Ambassade d'Australie

France

Coordonnées de l'Ambassade: 4, rue Jean Rey 75724 Paris Cedex 15 - Téléphone : 01 40 59 33 00 - Fax : 01 40 59 33 10

Home > Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO >

Interventions by Australia > 171st session

UNESCO EXECUTIVE BOARD
Reports by the Director-General on:

The execution of the programme adopted by the General Conference
The follow-up of decisions adopted by the Executive Board at its previous sessions
The reform process and
The consideration of the Draft Programme and Budget for 2006-2007 (33 C/5) and recommendations of the Executive Board
Items 3, 4, 5 and 20

Intervention by Professor Kenneth Wiltshire AO, Australia
18 April 2005

They say that life begins at 60. But will this be true for UNESCO in the last biennium of our Medium-Term Strategy?

Australia believes this must be a biennium of demonstrable achievement. By this we mean:

constant pursuit of performance which is evident
transparency and accountability
visibility
successful results and outcomes.

The context of the 33 C/5 is the reform process. Australia strongly supports reform, not just for the sake of reform, but to strengthen our vital mandate.

Let us examine the report card of UNESCO on reform at this point.

There are some pluses:
some streamlining of structures
attempts at prioritization
sound levels of extrabudgetary funding
a few partnerships with the private sector
emerging capacity in post-conflict and emergency situations
a welcome emphasis on youth in programmes, and UNESCO’s own crucial Young Professionals Scheme
a higher profile for development of small island states
some key programmes, like fresh water, which are really making a difference.

But the negatives are many:
the flagship programme EFA is failing badly;
our “rolling strategy” has never rolled;
weak role of UNESCO in the UN and in the multilateral system;
little progress in the intersectorality of programmes;
results-based management is far from attained in concept and practice - despite some excellent reports from the External Auditor and IOS, they have not changed the culture of the Organization, and evaluation and performance is not linked to the human resource management;
there are no real sunset clauses - the sun never sets on a UNESCO programme;
decentralization has broken down and from the papers before us at this meeting, even the theory behind it, as well as the practice, is confused, complex, and not effective. Each field office should cover all programme areas even if there are less of them i.e. fewer but fully functional field offices. In the Pacific, we have one field office for 16 Member States scattered over an area larger than Europe – why cannot other clusters follow this example?
the Asia-Pacific region, and especially the Pacific, does not have its rightful share of either the programme spending or the staffing of UNESCO. It is after all the largest region in area and population.
Consequently, the image of UNESCO appears to be that:
the mandate is more relevant than ever;
some programmes are becoming focused;
there is poor management and staff morale is very low;
the governance requires major improvement; and there is patchy visibility, leaving UNESCO virtually unknown in some regions.
So the reform process is unfinished and has a long way to go. Will the being known as UNECO live beyond 60 years? This is not wholly certain as only the structures i.e. the anatomy - not the physiology - of the Organization are being given effective treatment.

Australia can only support $610 million in the next biennium for the regular budget for a range of reasons:

Our flagship programme is floundering and simply throwing more money at it is not the answer: it needs proper restructuring. Education for All should lead to sustainable development for all individuals. Australia considers sustainable development of utmost importance, even though the design of the coming Decade for Education for Sustainable Development looks rather weak.

There appears to have been a rather cavalier approach to determining priorities in this draft C/5 document. It is not enough just to increase the percentages going to each major programme in each sector. They can all exist on ZNG and in the Social and Human Sciences Sector the ethics of science, whilst an important topic, gets too big a slice of that sector’s budget.

There is little transparency in this document. Where are the staffing details for every programme and sub-programme? We cannot judge the true priorities without this information.
The performance indicators have not improved. We still see reference to the number of conferences or workshops, meetings etc. These are all inputs, barely outputs and certainly not outcomes, which is what they should be. Despite attempts, notably by IOS and HRM, to improve these processes, the culture of performance has not really changed. Budgetary reinforcement for IOS or HRM will not change this, leadership can.

The implementation rate is very slow and whatever happened to the budget increase due to the return of the United States?
The cross-cutting themes have rightly been reduced and some rolled into the regular programme, which was an Australian suggestion, resulting in savings of many millions of dollars, but, apart from this, there is little cutting out, or contracting out, of programmes.

Decentralization is a failing policy and we cannot invest increased funds in it until there are field offices which are comprehensive in coverage, even if fewer in number.
There are not enough intersectoral programmes – thank you for the new matrix but it should be three times the size. I am still surprised that there are no youth programmes in the SHS and Culture Sectors.

Given the vital role of UNESCO in combating terrorism, we urgently need an intersectoral programme on inter-religious understanding, bringing together Education, Culture and SHS Sectors.

The modalities are shaky. There should be far more emphasis on capacity building which is so crucial in the Asia and the Pacific - no more talkfests, more action!

For us, a real priority is the Participation Programme – the lifeblood of National Commissions and the effective, visible face of UNESCO. The budget allocation must be restored immediately to $23 million.

The potential for private sector and extrabudgetary funding does not appear to have been fully explored in the draft 33 C/5. The World Heritage Centre should be able to raise extra needs from private sector sponsorship. Similarly, the foreshadowed capital expenditure and loan repayments should be funded further from extrabudgetary sources.

And should we really be refurbishing our restaurant at a time when we cannot even deliver Education for All, our flagship programme? Surely extrabudgetary funds should be going to the core programmes of UNESCO?

In summary, Australia supports $610 million for the 33 C/5 because:
there is lack of transparency in the draft document, especially regarding staffing levels for programmes;
there has been a slackening and breaking down of the reform process;
there is still an extremely dangerous premise in this document that problems can be solved simply by throwing more money at them. We must never reward lack of performance; and
there must be more evidence of performance and effective use of existing funds before any increases can be contemplated.
As Executive Board members, in the governance of UNESCO, this is the only responsible course that we can take.

Since we last met as a Board, the most devastating event to occur has been the tsunami disaster in Asia. Thank you Mr Matsuura for your actions. Unfortunately UNESCO’s role, notably the important work by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission on early warning systems, was barely mentioned in the Australian and regional media. I know UNESCO is not working for its own glory but surely the Organization needs to raise its profile further. We recently spent a long time debating and approving a communication strategy but it seems to be comprised largely of a series of innocuous press releases each day. Where is our true communication strategy? In so many areas we have a great story to tell but UNESCO is still one of the world’s best kept secrets.

Australia is totally committed to the mandate and ideals of UNECO, but we ask – will there be life after 60?

The answer is – only if this is a biennium of demonstrable achievement. Only then can UNESCO give vision, hope and leadership to the world and truly contribute in practical ways to peace and human development.

Disclaimer - Privacy
© copyright Ambassade d'Australie à Paris.

Disclaimer Privacy An Australian Government website Copyright Commonwealth of Australia