null
Lucia A Keegan  02/05/2007 05:16:22 PM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 00424

SIPDIS
cxparis:
    ACTION: UNESCO
    INFO:   POL ECON AMBU AMB AMBO DCM SCI

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: CHG: AKOSS
DRAFTED: SCI: NCOOPER
CLEARED: NONE

VZCZCFRI438
PP RUEHC RUEHGV RUCNDT
DE RUEHFR #0424/01 0331547
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 021547Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4657
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 2584
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 1124

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 000424 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
STATE FOR IO/UNESCO SAM BROCK AND KELLY SIEKMAN 
IO/S LISA SPRATT 
IO/EDA GEORGE DRAGNICH 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO AORC UNGA PREL PHUM SOCI EAID
SUBJECT:  UNESCO REACTS TO UN HIGH-LEVEL PANEL REPORT "DELIVERING AS 
ONE":  A CHALLENGE OR AN OPPORTUNITY? 
 
REFS:  A) 06 State 187687 
 
¶1.  This is a guidance request, see para 4. 
 
¶2.  Summary:  After some initial hesitation, UNESCO's Director 
General Matsuura is engaging member states on the results of the UN 
high level panel report "Delivering as One."  In a recent 
standing-room-only information session attended by UNESCO staffers 
and diplomats, the DG's chief of staff and director of strategic 
planning both put a positive spin on the report.  They said that the 
report emphasizes sectoral expertise in the national development 
process, and that this constitutes an opportunity for specialized 
agencies.  But the director of Strategic Planning later confided to 
US Mission Officer:  "We succeeded in getting a link between 
national development plans and specialized agencies, but otherwise 
we lost a lot."  Although the secretariat stressed the need in some 
cases to "seek to modify...what are after all at this stage only 
proposals," UNESCO does intend to be proactively engaged.  This 
includes participation in the seven pilot country offices to be 
established this year.  Of course, this will have budgetary 
implications, the secretariat notes, and is one reason that the DG 
gives for needing a zero real growth 2008-9 budget, with the 
ultimate goal of securing real growth.  (Other implications for 
UNESCO are outlined in paragraph 9). 
 
¶3.  At the information meeting, the DG's chief of staff Elizabeth 
Longworth reported that she chairs UNESCO's working group on UN 
reform.  In terms of UNESCO's efforts to shape the reform process, 
D'Orville described the high-level panel as something of a "closed 
shop." But DG Matsuura himself made two appearances before the 
panel, and there were four UNESCO interventions in all.  Secretariat 
staff participated and will continue to participate in the 
sub-committee of the High-Level Committee (HCLM) on Budget 
(represented by UNESCO HR Director Dyane Dufesne) and the Chief 
Executive Board (CEB) High-Level Committee on Programs (represented 
by D'Orville).  Looking forward, the DGs of the specialized agencies 
will meet in March to seek a common position on the role of the 
specialized agencies within UN reform.  The CEB meeting in April is 
another key meeting. 
 
¶4.  Comment:  Perhaps the reservations expressed and questions posed 
by UNESCO and other UN specialized agencies on the high-level panel 
report can inform the USG strategy.  UNESCO is clearly worried that 
its limited in-country influence will be even further diminished. 
We continue to stress to our colleagues here that the panel's 
findings have not been officially adopted.  But the impact of the 
"Delivering as One" proposals on the UNESCO secretariat appear so 
far to be somewhat positive; there seems to be a realization that a 
more targeted approach at the field level is needed, as competition 
from other agencies looms.  Post Requests additional guidance on the 
High-Level Panel Recommendations as they pertain to specialized 
agencies in order to prepare for the DG's February 16 information 
meeting with member states on this subject.  End summary and 
comment. 
 
¶5.  UNESCO Secretariat organized an hour-long forum on the 
"Delivering as One" report within the context of the "60 minutes to 
Convince" series.  Highlighting the degree of interest in this 
topic, the audience was standing room only, unprecedented for this 
series of weekly information sessions; much of the audience was 
drawn from the secretariat. On the panel were Elizabeth Longworth, 
recently appointed chief of Staff of DG Matsuura, and Hans 
D'Orville, UNESCO's Director of Strategic Planning.  Longworth 
reported that she chairs a Working Group on UN Reform in which 
D'Orville and Director of Field Offices Lamia Salmon also 
participate. 
 
DG's Office:  A Challenge, but also an Opportunity... 
 
¶6.  Longworth began by professing herself pleased by the level of 
interest evidenced by the size of the audience, expressing regret 
that she had not been able to have representatives from UNESCO's 
field offices participate in the panel.  She described the evolution 
of UN reform efforts since 1997, noting that the report of the 
high-level panel was one of several recently issued UN reports 
pertinent to UNESCO.  Longworth characterized the conclusions of the 
panel's report as "going to the heart of program delivery 
in-country," stressing that they would "have impact on UNESCO's work 
at all levels."  Sounding a theme that she rehearsed throughout the 
session, she declared "this exercise represents not only a 
challenge, but an opportunity for UNESCO."  Longworth outlined the 
findings of the high-level panel regarding the UN system, 
highlighting the need for reform, a weak financial base, a 
"supply-driven" approach to programming; she concluded that the 
report constituted "a loud call for change" to a system that had 
"lost its edge as a source of development knowledge." 
 
Strategic Planning:  An Opportunity, but Also a Challenge 
¶7.  In his presentation, Strategic Planning Director D'Orville 
focused on the potential impact of the report of the High-Level 
Panel, saying that at stake is the future of the UN system in the 
development sector, and the achievement of internationally agreed 
development goals.  Regarding the report's impact on specialized 
agencies, D'Orville struck a positive tone: "the emphasis the report 
puts on sectoral expertise in the national development process 
constitutes an opportunity for specialized agencies," but he also 
stressed "we must capitalize on this." 
 
