This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 006136 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO JANE COWLEY 
 
E.O. 12958:     N/A 
TAGS: AORC EAID SOCI UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO GENEVA GROUP TO TACKLE MEDIUM-TERM (2008- 
2013) STATEGY IN ADVANCE OF GENERAL CONFERENCE 
 
REFS:  A) Paris 5862, B) Paris 6028 
 
¶1.  This is a guidance request, see para 5. 
 
¶2. The agenda of the September 13 meeting of UNESCO's 
Geneva group will include discussion of the medium-term 
strategy.  This is the first time in UNESCO's history 
that the strategy has been discussed so far in advance of 
its projected adoption date (General Conference 2007). 
Geneva Group members are aware that early debate affords 
an opportunity for pro-active participation by member 
states in formulating the new strategy. 
¶3.  According to the UK, who will be chairing the 
meeting, the purpose of the discussion will be to agree 
on ideas that we wish to see featured in the medium-term 
strategy, for example, prioritization, results-based 
management, perhaps sunset clauses.  In their view, it 
would be helpful if the General Conference gives 
guidelines to the Secretariat on the preparation of the 
draft strategy:  "Otherwise, once again we will merely be 
reacting to a draft drawn up by the Secretariat based on 
a questionnaire put out by the Secretariat." 
¶4.  To that end, the UK has circulated in advance of the 
September 13 meeting a paper to serve as a basis for 
discussion.  The text (excepted para 6) is in fact a 
Draft Resolution that was presented to the May 2005 
Executive Board, the product of an informal Geneva Group 
Working Group.  Given the press of time, the Executive 
Board adopted only a scaled-down version, mandating that 
the medium-term strategy would be on the agenda of the 
next General Conference.  The text raises key points 
relating to reform that could be raised in the context of 
the medium term-strategy:  a more tightly-defined set of 
principal priorities; ways to implement fully results- 
based budgeting and management; development of an 
organizational culture of "intersectorality"; 
decentralization; reorganization of programs; UNESCO's 
role in the context of post-emergency and post-conflict 
situations; improved management of extra-budgetary 
resources. 
 
¶5.  Guidance request/recommendation: U.S. permanent 
delegation requests guidance on text in advance of the 
September 13 meeting.  Mission recommends that the 
Department consider the following talking points as a 
basis for informal consultations within the Geneva group: 
 
We believe it is essential that the General Conference 
issue clear guidance to the Secretariat and to regional 
groups to guide their work on the medium-term strategy. 
 
The points enumerated in point seven of the UK text are a 
good basis for this guidance. 
 
We believe that fundamental questions relating to the 
structure/format of the medium-term strategy must be 
raised.  For whom is the strategy intended?  How is it to 
be used? 
 
We believe that the format of the report should be 
altered so that it focuses more sharply on UNESCO's 
program activities.  For members of the secretariat, the 
medium-term strategy should convey clear, concise 
guidance on how to fulfill their functions.  Next steps 
should be clear. Target countries/regions specified. 
 
For member states, specific benchmarks should be provided 
so that we can track the extent to which UNESCO's 
programs bring about genuine change.  To allow member 
states to do this, the document must be reader-friendly. 
To this end, we should consider developing guidelines, 
including page limits and comprehensive summaries, as 
appropriate. 
 
One structure to consider might be to introduce one to 
three overarching cross-sectoral themes:  for example, 
capacity building.  But instead of burying such cross- 
sector themes in the back, we might consider stating them 
up front.  The strategy would then outline specific ways 
in which each of UNESCO's programs should contribute to 
the theme. In this way, UNESCO's programs would gain in 
coherence. 
 
One issue to reflect upon is whether the six-year 
planning time framework militates against a sharply 
focused document, particularly given the fact that UNESCO 
is going through a period of change.  Perhaps reducing 
the framework to four years would be more workable. In 
any case, the strategy should be subject to periodic 
formal review by member states. 
As to the substance of the new strategy, we should 
strongly urge that the Secretariat take into account 
guidance offered by outside consultants and evaluators. 
This is particularly true in the case of the Education 
sector, where the Education ADG is engaged in a 
reevaluation process. 
 
Regarding process, the Secretariat should hold regular, 
and not less than quarterly, meetings for all member 
states on progress forward.  The possibility of video- 
conferencing could be explored.  This would enhance 
member states' ability to shape the development of the 
medium-term strategy. 
 
¶6.  Begin excerpt from UK Text: 
 
The preparation of a revised medium-term strategy should 
begin at the 33rd session of the General Conference with 
a discussion of the principles which should govern its 
preparation and drafting;  (these could include): 
 
  a)   the possibility of identifying a more tightly- 
     defined set of principal priorities as a clear framework 
     for a results-based approach to programming and 
     budgeting; 
 
  b)   analysis of further steps needed to implement fully 
     results-based budgeting and management; 
 
  c)    the further development of an organizational 
     culture of "intersectorality", both at Headquarters and 
     in the field, in the light of experience with cross- 
     cutting themes, as a means of contributing to the 
     achievement of UNESCO's principal priorities; 
 
  d)    the need to review, in the light of experience with 
     decentralization, the complementary roles of Headquarters 
     and the field in delivering results against the 
     Organization's principal priorities and to make 
     recommendations on how the work of Headquarters and the 
     field should be more closely integrated in order to have 
     a measurable impact at country level, particularly in 
     Member States which are classified as LDCs]; 
 
  e)   the case for reorganizing, on the basis of 
     experience in UNESCO and the Wider United Nations system 
     of outsourcing and relocation, certain programmes and 
     certain management and other functions, in order to 
     improve UNESCO's effectiveness and to position UNESCO 
     more strongly within the multilateral system; 
 
  f)   the need to define, aim at consensus within the 
     United Nations system on, UNESCO's role in the context of 
     post-emergency and post-conflict situations; 
 
  g)   ways and means of improving the management of 
     extrabudgetary resources in order to ensure that they are 
     fully and effectively spent in support of UNESCO's role 
     in the context of post-emergency and post-conflict 
     situations.  End Text. 
 
OLIVER