Bergen, 12 December 2016€¦ · Bergen, 12 December 2016 Dear Sir, With reference to your most recent letter GBS/SCG/16/062 dated 08 December 2016, which follows up on previous communications

Bergen,12December2016DearSir,With reference to yourmost recent letterGBS/SCG/16/062dated08December2016,whichfollowsuponpreviouscommunicationsfromAprilandOctober2016, Iamhappytotransmitthe completed fact sheetson theworkingmethodsof the IntergovernmentalOceanographicCommission.

Inthiscontext,IwouldliketoinformyouthatyourinitialrequestofApril2016wasbroughttotheattentionoftheIOCExecutiveCouncilatits49thsessioninJune2016duringthemeetingsof the sessionalworkinggrouponTheFutureof IOC,which I co-chairedwithvice-chairArielTroisifromArgentinaandwhichwereattendedby19MemberStatesandtwoobservers.

TheworkinggroupconsidereddocumentIOC/EC-XLIX/2Annex10(attachedherewithforeaseofreference)whichexploresgeneralgovernanceissuesincludingadditionalwaysofincreasingthe efficiency and effectiveness of preparing and organizing the work of the IOC governingbodies. Thediscussionsgreatlybenefitted fromapresentationby theco-chairs fromNorwayand the Philippines of the open-endedWorking Group on the governance of UNESCO, whoparticipatedinthefirstmeetingoftheworkinggroupandclarifiedthecontextandscopeofthisexercise. Theensuingexchangeof viewswashighly constructive and informative, concludingwithaconsensusonthevalueofcontinuingthisdialoguewithaviewofensuringthattheIOCspecificroleandstatuswithinUNESCOisadequatelyaddressed.

The Executive Council cautioned that the restricted length of the governing body sessions,enacted in response to limited financial resources, was detrimental to free discussionopportunities and in-sessiondebate. In this context, theCouncil regretted that the relevantworking document IOC/EC-XLIX/2Annex10 on the UNESCO Governance audit and its draftdecisioncouldnotbeproperlydiscussedinplenary,duetolackoftime.Inparticular,therewassomediscussionontheapproachandtimelineforpreparingacontributiontothedeliberationsof the General Conference’s Working Group on this issue. A consensus was reached onextendingtheconsultationonthisissuetoallMemberStatesduringtheintersessionalperiodand on reporting the results to the next session of the Executive Council preceding theAssemblyinJune2017.TheCouncilagreedtoincludeindecision6.2(II)(attachedherewithforeaseof reference), an extended consultationprocess to respond to theUNESCO reviewandexternalauditofIOCbyUNESCOExternalauditor(April2016–referencedocument200EX/20Part II) and agreed that further discussion of governance and working methods should beincluded in the agenda of the next Assembly. I would like to add here that the auditrecommendationsandthecorrespondingimplementationplanproposedbytheSecretariatarecurrentlyunderreviewbytheIntersessionalFinancialAdvisoryGroupledbyVice-ChairTroisi.

InaccordancewiththedecisionoftheIOCExecutiveCouncil,thisissuewillbefurtherdiscussedattheannualmeetingoftheIOCOfficers,16-18January2017,UNESCOHQ.Subsequently,theSecretariat will issue a circular letter to all IOC Member States, transmitting the relevantdocumentation(includingthecompletedfactsheettransmittedhereby),and invitingregionalconsultations by Member States, facilitated by respective vice-chairs. The results of these

consultationsandallinputreceivedfromMemberStateswillbemadeavailableunderaspecificsectionontheIOCweb-site(www.ioc-unesco.org/governance)andbroughttotheattentionofthe IOC Executive Council and Assembly in June 2017. It is expected that the open-endedworkinggroupmeetingwillbescheduledduringtheExecutiveCouncilmeetingsoastoallowasbroadandall-inclusiveparticipationandinputbyMemberStatesaspossible.ThefinaldecisiononthematterwillthenbediscussedandendorsedbytheIOCAssembly.

It goes without saying that we shall keep you and your secretariat appraised on all thedevelopments inthisarea. Inthemeantime,theSecretariat,myselfandmyfellowOfficersofthe Commission are at your disposal for any contributions, as appropriate, to the importantworkcarriedoutunderyourleadership.Pleaseaccept,Sir,theassurancesofmyhighestconsideration,

PeterM.Haugan ChairpersonofIOCMrStanleyMutumbaSIMATAAPresidentoftheGeneralConferenceofUNESCOUNESCOHQ7,placedeFontenoy75352Paris07SPFranceAttachments:

- FactsheetonIOC- IOC/EC-XLIX/2Annex10- IOC/EC-XLIXDecision6.2(II)- 200EX/20PartII

FACT SHEET QUESTIONNAIRE TO BE FILLED OUT BY THE SECRETARIATS OF UNESCO’s INTERNATIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (IOC) of UNESCO

1. Committee/Institute/Convention/Commission/Programme

a. Mandate and objectives

The present statutes of the IOC (IOC/INF-1148), which came into force through adoption by the General Conference of UNESCO of 30 C/Resolution 22 of 16 November 1999, give the mission of the Commission as follows:

‘Article 2 – Purpose

The purpose of the Commission is to promote international cooperation and to coordinate programmes in research, services and capacity-building, in order to learn more about the nature and resources of the ocean and coastal areas and to apply that knowledge for the improvement of management, sustainable development, the protection of the marine environment, and the decision-making processes of its Member States.

The Commission will collaborate with international organizations concerned with the work of the Commission, and especially with those organizations of the United Nations system which are willing and prepared to contribute to the purpose and functions of the Commission and/or to seek advice and cooperation in the field of ocean and coastal area scientific research, related services and capacity-building.’

The IOC, established in 1960 as a body with functional autonomy within UNESCO, is the only specialized organization for marine science within the UN system. In addition, IOC is recognized through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the competent international organization in the fields of Marine Scientific Research (Part XIII) and Transfer of Marine Technology (Part XIV). The stand-alone Sustainable Development Goal 14 on Oceans recognizes IOC’s standard-setting role through the “IOC Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology” and covers the IOC mandate and programmatic activities through its various Targets. Consistent with the mission statement above, the IOC Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021 is derived from the following vision

‘Strong scientific understanding and systematic observations for the changing world ocean climate and ecosystems shall underpin sustainable development and global governance for a healthy ocean, and global, regional and national management of risks and opportunities from the ocean’.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001243/124367m.pdf


More specifically, through international cooperation, IOC aspires to help its Member States to collectively achieve the following high-level objectives (HLOs), with particular attention to ensuring that all Member States have the capacity to meet them:

– Healthy ocean ecosystems and sustained ecosystem services;

– Effective early warning systems and preparedness for tsunamis and ocean-related hazards;

–Increased resiliency to climate change and enhanced effectiveness of ocean-based activities;

– Enhanced knowledge of emerging ocean science issues.

b. Do you have specific goals for the work foreseen in the current biennium? c.

The current biennium 2016-2017 is the second biennium of the 2014-2015 quadrennium and as such is largely based on programme continuity, while adapting the Commission’s programmatic strategy as a new “roadmap” in light of the four global frameworks/agreements, “pillars of work” of the Commission (SDGs, SAMOA Pathway, Sendai Framework for DRR, Paris Agreement/UNFCCC that emerged in 2015. For 2018-2021, the IOC will promote one expected result: ‘Science-informed policies for reduced vulnerability to ocean hazards, for the global conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources, and increased resilience and adaptation to climate change, developed and implemented by Member States, towards the realization of Agenda 2030.’ Following the discussions of the IOC Executive Council in June 2016 and consistent with the recommendations of the UNESCO External Auditor, the IOC Assembly at its 29th session in June 2017 will be adopting an update to the current Medium-Term Strategy as well as a fully-developed Executive Roadmap.

d. Number of members and length of mandate periods for members 148 Member States of which 40 are members of the IOC Executive Council. The term of office of the EC members is two years.

e. Are the members organized by electoral groups? For the purpose of the elections Member States are organized by electoral groups I to V. The Bureau of the IOC is composed of five officers representing each of the five electoral groups plus a chairperson originated from any of these groups. For the purpose of the programme definition and implementation, IOC Member States are organized in regional sub-commissions and committees (regional subsidiary bodies of IOC). Various programmes with strong intergovernmental component also have their own


technical subsidiary bodies. In this regard, the Governing bodies of the IOC, further supported by the underlying network of technical and regional subsidiary bodies and expert groups, ensure strong ownership of IOC programmes by the beneficiary communities.

f. Intergovernmental or personal capacity/expert capacity of members Governing body meetings are intergovernmental ones. National delegations to these meetings are composed of representatives of National Coordinating Bodies for Liaison with the IOC which have a decision-making as well as an expertise capacity. This structure acts as a national platform for ocean affairs in their country and represents their government to IOC governing body sessions.

g. Have chairperson or/and Members States received introduction to the work and working methods? The IOC Rules of Procedure (IOC/INF-1166) provides the framework of reference needed (Section XIII. Conduct of business). Assembly and Executive Council sessions are always preceded by one day for preparatory meetings, including half a day for a meeting of Elected Officers. Once elected the Officers meet to define roles and areas of responsibilities for each of them. Each Officer is supported by a staff member of the Secretariat in discharging his/her responsibilities: ex. the Vice-Chair in charge of Programme and Budget and Financial matters of the Commission is assisted by the IOC/EO/AO who acts as a technical secretary to the sessional Financial Committee and the Intersessional Financial Advisory Group. The Vice-Chair in charge of observing and warning systems, is assisted by Head IOC/OSS and Head IOC/TSU in their respective areas of competence etc. The newly elected Officers also benefit from assistance and guidance by the past Chair, who joins all the meetings in the two years that follow his/her term.

h. Are Observers authorized to participate and/or take the floor? The Commission collaborates with international organizations concerned with the work of the Commission, and especially with those organizations of the United Nations system which are willing and prepared to contribute to the purpose and functions of the Commission and/or to seek advice and cooperation in the field of ocean and coastal area scientific research, related services and capacity-building. Those partner organizations are invited to attend IOC Governing Bodies as observers. They can take the floor and their interventions are reflected in the report of the session. They can also propose supplementary items on the agenda and documents. They cannot submit draft resolutions.

i. Meeting frequency and length The Assembly and the Executive Council meet alternatively every year. The duration of an Assembly is six working days preceded by a half-a-day meeting of the Council acting as the steering committee of the Assembly. An Ocean Science Day symposium which attracts high level expertise and provides a forum for hot topics in Ocean Science is organized in conjunction with the Assembly.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001251/125186m.pdf


An Executive Council session meets during three working days. Joint Meetings of Regional Subsidiary Bodies as well as intersessional meetings of working groups (usually the Intersessional Financial Advisory Group and working group on the IOC and the Future of the Ocean) are organized one day prior to the start of the sessions.

j. How many languages are interpreted during the meetings? Rules of Procedure 33.2 provides that English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be the working languages for documentation and interpretation at sessions of the Assembly and the Executive Council of the Commission.

k. Where do the meetings take place? In the last two decades, by decision of IOC Member States, meetings take place at UNESCO HQ

l. Overall budget, including corresponding funding sources broken down as follows:

In $ RP (for the biennium 2012-2013) Other sources (2012-2013) Organizing & preparing meetings 335,025 241,395 Operational activities

n/a n/a

UNESCO staff (approximate budget in lump sum)

234,025 41,395

2. Bureau (if any)

a. Number of members, mandate period, number of times for possible reelection The IOC Bureau is composed of the Chairperson, five Vice-chairpersons, the IOC Executive Secretary. The past chairperson of the Commission is ex-officio member of the Bureau. IOC Officers are elected for two years by the Assembly and can be re-elected only once in the same position.

b. Intergovernmental or personal capacity/expert capacity? Personal capacity


c. Meetings frequency and length

The Bureau holds a regular meeting at the beginning of each year. It meets also in conjunction with an IOC Governing Body annual session, before and after the session.

d. Are observers allowed to participate and/or speak? No. Members of the Bureau represents their electoral groups. Member States do not participate. On exceptional circumstances an external speaker may be invited to clarify an issue on the agenda (e.g. the External auditor explaining what is expected from the Chairperson with regards to the questionnaire on the Self-assessment on Governance).

e. Interpretation during the meetings? Not during the Bureau (Officers’) meetings.

f. How many languages interpreted during the meetings? None. Before a Governing body session, the documentation for the session is distributed in the working languages.

g. Where do the meetings take place? At Headquarters or at the invitation of the country of one Officer. Regularly, joint meetings with the officers of WMO are organized in conjuctions with the annual meetings. This particular segment of the meeting may then rotate between UNESCO HQ and WMO HQ in Geneva. Always at HQ when in conjunction to an IOC Governing Body session.

3. Rules of procedure

a. Who adopts the rules of procedure? The IOC Assembly.

b. Preparation of meeting i. Who decides agenda?


The IOC Officers review the draft prepared by the Secretariat during their annual meeting, usually in January. The finalized draft is then shared with all Member States through a circular letter. The final agenda is adopted by the Governing body on the first day of the session.

ii. When are documents sent out? The documentation is made available on line some two months before the session.

iii. Are they sent out in paper form? No.

iv. Can you opt out of receiving printed documents?

Documents are shared and provided electronically. Upon request from delegations, one set of documents can be made available. Every effort is made to reduce this practice, within the existing technical and financial constraints.

v. Who decides the timetable?

