Madam Chairperson,
Representative of the Director-General,
Distinguished delegates,
It is an honour for me to address you.
The progress report on Strategic Transformation does not provide any essentially new information. However, many questions arise from this report:
- The analyses and proposals contained in the information document on communication, which is only a summary and does not require a decision, allow for a number of observations to be made on the direction to be taken for the Organization’s communications. In fact, the proposed strategy seems to focus communications on UNESCO as a global entity rather than on the Organization’s specific actions, which are linked to the programmes and thus to the action of the Sectors.
- A central directorate integrated into the Office of the Director-General and very well staffed is not in line with current budgetary constraints and is unlikely to be able to address the underlying problem, which is rather a deficit at the Programme Sectors level. In fact, the Sectors do communicate with their target audiences, but on an ad hoc basis and rarely with the appropriate resources and expertise. It is therefore at this level that communication must be rationalized in the sense of scaling up.
- Rather than focusing on communications reform at the central level and even at Headquarters, it should be necessary to consider reforming the Sectors with a view to more effective and efficient communication. It is therefore in the Sectors that strengthened teams, appropriate training and a clearly defined and developed sectoral strategy are needed.
- A major communications directorate (Directorate of Communications and Engagement – DCE) seems to us ultimately somewhat too generalized to meet the Organization’s real
- It does not appear that there has been close interaction between the Strategic Transformation team and the authors of the report, but rather work in parallel which does not reflect the concerns of the work on the overall Strategic Transformation of the Organization.
- It is thus questionable whether the communications review exercise included an assessment of previous evaluations of UNESCO and their effective follow-up.
- A similar issue arises in respect of the group of experts to be appointed to support the Strategic Transformation and prepare it for the upcoming C/4 document. We would also like to know more about the selection criteria that will govern the designation of experts and their specific mandate.
- I would like to point out that ISAU’s questions are essentially constructive in nature. Our overall impression is that the current exercises do not take sufficient account of past experiences, even the most recent ones, and here we might mention the adaptation of the programme to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and that they lack a strictly forward-looking, more in-depth analysis of the context specific to UNESCO, which is not an agency like others. In short, and to conclude on this point, we are concerned that valuable resources may be invested in a process that might not result in anything tangible and transformative.
The reform of the field network is an essential element in improving UNESCO’s efficiency and visibility in the world. The current structure creates confusion for stakeholders inside and outside the UNESCO system. ISAU supports this reform and requests that it be accompanied by a viable human resources plan.
With regard to the principle of time-bound presence of national offices, ISAU requests clarification on the functions envisaged for such offices in terms of posts and activities.
As regards the new Mobility policy, we wonder first and foremost about the link between it and the Strategic Transformation reform. The current sequence and the haste in its implementation may lead to moving staff even before the ongoing reforms in the field offices and Strategic Transformation have been finalized, thus undermining the dynamism and motivation of staff, the primary resource at the service of Member States. There is a disconnect between the different change processes and we are concerned that staff may find themselves to be tantamount to adjustment variables. ISAU is concerned about the risk of arbitrary treatment that could lead to a multiplication in proceedings against the Organization.
ISAU is in favour of mobility provided that the process, particularly with regard to deferments, is transparent and equitable, efficient and fair. However, the current mobility reform does not seem to be taking this direction. If its effectiveness depends to a large extent on the commitment of staff, it must offer prospects for career development. In this regard, ISAU recommended incentive measures such as promotion to a higher grade or at least the granting of two steps.
In conclusion, will UNESCO follow the United Nations Secretariat’s decision to suspend its mobility process to ensure that “the right people are in the right place at the right time”?
Thank you for your attention.
