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

UNESCO EXECUTIVE BOARD

170th session


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

and

The preliminary proposals by the Director-General for the Draft Programme and Budget for 2006-2007


Items 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1


Intervention by

Jane Madden
Australia

5 October 2004

Noted scientist and philosopher Bronowski commented “We have to understand that the world can only be grasped by action - not by contemplation or discussion.”. We would do well to remember these words as we seek to make sense of the vast array of Board documentation in front of us.

I would like to focus much of this intervention on the 33C/5, the draft Programme and Budget for 2006-2007, UNESCO’s future action in the next biennium. On behalf of the Australian delegation and my Board member, I would like to thank the Secretariat, especially the Bureau of Strategic Planning and National Commissions Division, for the comprehensive consultation process leading up to the release of this documentation. Amongst international organizations, UNESCO is unique in this level of grass roots consultation. And we consider it a real strength to be nourished.

In the Asia-Pacific, highly successful regional consultations were held in Wellington in May and we can trace though many of the key themes discussed in the priorities and programme of the draft 33 C/5. However, some significant elements of the questionnaires from Australia and other Pacific Member States appear not to have been fully captured, so we take this opportunity to clarify and reinforce our views.

Examining the Director-General’s proposals sequentially, we welcome the conceptual basis of the programming framework but are concerned that specific mention is not made of the goal of having a Rolling Strategy. In this the last biennium, the strategy from the 31C/5 and 32C/5 should “roll” and move forward into the 33C/5, taking in the need for UNESCO to respond to new developments: the impact of terrorism, natural disasters, significant world summits, and the emerging shortcomings in the flagship programme EFA (of which we will speak more later). We were also dismayed to see no reference to Barbados+10 and the related Resolution passed unanimously at the last General Conference to focus on the needs of small island states.

Australia does not accept the sentiments of paragraph 2 which imply that the 33C/5 cannot be based on Evaluation of past biennia simply because of formal dates for the presentation of Evaluation reports to the 34th Session of the General Conference. Evaluation should be an ongoing process in all programme sectors and progress must be hastened to introduce results-based management (RBM) and reporting and meaningful performance indicators into all programmes and sub-programmes.

In terms of modalities, Australia considers that capacity building is the top priority for UNESCO in pursuing its role, especially in the Pacific sub-region.

While we agree that the impact of action can be strengthened by concentration and prioritisation, we call for a list of those sub-programmes which will be dropped, or substantially reduced, for this to be a meaningful approach and not just a continuation of the same suite of activities with modified budget amounts. Clear leadership with a long term view to results must lie behind UNESCO’s priorities.

Australia also agrees with the thrust of the mainstreaming approach outlined here but would like to see the 33C/5 contain a matrix to reveal all the embedding of programmes, for example for Youth, so all Members can be confident that programmes have been effectively and transparently integrated.

We support the suggestion in Paragraph 17 to reinforce emphasis on Dialogue Among Civilisations and would add to this the vital dimension of Education for Intercultural and Interfaith Understanding. This stems from the importance Australia, a culturally diverse, tolerant and inclusive society, places on education catering for, and facilitating dialogue amongst, a diversity of religion and ethnicity.

Regarding conflicts and crisis, we believe that UNESCO’s capacity to act - in concert with other parts of the UN and international community – will be, and has been, a critical measure of the value of the Organization. Australia has already suggested that the time may have come to have a dedicated unit established in the Secretariat in this domain, perhaps drawing on the experience of the World Bank’s LICUS Unit (Low Income Countries Under Stress) but focusing on UNESCO’s core strengths. Given the unpredictability of crises, initial response actions may have to be carried out – at least in the very early phase - by the regional network with Headquarters support from the coordinating Advisory unit as soon as practicable. In the event of crises, the whole Organization and its leadership should not be allowed to be paralysed, or distracted excessively from other priority tasks. We are, however, disturbed about the suggestion of a “dedicated open budget line” (paragraph 19) and, while acknowledging the difficulty of planning for conflict and crisis, we would need much more explanation of the proposed budgetary technique before approving it.

In Section C Results Based Management, the wording is soft and too vague. Much more resolve must be shown by the Director-General to introduce RBM as speedily as possible and to create a culture in the Secretariat where Evaluation becomes not a threat, but a tool of sound management. In so doing, the Director-General can empower line managers, and reduce the risk of Sixth Floor micro-management, without compromising performance.