The IOC Officers review the draft prepared by the Secretariat during their annual meeting, usually in January. The finalized draft is then shared with all Member States through a circular letter. The final timetable is adopted by the Governing body on the first day of the session.

vi. Who convenes the meeting? The IOC Executive Secretary by IOC circular letters.

vii. Do you open up for video meetings? Not for the Governing Bodies meetings because of the cost involved. But yes, partially for the Officers’ meeting, when some cannot physically attend. Also, joint meetings with WMO are sometimes organized as video meetings or teleconferences.

viii. Can there be extraordinary sessions? i. If yes: how? Yes. The Assembly shall meet in extraordinary session if it so decides or if summoned by the Executive Council, or at the

request of at least one third of the Member States of the Commission, which have submitted their requests to the Executive


Secretary at least four months in advance of the date proposed (Rule 3). Then the Executive Secretary shall fix the place of the extraordinary session in consultation with the Officers of the Commission and the Member States requesting the extraordinary session (Rule 4). The provisional agenda of an extraordinary session shall include only the items for whose consideration the extraordinary session is convened (Rule 8.2). The IOC Executive Secretary shall notify Member States of the Commission not less than three months in advance of the date and place of an extraordinary session (Rule 7). Documentation required for consideration of the items on the provisional agenda of an extraordinary session of the Assembly shall be sent not less than one month before the opening of the opening of an extraordinary session. (Rule 11). Extraordinary sessions of the Executive Council may be convened by decision of the Executive Council, or of one-third of its members, or at the request of the Officers of the Commission who have submitted such a request to the Executive Secretary at least four months before the proposed date. Any request should mention the agenda or agenda item required. The place and date of extraordinary sessions shall be decided by the Executive Council, or by the Executive Secretary in consultation with the Officers of the Commission and Member States requesting an extraordinary session. (Rule 19)

ix. Do you appoint sub groups or sub committees? Yes, sessional and intersessional committees and working groups.

i. If so for what duration and for which tasks? During the course of a session, the Assembly shall establish such committees and such other subsidiary bodies as may be required for the transaction of its business. The Committees of the Assembly shall include a Nominations Committee, a Resolutions Committee and a Financial Committee. A Financial Committee shall be established by the Assembly and be open to all Member States of the Commission. The IOC Assembly defines the programme and budget of the Commission. The same apply to the Executive Council except for the Elections Committee. In addition to sessional committees both governing bodies may establish working groups during the course of their session to work on some issues on their agenda. Chairpersons of the Committees and the working groups report to the plenary of the same governing body.

Upon a decision than contains specific terms of reference and a target time for reporting to the governing body, the governing bodies may also create working groups or task teams for the purpose of examining an issue during the intersessional period. As an example, the Intersessional Financial and Advisory Group is reconvened in each intersessional period. It works by correspondence, under the chairmanship of the Vice-President in charge of the Programme and Budget and the financial matters of the Commission, with the EO/AO/IOC acting as technical secretary.


The Commission through its governing bodies may create for the examination and execution of specific activities, subsidiary bodies composed of Member States or individual experts, after consultation with the Member States concerned. Such subsidiary bodies may be established or convened by the Commission jointly with other organizations.

c. Decision-making i. Who prepare draft decisions?

IOC governing bodies make decisions and resolutions. The IOC Secretariat draft an initial decision for each item on the agenda of the governing body and publish them in an Action Paper drafted as a pre-report in advance of the session. The Action Paper has a description of each item and a text that lead to the draft decision.

Member States can present alternative decisions 24 h before the discussion of the item. Amendments can be submitted during the discussion of the item. As possible decisions are screen edited at the end of the discussion of the item.

According to the IOC Guidelines for the preparation and consideration of draft resolutions, proposed text of Draft Resolutions should be submitted in writing by one or more Member States to the Executive Secretary one month in advance and no later than 72 hours before the opening of the session of a Governing Body during which it will be considered for adoption. The Executive Secretary shall circulate the proposed text of Draft Resolutions as soon as practicable to the IOC Member States for information before their formal review by the Resolutions Committee. Upon completion of a formal review by the Resolutions Committee, formatting, editorial changes, and translation of Draft Resolutions into the working languages of the Commission shall be completed by the IOC Secretariat and then be made available to the delegation members of the Governing Body. If a Draft Resolution is made available to all delegations less than 72 hours prior to the opening session of a Governing Body during which it may be considered for adoption, the Governing Body can decide not to consider it. As an exception to Article 15, it is recognized that the Draft Resolution on Programme and Budget will be submitted during the session of the Governing Body concerned. During the session, amendments to Draft Resolutions may be submitted in writing or orally during the discussion of the relevant agenda item in plenary.

ii. Until when can member states suggest new draft decision or amendments? See above.

iii. Are observers allowed to participate and/or speak? Yes.

iv. How are decisions adopted?


See above.

4. Relation to General Conference and Executive Board and to other intergovernmental organs a. Do you formally submit proposals for the program and budget of UNESCO (C/5)? If yes, how?

In accordance with the Statutes of the Commission (ref. document 157/EX Decisions), 'The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission … is established as a body with functional autonomy within the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).' This concept of 'functional autonomy' which is granted to IOC within the Organization, is different from that of 'delegation of authority', granted to the Executive Secretary of IOC by the Director-General. IOC's functional autonomy within UNESCO concerns the exercise of its 'functions', that is to say, the performing of its activities as well as the definition of its programmes. On the other hand, the delegation of authority refers in particular to 'administrative and financial matters'. (ref. Memo from the Legal Adviser, LA/GEN/2004/268/LC of 6 September 2004). In accordance with the IOC Statutes, the ‘Commission defines and implements its programme according to its stated purposes and functions and within the framework of the budget adopted by its Assembly and the General Conference of UNESCO. ‘ (Article 1.2)

A concrete application of the ‘functional autonomy’ was demonstrated during the 5th special session of the Executive Board which adopted the resolution on programmatic priorities – the footnote to the resolution clearly says that based on the prioritization of the IOC Expected Results one budgetary envelope should be given to the IOC, with the understanding that the actual programmatic priorities within the approved envelope are to be determined by the IOC Governing bodies,

The concrete measures implemented to enable the IOC to carry out its duties effectively are contained in document 154 EX/11. The IOC Assembly meets before the UNESCO General Conference to review the Secretariat’s proposals for the C/5 and adopts resolution to be transmitted to the Director-General. The more succinct version of the Commissions Programme and budget, based on the one endorsed by the IOC Governing bodies, is included in the UNESCO C/5. The most recent decision 13.I para 12 adopted by the UNESCO Executive Board at its 200th session, ‘Asks the Director-General to reflect appropriately the Statutes of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and its functional autonomy within UNESCO in the Draft Programme and Budget for 2018-2021 and to implement paragraph 9 of 38 C/Resolution 104, Recommendation no. 3 of the External


Auditor on its report on the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (200 EX/20 Part II), as well as paragraph iv of Resolution EC-XLIX.2 of IOC’s Executive Council’.

b. How do you follow-up the General Conference’s resolutions? When relevant to the Commission’s mandate, by informing Member States by circular letters, by consultation of the Officers on the action needed and the opportunity to have an item on the agenda of one of the governing bodies. Some tasks required from the Commission may be taken care of by the IOC Officers during the intersessional period.

c. Do you give input to the Executive Board in your field of competence? Yes, the Secretariat contributes to the reports of the Director-General to the Governing Bodies or specifically on an item proposed by the IOC.

d. Do you report on your activities to the General Conference and/or to the Executive Board more than once during each four year programme period? Yes, Article 3.2 of the Statutes foresees that ‘the Commission shall prepare regular reports on its activities, which shall be submitted to the General Conference of UNESCO. These reports shall also be addressed to the member States of the Commission as well as to the organizations within the United Nations system covered by paragraph 2 of Article 2’. Such reports are prepared by the Secretariat and reviewed by the IOC Assembly.

e. How do you follow-up the Executive Board decisions? By informing Member States by circular letters, by consultation of the Officers on the action needed and the opportunity to have an item on the agenda of the governing bodies. Some tasks required from the Commission may be taken care of by the IOC Officers, some other require review and decision by the IOC Governing Bodies (ex. External Auditor’s recommendations)

f. Does a specific framework exist to collaborate with other international and intergovernmental bodies? The mandates of and the roles to be played by the IOC are clearly stated in relevant articles of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). IOC responds as a competent international organization to the requirements deriving from the UNCLOS, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and other relevant international instruments (Art. 3.1c). Document 18 C/86 provides


extensive information on the history of IOC and its evolution and expansion of mandate in the first two decades since inception. It sets the broader UN context in response to which the Commission has been created, in cooperation with UN, FAO, WMO, IMO (then IMCO) and UNEP and explains the role and mandate of IOC as the specialized inter-agency coordination mechanism in the context of ICSPRO and later UN-Oceans. The Executive Secretary represents IOC in meetings of UN and organizations of the UN system. The IOC contributes to the UNSG’s report on the ocean. IOC may cooperate with Specialized Agencies of the UN and other international organizations whose interests and activities are related to its purpose, including signing MOUs (Art. 11.1). It may act as a Joint Specialized Mechanism of the organizations of the UN system in the fields of marine sciences and ocean services (Art. 11.3). The Secretariat of IOC may include personnel provided by other organizations, the UN system and Member States of IOC (Art. 8.1). In 1961, the IOC responded to the need of various international and national scientific organizations to have an intergovernmental platform to develop ocean research at global scale and capacity development. Today the IOC faces an increasing international competition. Through UNESCO, the IOC still demonstrates its uniqueness in ocean research cooperation.


5. Any others comments regarding the governance of international and intergovernmental bodies The presence of experts and high-level decision-makers from the countries in addition to the presence of permanent representatives is recognized as a very important criterion of the general interest for the work of the Commission and a benchmark of the success of an intergovernmental body (attractiveness).

6. Please provide the reference and if possible hyperlink to the relevant statutory documents, including General Conference Resolutions establishing the bodies and relevant Executive Board decisions

The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission was established by resolution 2.31 by the General Conference of UNESCO at its eleventh session (Nov.-Dec. 1960) and in conformity with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanic Research (Copenhagen, 11-16 July 1960. IOC Basic texts: http://www.ioc-unesco.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDoclistRecord&doclistID=41

http://www.ioc-unesco.org/index.php?option=com_oe&task=viewDoclistRecord&doclistID=41

Restricted Distribution IOC/EC-XLIX/2 Annex 10 Paris, 2 June 2016 Original: Englishº

INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (of UNESCO) Forty-ninth Session of the Executive Council UNESCO, Paris, 7–10 June 2016

Items 3.1, 5 & 6.2 of the Provisional Agenda

FOLLOW-UP ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REPORT ON GOVERNANCE OF UNESCO AND DEPENDENT FUNDS, PROGRAMMES AND ENTITIES

Summary

In pursuance of 38 C/Resolution 101 on Governance, procedures and working methods of the governing bodies of UNESCO, an intersessional open-ended working group was established to further examine views and proposals of Member States, the External Auditor’s report and other relevant evaluations and audits.

Purpose of the document: This document presents background information to assist Member States in their discussions on reviewing the efficiency of the IOC governance and prepare a contribution to the work of the General Conference Working Group by the end of 2016.

There are no financial and administrative implications.

The proposed decision in paragraph 15 will be reflected under items 5 (The Future of the IOC) for the institutional aspect of this issue and 6.2 for initial proposals of concrete measures to gain further efficiencies in the preparation and running of the sessions of IOC governing bodies.

IOC/EC-XLIX/2 Annex 10

Contextual background

1. In November 2013, as a follow-up to the UN Joint Inspection Unit recommendations concerning the methods of work of UNESCO’s intergovernmental bodies (2011), the General Conference requested the External Auditor, by means of 37 C/Resolution 96, to conduct an audit of the external governance of UNESCO and entities that are attached to or administered by the Organization. This audit was entrusted to the External Auditor with a view to formulating governance reform and cost-saving measures for the 38th General Conference of UNESCO in 2015 and was addressed to the IOC Governing Bodies through its chairman in May 2014. In the framework of this strategic review, the governing bodies of IOC were invited to ‘perform a self-assessment of the overall relevance of their work in relation to their specific terms of reference as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of their meetings, including the impact and utility of experts’ time’, with the IOC Secretariat limiting its role to providing factual information as necessary.

2. In 2014, the Executive Council stressed ‘the need that the unique role of IOC in the UN system in relation to ocean science and the scientific base for ocean management and its position as a body with functional autonomy within UNESCO be reflected in any nomenclature of UNESCO’s intergovernmental bodies or any other parts of the final governance review document’. The Council entrusted the IOC Officers, in consultation with IOC Member States by region, to answer the audit on behalf of the governing bodies of the Commission taking into account advice already received from the open-ended inter-sessional working groups dealing with financial matters and the Future of IOC. The IOC Chair submitted the requested information by the deadline, following an elaborate consultative process with the Commission’s Officers and Member States, while the Secretariat provided some additional factual information (IOC-XXVIII/Inf-4).

3. At a later stage the secretariat was asked to complete this information with staff time devoted to the preparation of the documentation and governing body sessions and participation to sessions and related meetings. The Assembly, at its 28th session, entrusted the IOC Chair to make further comments on the Interim Report before the presentation of the Report of the External Auditor to the General Conference in November 2015.

4. The General Conference at its 38th session examined the Report containing 15 recommendations (38 C/23). In its resolutions 38 C/101, the General Conference requested the Director-General to start the implementation of recommendations 1, 11 and 13 and decided to establish an open-ended working group on governance, procedures and working methods of the governing bodies of UNESCO with the purpose of developing concrete follow-up proposals to be examined by the General Conference at its 39th session in 2017. In this light, the General Conference invited all intergovernmental programmes, committees and organs of the conventions to inscribe, in 2016 if feasible, an item on their agenda concerning the follow-up to the recommendations of the External Auditor’s report contained in document 38 C/23, to improve their governance by concrete measures, and to report on their proposals to the Chairperson of the open-ended working group, Mr Stanley Mutumba Simataa, the President of the General Conference by the end of 2016 as per the letter addressed to the IOC Chairman appended hereafter.

5. In the meantime, the Director-General reported to the Executive Board of UNESCO at its Spring 2016 session on the status of implementation of the External Auditor’s recommendations 1, 11 and 13 (199 EX/12) and provided an official organizational chart of the “UNESCO universe” limited to “main entities that play a role in the overall governance of the Organization” where the IOC appears separated from other entities under the category “International and Intergovernmental commissions, committees and programmes established by the General Conference”. The “UNESCO universe” is reproduced in the Appendices to the present document. Recommendations 11 and 13 call for respectively the setting up of an ethics committee and the adoption of strategic plans concerning structural investment to improve IT resources in particular, the organization and methods of work of the Organization.