¶8.  D'Orville went on to highlight a number of "open questions" 
regarding the "Delivering as One" approach (Comment:  Such questions 
are D'Orville's habitual manner of expressing skepticism.  End 
comment).   Will designating "one leader" - an experienced regional 
coordinator - imply day-to-day authority over all agencies, or 
better coordination in pursuit of UN Development Assistance 
Frameworks (UNDAFs)? What are the financial implications of the "one 
office" approach - would costs increase if UNESCO no longer occupies 
office space supplied gratis by the host government?  How does the 
"one program" differ from the UNDAF?  Do all of the "ones" have to 
be implemented at once, or can they phased - "perhaps there is no 
one-size-fits-all model."  In D'Orville's view, the key element is 
"one program."  In describing the panel's conclusions in the areas 
of development, humanitarian affairs, and the environment, D'Orville 
raised additional questions.  Regarding humanitarian assistance, who 
can access the CERF (Central Emergency Response Fund)?   How will 
UNESCO fit into the humanitarian affairs scheme managed by UNDG and 
OCHA?   On the environment, D'Orville charged, the high level 
panel's report "doesn't take into account" UNEP's unique nature, and 
"is ignorant" of current UN team efforts, including the WWAP (World 
Water Assessment Program) and UN Oceans and UN Water. 
 
¶9.  Although D'Orville rejected a "one-size-fits-all approach," 
endorsing instead a "managed pluralism," he asserted that UNESCO was 
determined to be "alert and pro-active" in responding to the panel's 
conclusions, including in bringing the concerns outlined above "to 
the table."  He also signaled UNESCO's determination to be present 
in the seven pilot UN offices slated to start in 2007 (subject to 
review).  Noting the 2012 target date for opening all of the 
offices, D'Orville described this as a "mind-boggling task - can we 
be in all of them, or can we make a choice?"  At stake for UNESCO, 
D'Orville posited, is its capacity to: contribute to the attainment 
of national development priorities; reassert its thematic leadership 
in education, the sciences, culture and communication and 
information technology; and collaborate with other specialized 
agencies.  The panel's recommendations would have impact on UNESCO 
in the following areas:  the program management cycle; the allotment 
of program resources (at the country, regional and cluster office 
levels); and the need for staff training in common country 
programming and results-based management.  The panel's 
recommendations would also have great impact on UNESCO's 
decentralization scheme, now based on the cluster office model, as 
well as on the role of UNESCO's National Commissions; for this 
reason, UNESCO's decentralization task force has been revived. 
 
 
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:  "THAT TRAIN HAS PASSED" 
 
¶10.  During the question and answer session, the U.S. queried the 
panelists on the focal point for UN reform in the Secretariat.  DG's 
Chief of Staff Longworth said that the Bureaus of Strategic Planning 
and of Field Office Coordination both play key roles in the Working 
Group on UN reform that she chairs; the director of Field Offices 
had just in fact returned from a trip to Viet Nam.  The circle is 
gradually widening, with the sector assistant director generals to 
be brought into the act "as we move more concretely."  The group had 
recently identified ten areas in which UNESCO would need to change 
to respond to panel recommendations.  This working group is also 
playing a liaison role vis-a-vis other UN agencies.  The ADG for 
Culture would have to "ensure the rightful place of culture" in 
national development schemes. 
 
¶11.  A representative from Viet Nam asked about UNESCO's 
coordination with her government in the context of the planned pilot 
UN office there. She was told that UNESCO had not participated in 
the drafting of the UNDAF for Viet Nam.  What is needed now is a One 
UN Plan that is a "UNDAF plus", to include strong elements of 
education, science and culture.  Concern was voiced by a staffer 
from the Brasilia Office that UNESCO's administrative rules are not 
sufficiently flexible to allow for in-country cooperation with other 
UN agencies; another staffer expressed concern about the budgetary 
implications of UNESCO's participation in the one UN offices, with 
complete coverage expected in 2012.  In response to both questions, 
the panelists stressed necessary support and understanding from 
member states.  Implementing the high-level panel recommendations 
would mean that "we are going to need to review how we operate"; the 
potential budgetary impact of the recommendations is one reason the 
DG advocates a zero real growth budget, with the goal of securing 
real growth.  When a science sector specialist asked how the 
"Delivering as One" approach would marry with UNESCO's global and 
regional approaches to environmental sciences, Longworth responded 
that UNESCO's role in fostering UN cooperation marries perfectly 
with UN reform.  But D'Orville warned bluntly, "We can't say that 
because UNESCO deals with science, we can't be part of this.  That 
train has passed." 
 
¶12.  In response to a question on next steps, Longworth stressed the 
DG's quick commitment to join the 2007 pilots.   But a "pro-active 
response" must be balanced with a  "a refusal to follow blindly - in 
some cases we need to seek to modify, not follow, what are after all 
at this stage only proposals."   It will be important to convince 
the One UN pilot countries that UNESCO can lead on UNESCO's priority 
areas.  Looking forward, Longworth outlined a six point action plan, 
including: enhanced staff awareness; a new Medium-Term Strategy 
(2008-13) presenting a clear idea of "where we are strong"; the 
UNESCO Working Group on UN reform serving as a coordinating 
mechanism with links to the decentralization Task Force; UNESCO 
presence at key meetings; continued UNESCO efforts at internal 
reform; and the DG's continued commitment to reform and to 
"Delivering as One".  To advance the last point, of course, 
financial resources will be needed to pursue the one UN pilot 
offices. 
Koss