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

300854Z Jun 06

UNCLAS PARIS 004511 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION TO UNESCO PARIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO CRISTINA NOVO 
STATE FOR OES SHIRA YOFFE 
STATE FOR IO/S LISA SPRATT 
STATE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DAS HOFFMAN 
STATE FOR DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NPS STEPHEN MORRIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC SCUL KSCA SENV UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO: STRIVING FOR RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT AT THE WORLD 
HERITAGE COMMITTEE - REFLECTION FIRST 
 
 
¶1.  INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY:  On May 30, 2006, consultant Bruno 
Lefevre gave a presentation about his work to institute Results 
Based Management (RBM) at the World Heritage (WH) Center.  He was 
one of two consultants hired to examine the RBM framework and World 
Heritage System model, and propose a roadmap toward RBM; the project 
is funded by the UN Foundation, an American NGO.  The purpose of the 
meeting was for Lefevre - who retired from UNESCO in 2005 -- to get 
feedback and opinions on this presentation from interested 
delegations before his formal presentation to the entire WH 
Committee at its July 2006 meeting in Vilnius.  Participants noted 
the abstract quality of Lefevre's work so far, and the fact that not 
much progress has been made in presenting recommendations.  In a 
side discussion, the Lithuanian Ambassador, President of the World 
Heritage Committee, said she did not expect the DG to raise the 
issue of WH Center autonomy at Vilnius, though she reported that 
talks are ongoing.  The delegations  present at the briefing were: 
the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, 
Lithuania, Japan and St. Lucia. END SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION. 
 
ON WH REFORM, "PROCESSES," NO RECOMMENDATIONS YET 
 
¶2.  Lefevre's presentation did not evoke specific reforms.  Instead, 
the consultants have identified the "processes" of what Lefevre 
termed the "World Heritage System" including the Committee, the 
Centre, and the Advisory Bodies.  In this schema, the consultants 
identified core, management, and support processes.  Within each 
"process", the consultants identified outputs, output indicators, 
outcomes and outcome indicators.  After detailing these processes, 
the consultants proposed four steps to implementing RBM: 1. Define 
an overall WH Center strategic plan.  2.  Re-organize the WH Center 
around processes.  3.  Set up measurement system.  4.  Restructure 
WH Committee governance.  In response to questions, Lefevre said he 
would present specific recommendations at the 2008 WH Committee 
meeting. 
 
¶3.  Many at the briefing thought the presentation would be too 
technical to gain broad support and enthusiasm among the 
participants at the Vilnius meeting.  Both Lithuania and the UK 
suggested there be less jargon in the presentation in order to make 
it more accessible.  The UK reminded the consultant that many of 
those at the meeting would not be experts in, or even necessarily 
aware of, RMB.  Japan agreed with Lithuania and the UK, saying that 
the presentation would be improved by stating up front what the 
objectives were. 
 
¶4.  Others, including Belgium, expressed surprise and disappointment 
that the consultants had so far only identified "processes," but had 
not finalized concrete recommendations.  The UK said that the 
consultant should make clear in the presentation that further 
recommendations would be forthcoming. 
 
¶5.  Note:  The week following the briefing, the UK and St. Lucia 
(former chair of the WH Committee) expressed concern to the U.S. 
Delegation that Lefevre's work was not founded on a thorough audit 
or evaluation of the World Heritage Committee.  The UK posited that 
Lefevre might not be sufficiently independent in his approach - ie 
unwilling to make strong recommendations -- given his previous 
career at the UNESCO secretariat. (Bruno Lefevre retired in December 
¶2005.  He was responsible for RBM training at the Bureau of 
Strategic Planning.   He had previously served as Director of UNESCO 
Offices in Ghana and in Cambodia.) 
End Note. 
 
WILL WH CENTER AUTONOMY BE ON THE VILNIUS AGENDA? 
 
¶6.  Finally, concern was raised, particularly by Canada, that the 
model of the WH Center used by the consultants was already outdated. 
 She questioned whether the WH Center was in fact spending 100 
percent of its resources on World Heritage matters.  Because of the 
reform of the Cultural Sector, encouraged by the DG and the new ADG 
for Culture, there was concern among some in the room that the WH 
Center staff would be spending less time on World Heritage issues, 
as it spends more time on other cultural issues. 
 
¶7.  There was also the question of whether or not issues relating to 
the "autonomous" status of the WH Center would be raised at the 
Conference in Vilnius.  Lithuania, who holds the WH committee 
presidency this year, is meeting with the Director General the week 
of June 12; she said would raise this question with him, but 
confided that she was fairly sure the topic would not be raised in 
Vilnius. 
OLIVER