IOC/EC-XLIX/2 Annex 10 – page 2

Framework of thought

6. Although the General Conference in its 38 C/Resolution 101, did not endorse most of the recommendations proposed by the External Auditor (only 3 out of 15), it is found worth summarizing here some of the suggestions that may eventually result in a set of guidelines to be followed by IOC and other bodies for the sake of “harmoniz[ing] and systemiz[ing] the rules of procedure, texts and practices of the governing bodies of all UNESCO universe entities” (Recommendation 7). The Audit report on Governance calls in particular for:

The means to evaluate and manage the full external governance costs of each entity (Rec. 2)

− A guide of best practices applicable to the whole UNESCO [Universe] (Rec. 3), a concrete implementation plan and training for delegations and Organization staff member (Rec. 4):

− A screening system for individual candidates for offices of chair and vice-chair of governing bodies, based on robust and transparent criteria of competencies; and a limitation to the total terms of consecutive terms of office (e.g. four years) for the same delegate (Rec. 8);

− A section on ethical conduct of members of governing bodies (public declaration of interest, …) in the code of governance mentioned in Rec. 7, and the setting up of an independent biennial governance evaluation;

− An established practice for systematic voting on a specific set of issues under debate (Rec. 9), certainly dependent on the plan of renovation of meeting facilities and upgrading of IT resources mentioned above (Rec. 13);

7. In Spring 2016, UNESCO Member States were invited to help compile a list of areas of improvement that would guide the work of the Working Group on Governance in 2016 and 2017 as a follow-up to the External Auditor’s Report. The “Informal summary of contributions from Member States” appended to this document is divided in two sections A and B respectively relative to the structure, composition and methods of work of the General Conference and the Executive Board of UNESCO (so-called sub-group 1) and that of UNESCO’s international and intergovernmental bodies (so called sub-group 2).

The IOC context

8. The IOC is invited to contribute to the latter with proposals to improve its governance by concrete measures by the end of 2016. Not only can the Commission consider and propose new “creative solutions”, but it can report on current practices that respond adequately to areas of improvement identified by the Working Group, building on the information already provided to the auditors.

9. The scope of the contribution requested from the IOC is sufficiently broad to require the attention of the IOC Governing Bodies as it can influence some of the practical arrangements related to its status within UNESCO and vis-a-vis other competing organizations. In this exercise the IOC can build on a quasi-permanent mechanism to reflect and review on its status and functioning over 30 years: FURES (1987-1990); DOSS (1991-1996); DOSS-2 (1996-2000); External Evaluation (1999-2000); and currently the Working Group on the Future of the IOC (since 2008).

10. The definition of governance adopted in cooperation with UNESCO, which serves as reference for this exercise, is as follows: Governance refers to the legal framework and the exercise of political authority required to lead and supervise the work of the Organization, determine its strategic direction, set its priorities, regularly assess its performance, determine the level of acceptable risk for its action, allocate resources in accordance with agreed policies and expected results and report thereon to stakeholders.


11. In contrast, the Report of the External Audit (38 C/23) in its chapter II (Better management of external governance) exemplifies findings of a negative perception of the governance structure by Member States as being heavy (size, number of subsidiary bodies, frequency), time consuming, expansive, slow, devoted to often relatively unimportant debates and decisions. Sometimes micromanagement prevails over strategic issues and statements prevail over discussion. More often, matters of secondary importance are turned into political processes that last several years with an abundance of documents and no clear justification. This vision should also be seen in the light of the time scale perspectives quoted from the book Troubled waters, noting that it takes 4 years before major conclusions are reached by IOC; that trends in science usually manifest over 3-5 years; that ocean technology takes up to one decade from idea to operations; that conventions can take several decades to reach conclusions and entering into force.

12. Without anticipating the results of this ambitious exercise, one of the main criterion of efficient governance from a UNESCO perspective may eventually be its capacity to contribute to UNESCO programme and budget, other overarching priorities and international agenda and to deliver expected results. IOC is currently adapting its programme to fully contribute to four global frameworks/agreements (SDGs, SAMOA Pathway, Sendai Framework for DRR, Paris Agreement/UNFCCC) in the horizon 2030 and intends to reflect new paradigms into the next Programme and Budget (39 C/5) and current Medium-Term Strategy (2021). Many institutional aspects should only be discussed in the confidentiality of the work in groups during and after the session all the more than the External Audit, in its broad study, does not take into account the “special character” of the IOC and its specificities. On the issue of concrete measures, the External Audit referred to “creative solutions” that have been “tried and tested” in other organizations (the following may relate to a requirement of Assembly decision IOC-XXVIII/12): better time management and shortening of sessions; strategy of delegating more responsibilities to the Bureaux and Secretariat; reduced frequency of meetings; enhance high level of expertise of governing body members and Officers; less systematic requirement for consensus and greater acceptance of majority vote; more innovative decision-making process relative to the cost of decisions.

Proposed concrete measures

The IOC has a good record of “creative solutions” since 2012, some of which are already implementing the External Auditor recommendations and could appear in the Guide of good practices the Audit calls for.

Duration of sessions: the duration of Governing Body plenary sessions decreased from 7 to 3.5 working days for the Council and from 10 to six working days for the Assembly; Budgets of governing bodies have reduced by 40% over the same period with the increase of Member States and partner sponsorship of services (interpretation and catering) and side events. It appears that we have now reached a limit to our capacity to hold substantial strategic debates while still delivering the report in all the official languages for adoption at the end of the session. Further suggestion: electronic adoption of the report after the session will leave almost half a day for substantial discussion but would add workload on the Secretariat.

Report and decisions: the reduction of time devoted to the preparation of the report was made possible by drafting the Action Paper as a pre-report; the IOC Action Paper is often cited as a model for being a pre-session document that covers all items of the agenda and includes a formal draft decision under each agenda item. The adoption of formal decisions allows to capture some of the convergent discussion and references more efficiently than lengthy reporting. Summary of discussion is minimum. Important statements are annexed to the report and are connected to the main body of the report by the means of multiple internal links. This presentation was cited to be an important improvement by the auditor. In the same time, the IOC adopted revised guidelines for the preparation of Draft Resolutions by Member States, clarifying the scope of the highest level of decision the Commission can make exclusively at the initiative of Member States. Further suggestion: a mechanism that would involve Member States and partner organizations in the


preparation of the draft decisions in advance of the session would improve their quality, facilitate discussions in plenary sessions and make best use of expert time who will be working from their working place. Highly relevant to the Agenda of an Assembly, a decision by the steering committee of the Assembly (i.e. the Executive Council) on a list of decisions that could be adopted without debate by the Assembly – non controversial ones and reporting items – would allow to focus on items requiring strategic guidance from the primary governing body. Difficulty encountered: the preparation of a complete pre-report requires a long preparation, which may result in delivering the documentation too close to the session, in particular if a governing body session meets annually.

Quality of sessions: the IOC has established the practice of an evaluation questionnaire to monitor the level of acceptance of change by delegates and representatives. It has proved to be useful but its redundancy every year tends to impair the level of interest of participants. Quality of sessions is also dependent on the facilities offered by UNESCO (meeting rooms equipped with individual electrical plugs, enhanced wifi capacity, better quality projectors, etc.) which should be enhanced by the implementation of Rec 13 by the DG. Breaking the plenary sessions in parallel committees are avoided as they would be expensive to organize due to the additional cost of interpretation and would be deemed unfair by small delegations. Nevertheless, sessions are seen as being incredibly dense in reason of the many side meetings that take place between plenary meetings, often in English only, with the exception of the sessional Financial Committee that works in English and French.

Use of experts’ time: The presence of experts and national delegates from the countries in addition to the presence of permanent representatives is recognized as a very important criterion of the general interest for the work of the Commission. Unlike the membership of WMO composed of national meteorological agencies, the nature of the coordinating bodies for liaison with the IOC in the Member States is diverse. Presentation of hot topics in Ocean sciences during an IOC Ocean Science Day organized every two years during assemblies (148 Member States) is highly appreciated among Member States and stir a wider audience in national delegations.

Frequency of sessions: the yearly periodicity of the Council and the Assembly in alternance is dictated by the Statutes and Rules of Procedure of the Commission and the functions that these basic texts assign to them in the elaboration of the programme and budget. For the External Auditor, the requirement for a reduced frequency of the sessions is subject to delegating more responsibilities to the Bureaux (IOC Officers; and intersessional working groups) and Secretariat on one hand, and implies an enhanced ethics supervision and an adequate reporting on the other. In the context of the IOC, it would require a clearer division of responsibilities between the Council and the Assembly that would translate in different methods of work; and a definition of the role of the Officers as a group, i.e. constituted as a Bureau. Further suggestion: A session of the Executive Council is often seen as another Assembly. Member States member of the Executive Council represent 27% of the IOC membership but the total number of participants, observers and partners included, represent some 62% of the number of participants to an Assembly. Unlike many executive bodies and boards in other organizations, a rather great number of Member State delegations (40 compared to 37 members serving in an individual capacity in WMO) sit on the IOC Executive Council and representatives to serve (on their behalf?) on the Executive Council are rarely nominated. This requirement only appears at the end of the technical arrangements for the elections and seems to have fallen into disuse. The question arises of whether the Executive Council could improve the overall efficiency of the IOC governance by being a lighter structure composed of individuals having high responsibilities in their countries.

Assessment tools: As shown modestly in this last example, statistics are essential elements for a fair analysis of the effectiveness of the governance. Only to mention the cost of governance was found difficult by the External Auditor (5-8% of the Organization’s total regular budget spending?) The Organization does not have currently the means to establish the real cost of the governance on a daily routine as to the valuation of the use of premises, the working time of Secretariat personnel dedicated to the governance during sessions and in between, and the level of voluntary


contribution. Further suggestion: The IOC Secretariat should be encouraged to further compile statistics on governing body attendance and its membership.

13. The extent of considerations on this issue is of an infinite dimension. Consultation with the co-presidents of the sub-group (Ambassadors of Norway and Philippines) could help clarify and narrow what is expected from the IOC after the first meeting of the sub-group 1 has taken place on 2 June 2016. The presence of Norway and Philippines as members of the Executive Council, should facilitate the dialogue on this issue during the session.

14. The Commission is well equipped to consider reviewing its governance with confidence and in earnest as to what could be improved in comparison to other international and intergovernmental bodies and what are the constraints to change. Improving the efficiency of governance may well prove to be a comparative advantage in the international competition.

Proposed decision

15. In light of the foregoing, the IOC Executive Council may wish to consider the following draft decision:

The Executive Council,

1. Having examined document IOC/EC-XLIX/2 Annex 10,

2. Entrusts the Chairman and the Officers to develop a list of concrete measures to further improve the efficiencies in preparing and running the IOC Governing Bodies’ sessions, based on the discussions by this session of the Executive Council of the audit recommendations, with a view of transmitting them to the UNESCO Working Group on governance, procedures and working methods of the governing bodies of UNESCO; and

3. Invites the Chairman to report on this issue to the IOC Assembly at its 29th session in 2017 for final review.


APPENDIX 1

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR’S REPORT (197 EX/28.INF.Rev.)

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends that the Secretariat provide the Executive Board at its spring 2016 session with an official organizational chart of the “UNESCO universe” and the different governing bodies.

Recommendation No. 2. The External Auditor recommends that: (i) a report on the means required to evaluate and manage the full external governance costs of each entity be prepared and submitted to the Executive Board for discussion at its spring 2016 session, and that (ii) the Executive Board initiate the comprehensive implementation of this report between now and the spring 2017 session, with a view to producing a comprehensive and constructive report on external governance costs for the General Conference at its 39th session.

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor recommends that the General Conference: (i) delegate the steering and management of the following ten actions to the Bureau of the Executive Board; (ii) to that end, provide the Board with the appropriate means to ensure, after obtaining the opinion of each of the governing bodies, consulted as needed and in the most efficient way, the adoption, at the 39th session of the General Conference, of a guide to best practices applicable to the whole of UNESCO and its dependent funds, programmes and entities:

• accelerate the shortening of sessions;

• group meetings together;

• make annual meetings biennial, and biennial meetings quadrennial;

• make more use of teleconferences;

• convene essential meetings only and finance them through the regular budget;

• reduce the number of meeting participants;

• shorten agendas by prioritizing and delegating minor decisions;

• increase the delegation of authority to the bureaux;

• simplify and improve the dissemination of results;

• encourage best practices.

Recommendation No. 4. The External Auditor recommends that:

(i) the Secretariat place at the Executive Board’s disposal the budget (possibly funded by the resources of the appropriate Special Accounts), experts and services required to establish a draft “guide to best practices in governance” and a concrete implementation plan to be considered by the Executive Board at its autumn 2016 session and for adoption by the General Conference at its 39th session;

(ii) the experts to be placed at the Board’s disposal should not have had any ties whatsoever to UNESCO over the previous three years, and should ensure balanced representation of the management cultures of the Member States of the General Conference;


(iii) at its autumn 2016 session, the Executive Board have before it a report drawn up by its experts and validated by its Bureau, containing a significant acceleration plan for the implementation of each action listed in the guide, together with indicators of inputs, outputs and expected outcomes that are measurable and relevant regarding the situation as at 31 December 2015;

(iv) the reports preparatory to the adoption of the budget contained in document 39 C/5 clearly identify in detail the effects related to the implementation of the guide to best practices, such as decreased expenditure relating to governing bodies, redeployment of the projected savings with a view to the implementation of the plan, dissemination of the guide, and training for delegation and Organization staff members.

Recommendation No. 5. On a provisional trial basis, the External Auditor recommends that the General Conference:

(i) decide to elect, from 2016, the same States Parties to the governing bodies of the heritage-related conventions and that the governing bodies thus constituted shall hold their respective sessions in a single joint session, under appropriate legal arrangements;

(ii) entrust the Executive Board with organizing the implementation of this arrangement by its autumn 2016 session and provide it with appropriate resources;

(iii) request the Secretariat consequently to merge the secretariats of these conventions by 1 September 2016.

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends:

(i) experimenting with a two-yearly meeting of chairs and directors of Category 1 institutes in the Education Sector and with structured coordination between the two sessions;

(ii) examining, on the basis of this trial, the requirements for combining the institutes within a single corporate unit of which the current institutes would form operational divisions, with a single supreme governing body;

(iii) that for the autumn 2016 Executive Board session the Secretariat produce a report that sets out the lessons learned from this trial and the conditions under which combining the institutes, or at the very least the establishment of joint governance, might be possible, together with an action plan to achieve this.


