of sub-committees • Improved planning and reporting of results • Routine programme reviews • A refocusing on ‘network governance’

17. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Strategic Direction Five: Partnership Strategy This aims to look outwards, advance UNESCO’s values and improve programme implementation through: • Opening up to Civil Society and the Private Sector • Strengthening networks across the UNESCO ‘community’ • Renewing National Commissions through sustained capacity building – south/south as well as north/south

18. Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO Finally: • Given past experience of poor follow-up, the process of ‘renewal’ requires careful change-management and cooperation between Governing Bodies & Secretariat • This process will need to build trust and ownership and encourage cooperation and commitment • Not everything is possible on day one but over time the IEE sees this process as feasible and the rewards worthwhile Thank You!