We share the Director-General’s view that an increasing level and scope of interdisciplinarity and intersectorality is needed. We therefore endorse the views outlined in paragraphs 24 to 26. Australia also suggests experimentation in the 33C/5 with jointly shared staff positions between sectors for intersectoral programmes, a practice common now in professional and research organizations and Universities.

UNESCO must do better at transferring knowledge internally and externally; staff are still preoccupied with protecting their turf. At a practical level, more emphasis should be placed on linking people on the ground through technology. Some international organizations have thousands of video conferences per month and the initial capital outlay is recuperated from savings in travel. Any one who has tried to organise a phone or video conference here knows that these tools are not being used effectively in UNESCO. UNESCO prides itself on being a knowledge organization but does not impart sufficiently that knowledge through its working culture or modes of delivery. Technological and methodological change can improve UNESCO’s effectiveness and its outreach to all its offices and to its 190 Member States.

Similarly, we are happy to see earlier suggestions by Australia and others adopted under Cross Cutting themes, including the incorporation of successful CCT projects such as LINKS and those relating to micro-credit and empowerment of girls, rolled in to the mainstream budget. Again, we would want to see unsuccessful ones dropped and others continue but with careful evaluation and better oversight to ensure they are meeting the thematic objective.

The section on decentralisation misses the very rationale of decentralisation – more devolution of decision making to the Field and a truly effective staff rotation policy. Neither of these is evident in the organization at the moment - the mere percentage of funds decentralised is not an adequate indicator.

We strongly support the point in paragraph 33 that the Participation Programme must not be used to fund regional or Cluster meetings on the C/4 and C/5. Indeed a unanimous Resolution to this effect was passed by Asia Pacific Countries at their Consultation. This must also apply to the current biennium and no element of the recent Consultations must be funded from the Participation Programme for this purpose which is part of the core business of the Organization. We also agree with para 38 that a more effective way must be found to process regional requests - the current round without clear criteria or time frames has left much to be desired.

We support and appreciate the efforts of the Secretariat to strengthen National Commissions, but, as our experience working with emerging National Commissions such as Timor L’Este indicates, more practical training in areas such as preparing for the General Conference, preparing and acquitting PP requests, paying membership dues, writing Interventions etc, is required.

Turning to Programme Areas, we will make specific comments in the PX Commission but Australia is broadly happy with the general balance in all programme areas. We certainly agree that the 33C/5 will have to accommodate drastic changes in modalities for the EFA programme which will result from the debate on the recent Strategic Review at this current Board meeting. To us, the Review has offered few concrete actions that give us grounds to be confident that UNESCO can regain its leadership role. And yet never has the need been greater - of 2.8 billion people in the world, 1.8 billion are children under 14 needing education. Education is the key not only to reducing poverty but to building peace.

Regarding the budget ceiling, Australia continues to support a ZNG budget. This is consistent with the Government’s established policy approach to our budget contributions to the UN system but also with our view that budget discipline in UNESCO has facilitated greater concentration and prioritization of the programme and spurred effectiveness in modes of delivery.

Against this background, we have concerns about the approach adopted in 170 EX 12 part III whereby the four options have been prepared on the basis of “preserving the same volume of activities” as in the 32 C/5. In our view, the appropriate approach is one in which the key objectives of the Organization, and the results we want it to achieve, are clearly identified, together with the high priority programmes which will achieve them. With such an approach, members would then be in a better position to determine how much budget we are prepared to invest to achieve these results.

We therefore request the Director-General to prepare the draft 33C/5 budget on the basis of one or more ZNG budget scenarios, with the Director-General identifying in different ways how both the key programme priorities of the Organization, as well as programme-related obligations such as the HQ loan repayment and security, can be met, while at the same time reducing or eliminating lower priorities and activities. Preparation of a ZNG budget will provide Member States with a useful base-line comparison to evaluate the relative value of additional resources.

We recognise that some programmes might have to be cut or reduced but this is desirable. Australia has repeatedly called for the introduction of sunset clauses in most programmes, and certainly all new ones. We continue to believe that there exist further creative ways to increase efficiency in UNESCO’s methods of working while delivering priority programmes. We would like the 33C/5 to reveal staffing levels by sub-programme, and publication of draft Secretariat Work Plans including those of Field Offices.

While we acknowledge the work undertaken in the past few years to develop new policies in the HRM area, Australia continues to seek a much improved approach to their effective implementation, including especially more transparent recruitment and selecti

Disclaimer Privacy An Australian Government website Copyright Commonwealth of Australia