(i) drawing up a draft governance code in 2016, under the supervision of the Bureau of the Executive Board, that harmonizes and systematizes the rules of procedure, texts and practices of the governing bodies of all UNESCO universe entities;

(ii) ensuring that this document is regularly updated through a repertoire of practice prepared by the Secretariat and submitted for approval to the Executive Board;

(iii) adopting the decisions needed to implement this system at the 39th session of the General Conference.


(i) examining means of introducing a screening system for individual candidates for the offices of chair and vice-chair of governing bodies, based on robust and transparent criteria of competence;


(ii) adopting a resolution to limit the total length of consecutive terms of office (e.g. to four years) for the same delegate in a governing body so that delegates can gain sufficient experience but the bodies can at the same time be periodically renewed;

(iii) that Member States candidates for a seat on a governing body undertake to nominate a full member or alternate with sufficient experience in that body’s field;

(iv) introducing mandatory training for the offices of chair and vice-chair of a governing body, tailored to the experience of the new officers.

Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends establishing an open working group, under the direction of the Chair of the Executive Board and with the assistance of the Secretariat of the Governing Bodies, in order to prepare a proposal, along the lines of practice in other international organizations, to be examined at the 39th session of the General Conference, for systematic voting on a specific set of issues under debate, in each category of governing body, and according to arrangements to be specified.


(i) setting up an ethics committee;

(ii) adding a section on the ethical conduct of members of governing bodies to the code of governance recommended elsewhere;

(iii) that the Ethics Office assist the governing bodies, at their request;

(iv) that public declaration of interest arrangements be put in place for experts assisting governing bodies.

Recommendation No. 11. The External Auditor recommends: (i) strengthening oversight of risk management, under the control of the General Conference and within a framework defined by the General Conference, (ii) delegating oversight of risk management to the Executive Board or an independent audit committee; and (iii) that the arrangements put in place and the progress made be reported on to the General Conference at its 39th session.


(i) the establishment of an independent audit committee, in accordance with the recommendations made in 2011 by the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit, with competence for all the entities, funds and programmes attached to UNESCO;

(ii) to that end, that the Bureau of the Executive Board supervise the preparation of draft terms of reference and draft rules to be submitted to the General Conference at its 39th session for approval;

(iii) that, pending amendment of the Basic Texts of UNESCO, an ad hoc interim audit committee reporting directly to the Executive Board be established, based on the current Oversight Advisory Committee.

Recommendation No. 13: The External Auditor recommends that the General Conference:

(i) approve the draft medium- and long-term strategic plans concerning resources, especially IT resources, the organization and methods of the Organization, and in general, structural investments;

(ii) delegate to the Executive Board the annual review of these plans, their budgets, and input, output and outcome indicators.


Recommendation No. 14. The External Auditor recommends that the General Conference set up an independent biennial governance evaluation under the supervision of the Executive Board and with the relevant support of the Secretariat. This would include the actions of the secretariats of convention and programme governing bodies, and the first report of the evaluation would be reviewed by the independent audit committee and then by the General Conference in 2017.

Recommendation No. 15. The External Auditor recommends that the General Conference:

(i) create the position of governance adviser to the Executive Board from 1 January 2016, as well as, depending on the new responsibilities of the adviser:

(ii) some positions for specialized advisers, by 1 July 2016;

(iii) entrust an independent expert group with the selection of candidates.


APPENDIX 2

REV.

Working Group on the Governance, Procedures and

Working Methods of the Governing Bodies of UNESCO

Informal Summary of Contributions from Member States

A. “Structure, composition and methods of work of the Governing Bodies (General Conference and Executive Board)” (Sub-Group 1)

Proposed dates for the meetings of Sub-Group 1

Proposed by the Bureau of the Working Group and approved on 1 April 2016 by the Working Group:

• 2 June 2016 • 23 September 2016

Overarching issues

• Balance of decision-making powers between the two governing bodies according to their constitutional mandates

• Enhanced and institutionalized dialogue and cooperation between General Conference and Executive Board

• Relations between the General Conference, the Executive Board and the Secretariat of UNESCO.

• Governance reform to focus on effectiveness and efficiency • Cost-cutting approach is not an aim per se (move beyond) • Small delegations to contribute to all reforms • Participation of all Member States and the governing bodies of the international

and intergovernmental entities of UNESCO in the drafting of the C/4 and C/5 • All proposed reforms should be costed • Ensure visibility of the work of the Organization and its Governing Bodies

1. General Conference:

• Timing/schedule and flexibility of Commissions – possibility of permanent Commissions

• Simplification of agenda items, grouping of items and taking note items. Annotated agenda

• Review the National Policy Statements to provide guidance to the Executive Board and the Secretariat in the formulation of the C/5 and to focus on key programme areas and on selected items (cf: dedicated round table of Ministers/Ministerial Round table on the preparation of future C/5)

• Role of the Bureau and distribution of minutes of Bureau meetings


• Proposed amendments to the Rules of procedure of the General Conference on Rule 82 on voting rights (document 38 C/WG/1/4)

• Large participation and geographical balance in reform decision- making

2. Executive Board:

• Limitation of (consecutive) terms • Review the Executive Board’s own reforms of its structure and working methods • Organizational meetings at the beginning of the two-years cycle to determine

provisional agendas and programmes of work, open to all Member states • Increased participation of all Member States in the debate of the C/5 programme

design • Reduction of agenda items, reduction and grouping of items, taking note items,

annotated agenda • Reduction/Abolition of the general debate for national statements • Open ended informal consultations on proposed draft decision before discussions

in Commissions and Plenary • Role of the Bureau and distribution of minutes of Bureau meetings • Improved reporting by the Executive Board to the General Conference on its

own activities and on programme implementation, including the Board’s evaluation • Thematic Debate during and outside the formal session of the Executive board • Interactive sessions of dialogue between the DG and the Executive Board on the

report on the programme implementation • Review the debate on staffing issues • Participation and geographical balance in reform decision making

B. “Structure, composition and methods of work of UNESCO’s international

and intergovernmental bodies (IIBs)” (Sub-Group 2)

Proposed dates for the meetings of Sub-Group 2

To be agreed

Overarching issues

• Coherence with the Organization’s Programme and priorities • Enhanced visibility of results • Streamlining activities of IIBs to contribute to C/5 expected results • IIBs to address UNESCO’s role in the implementation of the 2030 agenda • Coherence and synergies, noting different geneses and legal status of various

bodies and independence of some of them • Balance between equity and efficiency in participation of Member States • Each IIB to review the recommendations of the external auditor in line with

resolution 38 C/101


Harmonization of methods of work

• Harmonization of working methods and of Rules of Procedure • Streamlining reporting formats • Common practices and procedures • Clarification of the mandates of Bureaus versus main organs

Alignment with C/5 and overarching priorities

• Involvement of IIB in the preparation of UNESCO’s Programme and Budget - Consultation of IIB in the preparation, in particular on the format and timing

• Contributions of IIB to deliver the C/5 and the expected results once approved by the General Conference - Presentation of the approved C/5 to IIB, planning of activities of IIB based on the consideration of the approved C/5 and IIB

reporting on contribution to the Expected Results of the C/5. • Priority setting mechanism • Development of result framework – a theory for change of the IIB.

Efficiency of results delivery

• Annotated agendas with discussion points • Reinforced use of ICTs and availability of documents online • Measures to enhance transparency of the work of IBBs • Visibility and communication on respective mandates • Improving efficiency of meetings (length, participants, technical aspects,

dissemination of results)

Enhanced coordination with and among IIBs

• Merging IIBs with similar or related programme focus. • Regular meetings of the presidents of treaty bodies • Harmonization of the global calendar of meetings over the biennium • Relation between IIBs and the General Conference, including reporting

C. Date of the forthcoming meeting of the Working Group

• 3 October 2016


APPENDIX 3


APPENDIX 4

Letter of the President of the General Conference to the IOC Chairman (6 April 2016).


200 EX/20 Part I

Executive Board

Item 20 of the provisional agenda

NEW AUDITS BY THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR

PART I – SHORT-FORM REPORT

AUDIT REPORT ON COST RECOVERY FROM VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS

SUMMARY

This document is the short-form report of the External Auditor’s audit report on cost recovery from voluntary contributions as submitted in document 200 EX/20.INF pursuant to Article 12.4 of the Financial Regulations.

Action expected of the Executive Board: proposed decision in paragraph 17.

PARIS, 23 August 2016 Original: French

Two hundredth session

200 EX/20 Part I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AUDIT REPORT ON COST RECOVERY FROM VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS

Disclaimer: This executive summary was drawn up by the External Auditor at the Secretariat’s request in order to optimize translation costs and facilitate discussion by the governing bodies. Only the long-form report is authoritative in terms of exact content and the nature and scope of the External Auditor’s findings and recommendations.

1. The recommendations from the 2011 report on cost recovery have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented

1. UNESCO has implemented Recommendation No. 5 from the External Auditor’s 2011 report on the general conditions of implementation of the Complementary Additional Programmes (2008-2011) aimed at restoring financial balance to FITOCA,1 so as to ensure that its balance amounts to at least the equivalent of 18 months of the salaries that it pays.

2. The FITOCA accounts, which posted a $5.7 million deficit in 2008 and a $2.3 million deficit in 2009, recovered strongly between 2010 and 2015, when they recorded a surplus of more than $5.6 million.

3. The account recovery increased the FITOCA reserves by 64.45% between 2010 and 2015, which has helped push the reserves beyond 18 months’ of the staff costs it pays since 2012: in 2015 the reserves of $32.7 million covered almost 36 months of staff costs.

4. This trend was complemented by a sharp increase in the income of the special account for cost recovery, for which the income increased more than tenfold during the same period, from $184,000 to $2.02 million.

5. The four methods suggested by Recommendation No. 5 to achieve this result have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented:

• even though the FITOCA financial regulations have not been changed to reduce the programme support costs rate, a working group on the reform of the cost recovery system was launched in late 2012 in the Secretariat;

• the number of projects with a waiver rate for support costs (below the single standard rate of 13%) is declining yearly, falling from nine in 2010 to two in 2015. However, owing to the multi-year nature of most of the extrabudgetary projects, nearly half of the amount for these projects ($58.4 million out of $117.7 million) had rates of below 13% in 2015;

• the proportion of FITOCA used to fund administrative support posts at Headquarters or field offices has increased considerably (from 58.87% to 80.95%) but the number of posts that provide administrative support and the total number of FITOCA-funded posts have diminished at the same time;

• FITOCA accounts for Brazil have been rebalanced from a deficit of $276,000 in 2010 to a surplus of $1.25 million in 2014 and $263,000 in 2015.

6. UNESCO has partially implemented Recommendation No. 6: the procedures for the recovery of time spent by regular-programme staff on extrabudgetary projects have been simplified through the implementation of the “Budget for UNESCO” (B4U) application, which helps with the preparation of budgets for extrabudgetary projects, explaining how to calculate each cost

1 Funds-in-Trust Overhead Cost Account.

200 EX/20 Part I – page 2

component to be recovered. That is why, along the same lines, users would like budget management software in use to be adapted to facilitate budget implementation. The External Auditor recommends that this course of action be followed and that training sessions continue to be held for those responsible for preparing and implementing the budgets for extrabudgetary projects, who do not fully master cost recovery rules and the B4U tool.

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends adapting the Organization’s financial management software (SISTER and FABS) so as to facilitate and automate cost-recovery operations for extrabudgetary projects under way.

Recommendation No. 2. The External Auditor recommends that training sessions continue to be held for those responsible for preparing and implementing the budgets for extrabudgetary projects.

2. Cost recovery rules must be reformed

7. It would be desirable to rewrite the Guidelines on the Cost Recovery Policy, in order to clarify and update the rules of this policy and make the document more instructive.

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor recommends that the Guidelines on the Cost Recovery Policy be rewritten, formalizing practices in force, integrating forthcoming reforms and providing more examples of how to apply the rules properly.

8. To streamline the system, eliminate the risk of overcharging and improve UNESCO’s position in relation to other agencies competing for voluntary contributions, there seem to be several possible reform options.

9. One option, which it appears necessary to implement in any event, would be to specify the categories of costs recovered by current support cost rates (13%, 10%, 8%, 7% and 5% for Brazil) to the benefit of FITOCA and to formally prohibit charging direct costs for these cost categories.

10. A second option would be to use only a standard programme support cost rate (through FITOCA) and do away with direct cost recovery.

11. A third option would be to recover the maximum level of direct costs and to adopt a very low programme support cost rate so that UNESCO is at much less of a disadvantage in relation to its competitors.

12. A fourth option, put forward by two field offices in their replies to the External Auditor’s questionnaire, would be to enable extrabudgetary project managers to negotiate an ad hoc support cost rate with the donor(s): the rate would be based on the office’s estimate of direct costs that could not be charged to each project’s budget for whatever reason. All cost categories not included in this support cost rate would be charged to the project as direct costs. The Secretariat is not in favour of this option, as it would run the risk of creating competition among field offices for donors.

13. The fifth option, which is the direction currently preferred by the working group, would be to align the support cost rate for FITOCA on the rate envisaged by a group of international organizations (8%), prohibit waivers from the rate and recover the maximum level of direct costs (as today). To avoid the risk of overcharging, this arrangement studied by the working group would have to be accompanied by the aforementioned reform (to identify cost categories covered by the support cost rate for FITOCA and to reserve direct cost recovery for other cost categories).


14. Finally, this work could be complemented by a trial to simplify calculations in order to minimize management costs.

Recommendation No. 4. The External Auditor recommends: (i) updating the amount of extrabudgetary project management costs to be recovered, according to the project size and complexity; (ii) based on the results of the update, proposing a reform of the cost-recovery method to improve UNESCO’s position in relation to organizations competing with it for voluntary contributions, thanks to a reduced support cost rate, while avoiding the risk of overcharging projects by making a clear distinction between indirect variable costs recovered by the support cost rate and FITOCA, on the one hand, and direct costs recovered by charging to project budgets or through the special account for cost recovery on the other; (iii) quickly implementing the reform to avoid accumulating unproductive FITOCA reserves.

Recommendation No. 5. The External Auditor recommends a two-year trial to base the calculation of costs recovered by charging project budgets or through the special account for cost recovery on simplified set rates.

3. The distribution of FITOCA funds should be reviewed

15. The overall distribution of funds between Headquarters and field offices and the distribution of posts among Headquarters offices are purely customary; the use of FITOCA funds by field offices is not always in keeping with the purposes of the cost-recovery policy; the ban on carrying over funds from one year to the next warrants review; field offices sometimes misunderstand the calculation of FITOCA sums allocated to them each year.

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends: (i) updating the distribution of FITOCA funds between Headquarters and field offices based on the results of a study into the work time that various offices actually spend on managing voluntary contributions and extrabudgetary funds, and (ii) updating the distribution of FITOCA-funded posts at Headquarters among the various offices at Headquarters based on the results of a study similar to the one in the first part of the recommendation.

Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends reserving the use of FITOCA by field offices, save exceptions authorized by Headquarters, for the reimbursement of expenditure paid from the regular budget for extrabudgetary projects, in accordance with the purpose of the cost-recovery policy.

Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends authorizing FITOCA funds to be carried over from one year to the next by field offices for extrabudgetary projects with annual expenditure rates of almost 100%.


Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends providing field offices, each year, with a detailed written explanation of the calculation of the annual allocation of the FITOCA funds they receive.

4. Information for Member States should be improved

Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends that, each year, Member States should be provided with information on the distribution of FITOCA funds between Headquarters and the various field offices, the distribution of FITOCA-funded posts among Headquarters offices and the income collected by the special account for cost recovery.

5. Conclusion

16. As the External Auditor has noted in other international organizations, the current cost-recovery system is highly complex and involves many management and control operations. It might therefore be useful to streamline the system and reduce its costs. The ideal solution would be for all United Nations agencies to adopt a common, standardized cost-recovery system. In the absence of such a common system, it would be preferable to adopt quickly any reforms inspired by those recommended by the working group set up by the Secretariat to reform the UNESCO system. The External Auditor has noted that the current approach of the working group corresponds to the fifth and preferred reform option.

Proposed decision

17. The Executive Board may wish to adopt a decision worded as follows:

The Executive Board,

1. Having examined documents 200 EX/20 Part I and 200 EX/20.INF,

2. Expresses its satisfaction to the External Auditor for the high quality of his report;

3. Invites the Director-General to report on progress achieved in the implementation of recommendations in her report on the follow-up to all recommendations made by the External Auditor.

Director-General’s comments

The Director-General thanks the External Auditor for his report on cost recovery from voluntary contributions. She accepts the vast majority of the recommendations made therein and will report on the progress of their implementation in accordance with the usual practice.

Details in Annex.

ANNEX PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BY RECOMMENDATION

Audit recommendations Preliminary implementation plan and comments

The recommendation will require additional resources for implementation (YES/NO)

Estimated date for the implementation of the

recommendation

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends adapting the Organization’s financial management software (SISTER and FABS) so as to facilitate and automate cost-recovery operations for extrabudgetary projects under way.

Accepted. Proposed as a part of core system re-design project in the Invest for Efficient Delivery Projects.

Assessment will be made as part of the project design.

January 2018

Recommendation No. 2. The External Auditor recommends that training sessions continue to be held for those responsible for preparing and implementing the budgets for extrabudgetary projects.

Accepted. YES. Regional training covered by staff cost savings 2015: US $185,430; 2016: $129,400 already incurred estimated for future training $205,000. Second phase cost for production of e-learning materials covered from the Invest for Efficient Delivery funding.

Second phase by December 2017 Maintenance of training beyond Dec 2017 will depend on budget provisions

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor recommends that the Guidelines on the Cost Recovery Policy be rewritten, formalizing practices in force, integrating forthcoming reforms and providing more examples of how to apply the rules properly.

Accepted. To be finalized as part of Cost Recovery Policy review

YES. Policy guidelines production and revision of tools. Estimated $10,000

January 2018

200 EX/20 Part I Annex




recommendation

Recommendation No. 4. The External Auditor recommends: (i) updating the amount of extrabudgetary project management costs to be recovered, according to the project size and complexity; (ii) based on the results of the update, proposing a reform of the cost-recovery method to improve UNESCO’s position in relation to organizations competing with it for voluntary contributions, thanks to a reduced support cost rate, while avoiding the risk of overcharging projects by making a clear distinction between indirect variable costs recovered by the support cost rate and FITOCA, on the one hand, and direct costs recovered by charging to project budgets or through the special account for cost recovery on the other; (iii) quickly implementing the reform to avoid accumulating unproductive FITOCA reserves.

Accepted. (i) The proposed revised cost

recovery policy framework will give consideration to a set of differentiated PSC rates, based upon the needs defined by the resource mobilization strategy

(ii) While the current policy guidelines need improvement for a better understanding at the budgeting and planning stage, controls are in place to assure appropriate charging.

(iii) The proposed revised Cost Recovery Policy framework defines, through cost classification: the management costs recovered by the PSC rate; costs to be charged directly to project budgets; and regular programme posts and other cost which can be recovered for project implementation. The revised policy will take into account the need to maintain an appropriate level.

NO. January 2018


The thrust of the recommendation will be considered in the context of the Revised Cost Recovery Policy

To be established January 2018

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends: (i) updating the

Partially accepted. The JIU report in 2002-03 highlighted that because time

YES if additional time study required

January 2018

200 EX/20 Part I Annex – page 2




recommendation

distribution of FITOCA funds between Headquarters and field offices based on the results of a study into the work time that various offices actually spend on managing voluntary contributions and extrabudgetary funds, and (ii) updating the distribution of FITOCA-funded posts at Headquarters among the various offices at Headquarters based on the results of a study similar to the one in the first part of the recommendation.

allocation estimations is based on inputs on fixed date these may not be relevant in later years. UNESCO is instead proposing to use the principles of proportionality and cost classification by functional unit as a basis in the new policy as it is simpler to calculate and more transparent to communicate. The revised policy will provide comprehensive guidance to field offices on the charging of costs to projects, including the recovery of Regular Programme Staff costs based on time spent.

Estimated $15,000

Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends reserving the use of FITOCA by field offices, save exceptions authorized by Headquarters, for the reimbursement of expenditure paid from the regular budget for extrabudgetary projects, in accordance with the purpose of the cost-recovery policy.

Partially accepted. Under the current practice, field offices costs incurred by the organization in support of projects are charged either directly to a project or as a part of annual FITOCA allocations. These are not currently charged or reimbursed to the Regular Programme but are supplementary. A review is required to identify the extent to which administrative and overhead costs are funded directly through extrabudgetary projects. The revised policy will provide comprehensive guidance to field offices on the charging of costs to projects.

NO January 2018

Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends authorizing FITOCA funds to be carried over from


NO January 2018





recommendation

one year to the next by field offices for extrabudgetary projects with annual expenditure rates of almost 100%.

Recognizing that the current timing of release of FITOCA allotments to field offices has had an impact on implementation, 75% of allotments due will be released by January from 2017.

Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends providing field offices, each year, with a detailed written explanation of the calculation of the annual allocation of the FITOCA funds they receive.

Implemented. Details of the calculations have been provided to field offices for the 2016 allocation.

NO 2016

Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends that, each year, Member States should be provided with information on the distribution of FITOCA funds between Headquarters and the various field offices, the distribution of FITOCA-funded posts among Headquarters offices and the income collected by the special account for cost recovery.

Implemented. This is covered by 38th General Conference resolution to provide an annual report on use of FITOCA as part of routine report to the Executive Board.

NO 2016


Printed on recycled paper

200 EX/20 Part II

Executive Board



PART II – SHORT-FORM REPORT

AUDIT REPORT ON THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (IOC)

SUMMARY

This document is the short-form report on the External Auditor’s audit of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) (2013-2016) as submitted in document 200 EX/20.INF.2 pursuant to Article 12.4 of the Financial Regulations.

Action expected of the Executive Board: decision in paragraph 20.



200 EX/20 Part II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AUDIT REPORT ON THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION (IOC)


Presentation of IOC

1. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) was established by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1960. In accordance with Article 1 of its Statutes, IOC has functional autonomy, embodied by governing bodies separate from those of UNESCO. In 2016, the IOC Assembly comprised 148 Member States and the Executive Council was composed of 40 Member States.

2. The purpose of the Commission is to promote international cooperation and to coordinate programmes in research in order to learn more about the nature and resources of the ocean and coastal areas. IOC thus has general competences in the fight against global warming relating to oceans and tsunami risk prevention.

Strategy

3. In 2013, the IOC Assembly adopted a multi-year strategy paper, for 2014-2021, specifying all the Commission’s objectives. The document sets four targets:

– healthy ocean ecosystems and sustained ecosystem services;

– effective early warning systems and preparedness for tsunamis and ocean-related hazards;

– increased resiliency to climate change and enhanced effectiveness of ocean-based activities;

– enhanced knowledge of emerging ocean science issues.

4. Furthermore, in June 2015, the Assembly adopted another multi-year strategy paper, for 2015-2021, setting targets to improve the practices and capacity development of the Commission. Together, these two strategy papers describe, in particular, the current functioning of IOC. They do not explain how its action is linked with other international organizations and are not policy briefs.

2. Activities and programmes

5. Some reports are submitted to the UNESCO governing bodies before they have been submitted to the IOC governing bodies, owing to the lower frequency of the IOC Assembly and Executive Council meetings.

6. IOC performance indicators relate more to organization than substantive issues, which are, by definition, more cross-cutting in the areas of sustainable development and environmental conservation. It is not always clear which section of the Organization is in charge of which performance indicator. Performance indicators do not ensure the proper allocation of resources.

7. The Commission’s activities are well distributed between IOC sections in terms of the volume of publications and activities undertaken. Nonetheless, management does not have a dashboard to

200 EX/20 Part II – page 2

assess and control its activities with regard to the number of publications, activities undertaken and missions carried out.

8. The field offices’ activities are unevenly distributed, however. The Perth Programme Office (PPO) and the IOC Sub-Commission for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (IOCARIBE) manage a limited number of projects with low financial volumes.

9. Project management could be improved by better use of the competitive process. It is clear that in the highly specialized field covered by the Commission, expertise and skilled providers are limited in number. However, owing to the lack of effective use of the competitive process the neglect for the search for new partners, IOC risks falling short of its mission of capacity building and the transfer of technologies. It also runs the risk of missing out on the new skills that are emerging around the world.

10. There is no common database for all marine sciences, which is certainly unattainable when one considers the amount, complexity and heterogeneity of the information to be assembled, but there is also no common portal for all marine sciences that connects all websites and relevant disciplines through web links. IOC could submit a draft resolution calling for Member States to work together to construct a universal information system and ocean data portal.

3. Budget management

11. Following withdrawal of the United States of America’s funding to UNESCO, IOC’s expenditure plan amounted to 72% of its budget for the 2014-2015 biennium. The budget decrease mostly affected the operational budget, which was cut by 53%, from $3.855 million to $1.816 million. IOC staff costs amounted to $6.827 million, which represents 79% of the expenditure plan. Budgetary control efforts resulted in a very significant reduction in the operational budget, while staff costs were maintained without a correlation with the level of activities.

12. The planned level of extrabudgetary funding at IOC is significantly lower than the average at UNESCO. This funding is proposed from commitments that have been or are being acquired. The fulfilment of these commitments considerably exceeds expectations, which could encourage IOC to aim for more ambitious extrabudgetary funding.

13. The reading of financial documents could be improved by more concise reconciliation of forecasts and actual values in terms of both budgets and activities.

14. IOC management could be improved by implementing dashboards for monitoring the achievement of its strategic objectives.

4. Human resources management

15. Human resources management is a weakness at the Commission. IOC is facing a situation of continuous understaffing.

16. Reporting to the IOC Assembly of Member States on the management and cost of human resources could be significantly improved.

17. On average, IOC staff members work for the Commission for more than 11 years. This is longer than the standards defined by UNESCO, adversely affecting their career development and the updating of practices at the Commission.

18. In 2016, half of IOC staff members were working in the field. This significant presence abroad requires the Commission to strengthen the management tools for these staff members in order to set them specific and assessed work objectives.

200 EX/20 Part II – page 3

19. Lastly, the Commission frequently uses external consultants in order to conduct a number of its tasks. However, the conditions for the use of these consultants are often contrary to UNESCO’s rules. Without competitive tendering, some consultants are working on a permanent basis at the Commission. Beyond the irregularity of these recruitments, systematic renewal does not facilitate the updating of its administrative and scientific practices.

Proposed decision

20. The Executive Board may wish to adopt a decision along the following lines:


1. Having examined documents 200 EX/20 Part II and 200 EX/20.INF.2,




The Director-General thanks the External Auditor for his report on the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) (2013-2016). She accepts all of the recommendations made and will report on the progress of their implementation in accordance with the usual practice.

Details in Annex II.

200 EX/20 Part II Annex I

ANNEX I: LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends that Article 3 of the Statutes of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) be amended to include the “requirements” relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); likewise, IOC’s medium-term strategy should take into account the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

Recommendation No. 2. In liaison with the respective governing bodies, conduct a study of the potential pooling of periodic reports to the governing bodies of the United Nations, UNESCO, the Commission and its subsidiary bodies.

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor suggests that the autonomy and specificity of IOC, with regard to governance, decision-making, partnerships, funding, operating and external reporting, should be better reflected in the presentation of UNESCO’s budgetary and accounting documents.

Recommendation No.4. The External Auditor recommends a review of the organization of the work of the IOC’s Assembly and Executive Council to enable them to make more strategic decisions on the key issues and challenges facing IOC. To that end, he recommends, in particular, a review of the Commission’s programmes and activities, starting with the analysis, which has already started with regard to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda, of the main international agreements and conventions with an impact on IOC’s mandate and objectives, in order to propose an overall strategy.

Recommendation No. 5. The External Auditor recommends that the quality of the information provided to the Executive Council and the Assembly be improved by:

– ensuring consistency between the presentation of budget implementation and the expenditure plan and reconciling the two in a single table;

– providing information on the use of the surplus balance of the Special Account;

– for IOC bodies only: establishing dashboards specifically for IOC to monitor its strategic actions and budget.

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends that reporting to the Assembly be improved with respect to human resources management by providing detailed information, in each budget implementation and activity report, on:

– the present situation: number of staff working for the Commission, corresponding number of full time equivalents, corresponding total expenditure and funding sources, table of planned and actual staffing levels, including a comparison with the previous consolidated financial period;

– performance indicators with respect to human resources management, including expected trends in staffing and payroll, as well as a short-term and medium-term goal regarding the share of staff costs under the regular budget.

Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends a comprehensive review of the Headquarters-field staff ratio, given the challenges, workload and new tasks that lie ahead for the Commission.

200 EX/20 Part II Annex I – page 2

Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends that the Bureau of Financial Management (BFM) improve the monitoring, accounting and annual reporting of overtime paid to UNESCO staff members performing ad-hoc tasks for IOC.

Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends a return to compliance with the Organization’s rules of geographical mobility and contract renewal, as defined by UNESCO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.

Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends that the question of reactivating the mobility mechanism for the staff of UN-Oceans’ member organizations be raised at a future meeting of UN-Oceans.

Recommendation No. 11. The External Auditor recommends, without delay, a return to strict compliance with recruitment conditions for external consultants, by confining waivers to the competitive process to the exceptional circumstance justifying such waivers, in accordance with the UNESCO Human Resources Manual. He recommends, in particular, putting a stop to the recruitment of consultants for functions for which there is a continuing need at the Commission and for multi-year extrabudgetary assignments, and returning to strict compliance with the applicable texts.

Recommendation No. 12. The External Auditor recommends that IOC staff be reminded of their obligation to write a substantial report upon their return from a mission. These reports should be reviewed periodically to verify the appropriateness of certain categories of mission.

Recommendation No. 13. The External Auditor recommends that the achievement of expected results and performance indicators be clearly distributed between the sections of IOC.

Recommendation No. 14. The External Auditor recommends establishing partnerships with new universities or research centres in order to end the oligopoly with current partners and enable an effective competitive bidding process when launching and renewing projects.

Recommendation No. 15. The External Auditor recommends that a draft resolution be submitted to the IOC Assembly calling for Member States to work together, with the support of IOC, to construct a universal information system and ocean data portal, along with a cost-benefit analysis prepared in advance by the IODE project.

ANNEX II PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BY RECOMMENDATION




recommendation

January 2018



To be established January 2018

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends: (i) updating the distribution of FITOCA funds between Headquarters and field offices based on the results of a study into the work time that various offices actually spend on managing voluntary contributions and extrabudgetary funds, and (ii) updating the distribution of FITOCA-funded posts at Headquarters among the various offices at Headquarters based on the results of a study similar to the one in the first part of the recommendation.

Partially accepted. The JIU report in 2002-03 highlighted that because time allocation estimations is based on inputs on fixed date these may not be relevant in later years. UNESCO is instead proposing to use the principles of proportionality and cost classification by functional unit as a basis in the new policy as it is simpler to calculate and more transparent to communicate. The revised policy will provide comprehensive guidance to field offices on the charging of costs to projects, including the recovery of Regular Programme Staff costs based on time spent.

YES if additional time study required Estimated $15,000

January 2018

200 EX/20 Part II Annex II




recommendation

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends that Article 3 of the Statutes of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) be amended to include the “requirements” relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); likewise, IOC’s medium-term strategy should take into account the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.

It is the Secretariat’s opinion that inclusion of the reference to the UNFCCC and the 2030 Development Agenda in Art. 3.1 (c) of the Statutes of the IOC is not necessary, as this Article already reads “and other international instruments relevant to marine scientific research, related services and capacity-building”. The General Conference of UNESCO can however amend the Statutes as recommended by the external auditor, if desired, “following a recommendation of, or after consultation with, the Assembly of the Commission” (Art. 12 of the Statutes). The Secretariat concurs that the UNFCCC and the 2030 Development Agenda will provide the guiding principles for IOC’s strategic planning for the years to come and ADG/IOC is one of the members of the UNESCO 2030 Development Agenda Task Force set up by the Director-General. But so will the Sendai Framework, the Samoa Pathway and the UNFCCC COP processes. These global agenda’s will be duly reflected in the review of IOC’s Medium Term Strategy (2014-2021) during the coming IOC Assembly meeting in 2017, when the Draft Programme and Budget for 2018-2021 (39 C/5) will be discussed. In addition, the Assembly’s opinion will be sought on the External Auditor’s recommendation to amend the IOC

No June 2017 – The External Auditor’s report and recommendations will be submitted for review and decision by the IOC Assembly at its 29th session. Among other documents, the IOC Medium Term Strategy will be updated to integrate in it the most recent developments in the international development agenda.

200 EX/20 Part II Annex II – page 2




recommendation

Statutes to include references to requirements deriving from UNFCCC.

Recommendation No. 2. In liaison with the respective governing bodies, conduct a study of the potential pooling of periodic reports to the governing bodies of the United Nations, UNESCO, the Commission and its subsidiary bodies.

The concept of “mutualization” in the reporting area is unclear. While efforts are always made to avoid cumbersome and unnecessary reporting, it is recalled that the format of reporting to UNESCO’s Executive Board and General Conference is the prerogative of these Governing Bodies respectively. It is focused on C/5 expected results and other elements of the C/5 results chain for which reporting is mandated in a specific format. The reports required by subsidiary organs and their format are not the subject of discussion at UNESCO’s Executive Board and General Conference. It is acknowledged that they may be more specialized and/or detailed than those reported to UNESCO’s governing bodies. IOC will review this issue as well as that of reporting to UN bodies, consulting as necessary the relevant central services.

No Study to be completed and presented to the 29th session of the IOC Assembly in June 2017.

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor suggests that the autonomy and specificity of IOC, with regard to governance, decision-making, partnerships, funding, operating and external reporting, should be better reflected in the presentation of UNESCO’s budgetary and accounting documents.

The Secretariat takes on board this recommendation. It is worth noting that a certain autonomy and specificity of IOC is already reflected today in the C/5 budget presentation, i.e.: • In the preparation process of the

38 C/5, a specific budget envelope for IOC was determined by the DG independently of SC sector.

No November 2017 – Subject to adoption of the 39 C/5 by the UNESCO General Conference.





recommendation

• In the presentation of the 38 C/5, while IOC programme figures under Major Programme II (MLA 3), the specific budget amount for IOC is clearly indicated in all the budget tables.

• Internal control is provided to ensure that no budget transfer is made out of IOC. (Budget transfers across MLAs or MPs are subject to approval by BFM who verifies that such transfers do not involve IOC.)

On the accounting side: A note disclosure will be added in the consolidated 2016 financial statements addressing the specific nature of IOC.

Recommendation No.4. The External Auditor recommends a review of the organization of the work of the IOC’s Assembly and Executive Council to enable them to make more strategic decisions on the key issues and challenges facing IOC. To that end, he recommends, in particular, a review of the Commission’s programmes and activities, starting with the analysis, which has already started with regard to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda, of the main international agreements and conventions with an impact on IOC’s mandate and objectives, in order to propose an overall strategy.

The Secretariat takes on board this recommendation. The IOC Secretariat has already begun this exercise and the June 2016 session of the Executive Council was largely built around the guiding principles of the 2030 Development Agenda, the UNFCCC agenda, the Sendai Framework and the Samoa Pathway. The Executive Council provided guidance to the IOC Secretariat with a view of preparing a fully-developed proposal for the IOC Assembly in 2017.

No June 2017 – fully developed proposal to be submitted for approval by the IOC Assembly at its 29th session.





recommendation

Recommendation No. 5. The External Auditor recommends that the quality of the information provided to the Executive Council and the Assembly be improved by: - ensuring consistency between the presentation of budget implementation and the expenditure plan and reconciling the two in a single table; - providing information on the use of the surplus balance of the Special Account; - for IOC bodies only: establishing dashboards specifically for IOC to monitor its strategic actions and budget.

The Secretariat takes note of the recommendation, related to the quality of information given to the IOC Governing Bodies. The second item is already addressed through the adoption by the IOC Executive Council at its 49th session, 7-10 June 2016, of the budgetary appropriations for 2016-2017 for the IOC Special Account and further implementation is foreseen with the 2016 financial statements of the IOC Special Account. With regards to the third item of the recommendation, the Secretariat would prefer to continue to use the dashboard common to all programme sectors to enable Governing Bodies’ Members to have a more global view and comprehensive approach in its monitoring of the Organization’s strategic actions and budgets.

No June 2017 – IOC Assembly at its 29th Session

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends that reporting to the Assembly be improved with respect to human resources management by providing detailed information, in each budget implementation and activity report, on: - the present situation: number of staff working for the Commission, corresponding number of full time equivalents, corresponding total expenditure and funding sources, table of planned and actual staffing levels,

The Secretariat notes with interest the recommendation and would bring to the attention of the External Audit team the following information: • Targets in terms of ratio between

operational budget and staff allocation and staffing priorities under RP are already set by IOC Governing bodies

• As regards the first sub-item, a new Annex showing expenditure by IPSAS category thus showing distinction between personnel and other costs will be included in the IOC Special

No March 2017





recommendation

including a comparison with the previous consolidated financial period; - performance indicators with respect to human resources management, including expected trends in staffing and payroll, as well as a short-term and medium-term goal regarding the share of staff costs under the regular budget.

Account financial statements. Furthermore, BFM and HRM will assist IOC Secretariat in exploring the possibility of including such information under the Regular Budget and other XB sources

• With regard to workforce planning and staff costs, this is already undertaken by IOC in consultation, where applicable with HRM and BFM.

Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends a comprehensive review of the Headquarters-field staff ratio, given the challenges, workload and new tasks that lie ahead for the Commission.

In line with the recommendation, the IOC Secretariat, in consultation with the relevant central services, shall conduct such a scoping exercise and prepare a working document on this matter, to be considered by the IOC Assembly at its 29th session in June 2017.

No June 2017 (29th session of the IOC Assembly)

Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends that the Bureau of Financial Management (BFM) improve the monitoring, accounting and annual reporting of overtime paid to UNESCO staff members performing ad-hoc tasks for IOC.

This recommendation concerns overtime worked by staff and temporary hires of services other than IOC in supporting IOC’s events and activities. A specific General Ledger (GL) account for overtime allows the identification of the overtime charges, across all sources of funding, thus complying already to part of the recommendation. BFM, in close consultation with the Administrative Officer of IOC who is certifying overtime charges, will work further on the implementation of this recommendation.

No N/A





recommendation

Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends a return to compliance with the Organization’s rules of geographical mobility and contract renewal, as defined by UNESCO’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.

The Secretariat takes note of this recommendation and would wish to bring to the attention of the External Audit team the following information: With regard to HR Manual Item 5.11 F on geographical mobility; this Item applies only to international professional staff and above categories holding fixed-term appointments on posts specifically identified as being subject to geographical mobility regardless of the source of funding of the post. A geographical mobility move is carried out at equal-grade. It should also be noted that the number of IOC staff subject to geographical mobility is relatively low and that the number of posts in the “Field Offices” – in fact - mainly project offices – are very limited; this coupled with the very specialized fields of competence and the different grade levels may prove difficult to move IOC staff to and between different duty stations. This being said, please note that a new managed mobility programme for all staff (both geographical and functional) in support of operational needs and staff development will be developed in the context of the new HR Strategy for 2017-2022. Indeterminate contracts have not been granted since 1987 (ref. document 142

Financial implications and cost/benefit analysis to be determined in relation to the mobility policy

2018





recommendation

EX/34, Annex II). Within the context of the new HR Strategy 2017-2022, a review of contractual modalities is planned for January 2018 in particular the adjustment of the duration of contracts especially the 2-year renewable fixed-term contract. It is planned to introduce contracts of up to 5 year’s duration.

Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends that the question of reactivating the mobility mechanism for the staff of UN-Oceans’ member organizations be raised at a future meeting of UN-Oceans.

The Secretariat notes with interest this recommendation and would like to recall that an inter-agency mobility mechanism exists since 2003 – the Inter-Organization Agreement concerning transfer, secondment or loan of staff amongst the UN Organizations. It considers, however, that there is limited opportunity for such mobility, given that high level of specialisation of IOC staff and the differences in mandates (and therefore staff profiles) between UN-Ocean members.

No The IOC Secretariat will include this aspect in the review working document to be prepared to address recommendation no. 7 above for review and guidance by the IOC Assembly at its 29th session in June 2017.

Recommendation No. 11. The External Auditor recommends, without delay, a return to strict compliance with recruitment conditions for external consultants, by confining waivers to the competitive process to the exceptional circumstance justifying such waivers, in accordance with the UNESCO Human Resources Manual. He recommends, in particular, putting a stop to the recruitment of consultants for functions for which there is a continuing need at the Commission and for multi-year

The selection and hiring of individual consultants shall be carried out in strict respect of the UNESCO HR Manual Item 13.10; whilst the authority to grant any derogations on hiring of individual consultants remains with DIR/HRM. The Secretariat fully agrees that all selection and hiring actions will be done in strict conformity with the relevant administrative rules

No Internal memo will be issued by ADG/IOC by end of July 2016 to recall applicable rule and procedures, implementation starts immediately.





recommendation

extrabudgetary assignments, and returning to strict compliance with the applicable texts.

Recommendation No. 12. The External Auditor recommends that IOC staff be reminded of their obligation to write a substantial report upon their return from a mission. These reports should be reviewed periodically to verify the appropriateness of certain categories of mission.

Taking into account this recommendation, the Secretariat will take appropriate action to ensure conformity with the Administrative Manual provisions

No Internal memo will be issued by ADG/IOC by end of July 2016 to recall applicable rules and procedures, implementation starts immediately.

Recommendation No. 13. The External Auditor recommends that the achievement of expected results and performance indicators be clearly distributed between the sections of IOC.

The Secretariat takes on board the comment. While internally, in the bottom up process of building the C/5 programmatic structure the input from each section/unit appears to be clear, a more explicit mapping outside the SISTER tool may be useful for quick external understanding.

No The 39 C/5 proposal to be presented to the IOC Assembly at its 29th session in June 2017 will be accompanied by such a ‘mapping document’.

Recommendation No. 14. The External Auditor recommends establishing partnerships with new universities or research centres in order to end the oligopoly with current partners and enable an effective competitive bidding process when launching and renewing projects.

The Secretariat wishes to point out that the related contract with University of Hawaii (paragraph 152) is not a partnership agreement, but rather a procurement contract issued based on a competitive bidding process (Request for Proposal) carried out in 2005 covering both the initial installation/upgrade of a minimum of 14 sea level measurement stations and a minimum of five-year maintenance period. The Contracts Committee, while providing its clearance to the initial 2005

No December 2016





recommendation

contract, has requested separate submissions for the subsequent contracts per year/phase to be submitted to the Contracts Committee, to ensure satisfactory performance of the contractor and value for money. The subsequent contracts, including the one reviewed by the external auditor (March 2013), are based on 2005 pricing, duly cleared by the Contracts Committee. Value for money is a guiding principle of UNESCO contracting. It should however be noted that the current Administrative Manual Item 7.5 on Implementation Partnership Agreements (IPA) does not require formal competition: “An implementation partner should be selected after careful comparison with other potential implementation partners on the basis of its specific technical expertise, professional skills, adequate staff resources and reasonably sound financial status and geographic coverage”. Instead, a comparison process has been put into place designed to respect the best value for money principle. Secondly, it should be recalled that due to the highly technical and specific expertise required, the market place may not have more than one suitable candidate. In line with the proposed recommendation, in the ongoing revision





recommendation

of the current Administrative Manual Item 7.5, it has been proposed to introduce a competitive selection process for all implementation partnership agreements of US $50,000 and over.

Recommendation No. 15. The External Auditor recommends that a draft resolution be submitted to the IOC Assembly calling for Member States to work together, with the support of IOC, to construct a universal information system and ocean data portal, along with a cost-benefit analysis prepared in advance by the IODE project.

The Secretariat welcomes the intent behind this recommendation, but would like to suggest that a proposal be submitted together with a cost benefit analysis to the next session of IODE, as the relevant technical subsidiary body of the IOC Assembly for review and recommendation

To be determined, based on the IODE review

April 2017.



200 EX/20 Part III

Executive Board



PART III – SHORT-FORM REPORT

AUDIT REPORT ON THE COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SECTOR

SUMMARY

This document is the short-form report of the External Auditor’s audit report on the Communication and Information Sector as submitted in document 200 EX/20.INF.3 pursuant to Article 12.4 of the Financial Regulations.

Action expected of the Executive Board: proposed decision in paragraph 36.



200 EX/20 Part III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AUDIT REPORT ON THE COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SECTOR


1. The Communication and Information Sector (CI) has been one of UNESCO’s five programme sectors since the 1992-1993 biennium (document 26 C/5). It represented 4.7% of regular programme expenditure for the 2014-2015 biennium, putting it fourth place among the sectors in terms of budget expenditure, ahead of the Social and Human Sciences Sector (SHS).

(a) The definition of the responsibilities of a programme sector is somewhat laconic in the Organization’s normative texts, and clarity in the UNESCO Administrative Manual about their responsibilities vis-à-vis the field offices and about the mechanisms for arbitrating between sectors is deemed necessary.

(b) Leadership of the Sector

2. The leadership of the CI Sector has faced major challenges in recent years against the background of the Organization’s reform and overall financial constraints. In autumn 2013, the Director-General proposed, as part of the examination of the Medium-Term Strategy for 2014-2021 (document 37 C/4), the realignment of the thematic programmes, including the proposed merger of the major programmes on communication and culture as a way of addressing the budgetary constraints, and in response to a request from Member States for innovative proposals for dealing with the situation. Following the examination by the Member States of those preliminary proposals, a reformulation was submitted at their request, under which the Sector and Major Programme V retained their independent status. Under the expenditure plan approved by the Member States, the funding for the post of Assistant Director-General (ADG) was withdrawn from the budget in 2014, and the CI Sector was placed under the responsibility of the Deputy Director-General (DDG) from January 2014 to February 2016 before a new ADG was appointed.

3. It is observed that the ADG of a sector does not receive a written mandate or terms of reference from the Director-General at the time of appointment. Although their tasks fit naturally into the strategic objectives approved by the governing bodies, such a practice, common to many organizations, could be helpful in more effectively implementing the Organization’s priorities in each sector.

(c) Internal organization of the Sector

4. Following the reorganization of the CI Sector, in May 2014, in addition to an Executive Office and an Administrative Office, it comprises two divisions: the Division of Freedom of Expression and Media Development (CI/FEM), comprising two sections (the Section for Freedom of Expression (CI/FEM/FOE) and the Section for Media Development and Society (CI/FEM/MAS)), and the Knowledge Societies Division (CI/KSD), also comprising two sections (the Section for ICT in Education, Science and Culture (CI/KSD/ICT) and the Section for Universal Access and Preservation (CI/KSD/UAP)). This internal organization appears well suited to carrying out Major Programme V, which the Sector implements, and its resulting activities. Nonetheless, a greater degree of synergy between the two divisions would make for better integrated implementation of the different pillars of Major Programme V.

200 EX/20 Part III – page 2

(d) Strategic positioning of the Sector

5. The Organization’s multi-year strategy is formalized in the C/4 document, adopted in autumn 2013 for the 2014-2021 period, which assigns one of its nine strategic objectives (SO) to the CI Sector in its own right, SO 9: “Promoting freedom of expression, media development and access to information and knowledge”. The Sector also participates in other strategic objectives (SO 1 and SO 6), as well as the Organization’s crosscutting priority areas of action (Africa and gender equality). SO 9 of the Medium-Term Strategy (C/4) includes 13 items, some of which are common and interdependent or shared with other sectors of the Organization. Clarification of some of these items and the development of modalities for effective cross-sectoral implementation of these objectives is deemed necessary.

6. The CI Sector implements Major Programme V – Communication and Information, which comprises two main lines of action (MLA) 1 and four expected results (ER), corresponding respectively to each of the divisions and each of the Sector’s sections. A review of these MLAs and ERs must be conducted by 2017, which must be planned without delay. Since the last biennium, the expected results have been broken down into performance indicators, which have targets/benchmarks for 2017. The establishment of a tool to allow summary monitoring of six-monthly performance indicators, common to all sectors, would be welcome.

(e) Budget management

7. The Sector’s initial budget for the 2014-2015 biennium was $37,138 800, broken down into expenditure plan resources of $23,513,000 for the regular programme (RP) and extrabudgetary resources (EXB) of $13,625,800, or 63.3% and 36.6% of the total respectively, and $40,364,300 for the 2016-2017 biennium, broken down into expenditure plan resources of $23,651,700 under the regular programme and extrabudgetary resources of $16,712,600, or 59% and 41% of the total respectively. The Sector’s share of the Organization’s total budget is constant at between 4.5% and 5%.

8. After apparently falling very sharply between the 2012-2013 and 2014-2015 biennia, the Sector’s budget has recovered its stability, increasing by 8.7% between the current and previous biennia. Growth in resources from the regular programme was a mere +0.6% but this was made up for by a rise in extrabudgetary resources (+22.7%). The Sector’s budget includes a significant portion of staff costs (76.1% of the regular programme budget and 48.2% of total resources for the 2014-2015 biennium), although this proportion has been contained since the 2012-2013 biennium. Less than half of the regular programme (41.5% for the current biennium) is decentralized into the field network, which is a significantly below the average for the Organization (63.7% of allotments in 2015).

9. Budget expenditure on activities, monitored monthly, works satisfactorily. The CI Sector is in the middle of the range for financial management given the different parameters.

10. The breakdown of regular programme resources and expenditure is very evenly split between the two MLA; ER1 dominates with 34.1% of allocations but is slightly less dominant for expenditure (28.8%). For the extraordinary budget, on the other hand, there is a pronounced imbalance between the two MLAs, with MLA 1 accounting for almost two thirds of the total (74.3% of allocations and 73% of expenditure). Overall, MLA 1 represented over 55% of regular programme expenditure for the previous biennium and the extraordinary budget for 2015, with ER1 alone accounting for 33.8% of the total.

11. It should be noted that after the date of the audit, some $3 million additional extrabudgetary funds were received to strengthen the implementation of MLA 2.

1 Freedom of information and the media, on the one hand, and universal access to information and knowledge, on

the other.


(f) Human resources management

12. The reduction in the Organization’s overall budget has entailed a 16.7% cut in staff under Major Programme V, or a reduction of 13 posts between the approved programme and budget for 2012-2013 (36 C/5) and for 2016-2017 (38 C/5). Nonetheless, the Sector has managed to enhance its presence and expertise in sub-Saharan Africa, with its presence in the field going from 37% of total staff numbers in 2012 to 43% in 2016, meaning that it achieved the general goal in document 38 C/5 (Approved) and the 38 C/5 expenditure plan of a Headquarters/field split of 60%/40%.

Table 1: Evolution in staffing funded from the regular programme

(Funded posts) 36 (2012-2013) 37 (2014-2015) 38 (2016-2017) Budgeted staff 79.12 71.33 74.5

Headquarters (vacant) 47.83 (+2) 42 (+2.33) 43 (+4)

Field (vacant) 27 (+2.29) 25 (+2) 31.5 (+10.5)

Total vacant 4.29 4.33 14.5 Source: External Auditor.

13. Since the last biennium, the choice has been made to stop abolishing posts while complying with the budgetary constraint of staff cost reduction. The first option explored by the Sector was the proposed sharing of certain posts in local offices with other sectors. Following the Social and Human Sciences Sector’s refusal to replicate the post-sharing trial conducted during the 37th biennium, the CI Sector decided to downgrade posts becoming vacant, almost on a systematic basis.

14. Since 2012, the salary of one grade P-4 official has been charged to the CI Sector, while the official was in fact assigned to public relations and communication duties in the UNESCO Liaison Office in New York and Headquarters. The Secretariat stated that this situation was owing to a transition of duties between two officials, and that the post should be re-allocated to the Sector in September 2016. It is important to ensure that this happens in order to avoid repeating this situation so that the budget reports reflect the reality of staff employed by the Sector.

15. The quality of performance appraisals conducted by the CI Sector should be strengthened, as the completeness of the reports consulted by the auditors varied widely.

16. Headquarters has only a fragmented view of the value of consultancy contracts entered into by the Sector as a whole. While the selection and appraisal procedures appear to have been complied with, it would seem useful to equip the sectors with a monitoring tool.

(g) Management of the portfolio of activities and projects

17. UNESCO’s budget crisis has had a severe impact on the CI Sector, with the activities share of the regular programme suffering major cutbacks between the 35th and 37th biennia. The predominance of extrabudgetary funds in financing activities therefore became even more marked.

Table 2: Evolution of budgets implemented since 2010 (in United States dollars)

35th biennium 36th biennium 37th biennium

Extrabudgetary funds 22,273,000 33,020,000 13,625,800

RP staff 20,049,200 18,012,750 17,898,500

RP activities 13,108,800 4,010,250 5,614,500 Source: EX/4 documents.


18. The CI Sector managed a portfolio of almost 300 projects in 2015,2 representing actual expenditures of $14.2 million. While the 20 largest projects (mainly funded with extrabudgetary resources) represented 42% of total actual expenditure in 2015, most of the projects managed by the Sector represented relatively small amounts of expenditure (109 projects showed an amount of actual expenditure of less than €10,000 in 2015 and mainly corresponded to pilot projects, particularly from the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC). A limited number of projects appeared under-implemented at the end of the 2015 accounting period: seven of the 303, all financed from extrabudgetary funds, showed an implementation rate below 30%. There were a variety of reasons, such as the political impossibility of awarding the UNESCO-Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize, the inability of the Abidjan Office to disburse the funds within the time limit required, and the difficulty for the Cairo Office of carrying out a regional project involving six countries.

19. The CI Sector publishes a significant amount of material (48 publications for the 2014-2015 biennium), but does not have an overview enabling it to measure the number of copies published, distributed or downloaded, which is a precondition for measuring the impact of its work. The establishment of a dashboard, in collaboration with the Sector for External Relations and Public Information (ERI), is deemed useful.

(h) Mobilization of extrabudgetary resources

20. The CI Sector benefited from extrabudgetary funding of $41.9 million for the 2012-2013 biennium and $36.6 million for the 2014-2015 biennium.

Table 3: Evolution of extrabudgetary funds raised by the CI Sector and the Organization (in millions of United States dollars)

2012-2013 2014-2015

CI Sector 41.9 36.60

UNESCO 553.53 506.29

CI share/UNESCO 7.5 % 7.2 % Source: EX/4 documents.

21. As provided in the Administrative Manual, the CI Sector has drawn up an Extended Strategic Sectoral Framework (ESSF), which presents to potential donors the partnership opportunities the CI Sector offers, and a note in September 2014 as a preliminary to the action plan. The Sector has also set resource-mobilization goals for each biennium, which seem less than ambitious ($14 million for 2016-2017, although funding mobilized in 2014-2015 reached $36.6 million).

22. The extrabudgetary resources collected by the Sector come for the most part from Member States (64% of the extrabudgetary resources granted in 2016, not including multi-donor funds and the voluntary contribution of Brazil), particularly the Nordic countries, international organizations and the European Union (16% and 13% respectively), and marginally from the private sector (6%). The CI Sector, like the Organization as a whole, thus remains highly dependent on “traditional” donors (Member States, mainly from the West, and multilateral organizations), and is struggling to diversify its sources of funding, with the private sector in particular.

23. The field offices, which account for almost 50% of the extrabudgetary resources mobilized by the Sector for the 2014-2015 biennium, showed wide variations in performance, with 87% of the total resources mobilized by ten offices in the previous biennium.

2 The number of activities does not include activities implemented by the field as part of projects managed directly

from Headquarters (for example, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) & Finland project).


24. The performance of the CI Sector in mobilizing extrabudgetary resources during the 2014-2015 biennium looks honourable compared to the other sectors. Despite the vacant post of the ADG, the CI Sector was able to increase the amount of resources it received in more or less comparable proportion to the other sectors. Given that extrabudgetary funds make up an ever-increasing part of the resources of the Organization, the Sector still needs to introduce greater structure and professionalism into its fundraising processes around an action plan, developed with the support of the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP), to give it the capacity to increase and diversify its resources: drawing up a strategic planning document on resource mobilization; setting targets for the chiefs of section in building the Sector’s capacities for mobilization of resource; and closer monitoring of the field offices’ work in resource mobilization.

(i) Management of relations with the field

25. At the time of the audit, the CI Sector had a permanent presence in 30 of the Organization’s field offices, enabling it to cover 60% of the network. There is a specific budget for activities carried out in the field, which is discussed with each office and harmonized with all the offices to ensure regional coherence in terms of impact. While the heads of field offices are in theory “accountable for the decentralized programme implementation to the substantively responsible sector ADGs”, centralized control of the Organization’s field network in that region has been reduced: staff assigned to the field now report to their local office directors, rather than to the sectors to which they are attached. The Sector asserts, in that regard, that certain heads of field offices do not have a clear understanding of its mission and the role of its local correspondents, sometimes using them, as well as the funds made available, for public relations activities. There are also cases where the field offices take initiatives and form partnerships without previously informing the sections concerned at Headquarters.

26. While the office directors and CI staff in the field with whom the auditors spoke expressed a generally positive evaluation of the support provided by Headquarters, the sharing of responsibilities between Headquarters and the field gives rise to certain difficulties. The centralization at Headquarters of the management of certain projects in a limited geographical area can thus be the source of misunderstandings in the field.

27. While it is true that a number of the Sector’s activities with a global scope require centralization, greater involvement of the field network is deemed necessary. That is why the Sector is currently studying the implementation of a decentralized structure with poles of expertise (CI focal points) in each region.

28. The monitoring of field activities by Headquarters relies on various tools, above all the SISTER software. The quality of information entered in SISTER seems to vary in the auditor’s view, based on a sample of 20 projects analysed. It was also deemed negative that the services at Headquarters are no longer involved in the appraisal of field staff responsible for implementation of the Sector’s activities.

(j) Programmes subject to specific governance (IPDC and IFAP)

29. The Sector provides the secretariat of two programmes with specific governance, the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC), established in 1980, and the Information for All Programme (IFAP), established in 1999.

30. IPDC had an operating budget of $430,000 (including staff costs) for the 2014-2015 biennium, added to which is an operating budget financed solely by extrabudgetary contributions allocated to the Programme’s Special Account ($854,562 in 2014 and $645,601 in 2015). At 31 December 2015, the Programme was funding six projects, allowing the payment of relatively modest sums ($10,000 to $20,000), over a period of one to two years, to local initiatives to finance media and journalist associations in countries of the South (a total of 196 micro-projects in 2015).


The database for the projects, which the secretariat is supposed to maintain, would benefit from being updated.

31. Independently of its role of allocating local grants, in recent years IPDC has launched several “special initiatives”, including the United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, launched by IPDC in March 2008 and approved by the United Nations in April 2012, which establishes the submission by the Director-General to the Intergovernmental Council (IGC) of a biennial report on Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity, and the publication of Media Development Indicators (MDI) since 2008, accompanied each year by some assessments of the situation of the media in a given country.

32. IFAP had funding from the regular programme (excluding staff costs, estimated at $262,000) of $455,600 in 2014-2015, and, unlike its sister programme, it also received $194,898 from the emergency programme. Like IPDC, it has a Special Account, from which total expenditure for the 2014-2015 biennium amounted to $116,413.

33. Much of the Programme’s work is centred on the digital dimension of information. In that connection, it invested, for example, in themes such as access to ICTs by persons with disabilities, youth radicalization via the Internet and linguistic and cultural diversity in cyberspace. The report of the 8th session of the Intergovernmental Council (IGC) indicates that the Programme seems to be trying to adapt its positioning to reflect its transformation into a think tank and advisory body for implementation of the Organization’s regular programme in its field of competence. Even though it is self-governing, the various documents presented at the 8th session of the IGC reveal that IFAP suffers from a chronic lack of visibility.

34. IPDC and IFAP are both subject to specific governance, provided by an Intergovernmental Council (IGC) and a Bureau. The added value of such governance is not obvious for IPDC, given the low frequency of the IGC meetings on the one hand, and the transfer of effective responsibility to the Bureau of this body alone on the other. Without calling into question the very content of the actions undertaken, a study of the costs and benefits of maintaining specific governance for this Programme should be submitted to the Executive Board.

35. IFAP, on the other hand, would benefit from guidance through a strategic plan following on from the Medium-Term Strategy adopted for 2008-2013, which will make it possible to highlight the real contributions of the Programme, distinguished from the other activities of the CI Sector in the same fields.

Proposed decision

36. The Executive Board may wish to adopt a decision along the following lines:


1. Having examined documents 200 EX/20 Part III and 200 EX/20.INF.3,





The Director-General thanks the External Auditor for his report on the Communication and Information Sector (CI). She accepts the vast majority of the recommendations made and will report on the progress of their implementation in accordance with the usual practice. She wishes, nonetheless, to draw attention to recommendations No.1 and No. 2 for which detailed comments are provided in response to the issues raised.

Details in Annex II.

200 EX/20 Part III Annex I

ANNEX I: LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends that the Administrative Manual give a more precise definition of the roles and responsibilities of a programme sector.

Recommendation No. 2. The External Auditor recommends that senior management issues terms of reference to each Assistant Director-General upon appointment, and that each ADG does the same for the directors of division under his or her authority.

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor recommends setting up a process or clear methodology for intersectoral work as requested by the General Conference.

Recommendation No. 4. The External Auditor recommends ensuring that the review evaluating the main lines of action (MLA) and expected results (ER) by 2017 required by the General Conference resolution of 17 November 2015 has been put in place.

Recommendation No. 5. The External Auditor recommends putting a tool in place to allow summary six-monthly follow-up of the performance indicators and targets for 2017 using SISTER.

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends ensuring that the P-4 post previously assigned to New York is once more attached to the CI Sector and avoiding any repetition of cases where the employment of staff does not conform to the budget reports.

Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends improving the quality of performance appraisals of staff members in the Sector, including by the systematic setting of specific, personalized objectives.

Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends that the sectors be given a tool for the consolidated monitoring of all contracts entered into by Headquarters and the field, covering both regular and extrabudgetary funding.

Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends the setting up, with the cooperation of the External Relations and Public Information Sector (ERI), of a dashboard showing the CI Sector’s publications so that their real impact can be measured.

Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends drawing up a more ambitious CI Sector resource mobilization action plan, based on a thorough analysis of the Sector’s “products”, their fields of implementation and potential donor profiles.

Recommendation No.11. The External Auditor recommends better identification of roles and responsibilities within the Headquarters teams for the mobilization of resources, by setting targets for the directors, chiefs of section and directors of field offices that have a CI Sector specialist.

Recommendation No. 12. The External Auditor recommends involving programme sectors more closely in the performance appraisals of field staff under their budget.

Recommendation No. 13. The External Auditor recommends updating the projects database of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) for 2014 and 2015.

Recommendation No. 14. Without calling into question the actions undertaken, the External Auditor recommends submitting to the Executive Board a study of the costs and benefits of maintaining specific governance for the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC).

Recommendation No. 15. The External Auditor recommends inviting the States Members of the Intergovernmental Council of the Information for All Programme (IFAP) to prepare and adopt a strategic plan for the Programme for the coming years that will make it possible to highlight the concrete contributions of the Programme, distinguished from the other activities of the CI Sector in the same fields.

ANNEX II PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN BY RECOMMENDATION




recommendation

Recommendation No. 1. The External Auditor recommends that the Administrative Manual give a more precise definition of the roles and responsibilities of a programme sector.

The recommendation as formulated cannot be implemented. The responsibilities of a sector are defined in the Organization’s strategic and programmatic documents (C/4 and C/5 documents) which reflect the mission of Major Programme V, fulfilled by the Sector’s Assistant Director-General (ADG), who ensures implementation of the programme approved by the General Conference, based on those same documents. It should indeed be noted that, since the establishment of a programme in charge of communication and information, a number of changes have been made to its name and fields of action (communication, information and informatics). For example, in 1988-1989 (document 24 C/5) there were 14 major programmes implemented by four sectors, one of which was entitled “Culture and Communication”. In 1990-1991 (document 25 C/5), there were seven major programmes implemented by four sectors, again including the fields of communication and culture under a single sector entitled “Culture and Communication”. It was not until 1992-1993 (document 26 C/5) that the “new” Communication, Information and

- -

200 EX/20 Part III Annex II




recommendation

Informatics Sector was established. It should also be noted that in 2000-2001 (document 30 C/5) there were four major programmes and five sectors (the Natural Sciences Sector (SC) and the Social and Human Sciences Sector (SHS) were together in one major programme). Since 2002-2003 (document 31 C/5), there have been five major programmes and five sectors.

Recommendation No. 2. The External Auditor recommends that senior management issues terms of reference to each Assistant Director-General upon appointment, and that each ADG does the same for the directors of division under his or her authority.

The recommendation as formulated cannot be implemented. Assistant Directors-General (ADGs) do not have job descriptions as such (ADG posts are not classified in the United Nations system); like all other staff members, the post vacancy notice defines the mission and mandate of the sector and the responsibilities and functions expected of the occupant of the post. In addition, ADGs are subject to a performance agreement with the Director-General in which their expected results and objectives are recorded and evaluated. ADGs do not receive a written mandate or terms of reference from the Director-General owing to the fact that their mission is within the strategic and programmatic goals approved by the Organization’s governing bodies (General Conference and Executive Board) in the related documents (UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy (C/4) and Approved

- -

200 EX/20 Part III Annex II – page 2




recommendation

Programme and Budget (C/5)). With regard to directors of divisions, a job description is provided at the time of appointment, indicating their tasks and responsibilities; they also receive performance appraisals – their objectives and expected results are discussed with their direct supervisors at the beginning of the performance cycle, then monitored and assessed.

Recommendation No. 3. The External Auditor recommends setting up a process or clear methodology for intersectoral work as requested by the General Conference.

Recommendation accepted. The Secretariat has already recognized the growing importance of intersectoral work, particularly in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This recognition is reflected in the preliminary proposals for the 39 C/5 document and this aspect will be assessed six months after the adoption of the new C/5 document and the initial conclusions drawn.

NO July 2018

Recommendation No. 4. The External Auditor recommends ensuring that the review evaluating the main lines of action (MLA) and expected results (ER) by 2017 required by the General Conference resolution of 17 November 2015 has been put in place.

Actions have been taken addressing the concerns expressed in the recommendations. The strategic results report (SRR), prepared by the Secretariat and discussed by the Executive Board at its 199th session in April 2016, contains an overall strategic assessment of the results for each major programme, as well as for the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), and associated proposals for the future to improve,

NO 2017





recommendation

redirect or adjust, if necessary, certain programmes or areas of work; detailed evaluations by expected result or theme; and, in annex, a matrix providing an overview of programme performance, in which each expected result is assessed against five criteria approved by the Executive Board at its 197th session, on the basis of a rating scale of “high/medium/low”. The CI Sector will call upon the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) and the Internal Oversight Service (IOS) again after the 200th session of the Executive Board for their assistance in revising the formulation of objectives and expected results.

Recommendation No. 5. The External Auditor recommends putting a tool in place to allow summary six-monthly follow-up of the performance indicators and targets for 2017 using SISTER.

Recommendation accepted. The Secretariat welcomes this recommendation, which is in line with the objectives of the Organization to improve its programming and monitoring tools, including by developing a clear system for monitoring the implementation of work plans. Provided that the necessary funding is available, a technical solution could be developed as part of the process of redesigning the basic systems.

Costs yet to be determined. (In-house development)

December 2017

Recommendation No. 6. The External Auditor recommends ensuring that the P-4 post previously assigned to New York is once more attached to the CI Sector and avoiding any repetition of

Recommendation accepted. NO September 2016





recommendation

cases where the employment of staff does not conform to the budget reports.

Recommendation No. 7. The External Auditor recommends improving the quality of performance appraisals of staff members in the Sector, including by the systematic setting of specific, personalized objectives.

Recommendation accepted. The CI Sector will work closely with the Bureau of Human Resources Management (HRM) to improve the quality of performance objectives when they are set for the next biennium.

NO March 2018

Recommendation No. 8. The External Auditor recommends that the sectors be given a tool for the consolidated monitoring of all contracts entered into by Headquarters and the field, covering both regular and extrabudgetary funding.

Actions have been taken addressing the concerns expressed in the recommendations. The sectors already have transparent and detailed access to all the contracts entered into by Headquarters and the field, covering both regular and extrabudgetary funding (contracts management tool).

- -

Recommendation No. 9. The External Auditor recommends the setting up, with the cooperation of the External Relations and Public Information Sector (ERI), of a dashboard showing the CI Sector’s publications so that their real impact can be measured.

Recommendation accepted. The Sector for External Relations and Public Information (ERI) will work with CI and other sectors, as well as the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) and the Internal Oversight Service (IOS), to go further in the monitoring of downloads from the UNESCO website and evolve towards a measurable system based on qualitative and quantitative indicators.

Costs yet to be determined. (In-house development)

End-2017

Recommendation No. 10. The External Auditor recommends drawing up a more ambitious CI Sector resource mobilization action plan, based on a

Recommendation accepted. The Section for Mobilizing Government Partner Resources (BSP/MGP) has actively engaged with a number of key

NO June 2017





recommendation

thorough analysis of the Sector’s “products”, their fields of implementation and potential donor profiles.

donors, to support the priorities of the CI Sector and, during the last biennium, has provided training opportunities in fund raising at the same time as the review meeting in Tunis concerning the CI Sector’s major regional programme (mainly covering the Arab States) funded by Sweden and Finland. A preliminary mapping of relevant donors for the expected results of the CI Sector was prepared by the Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) for document 37 C/5, and BSP also provided comments on the CI concept notes and assisted in the development of communication documents and material on the priorities of the CI Sector (a webpage on partnerships and a booklet on priority themes – for all sectors including CI). Moving forward, BSP will work closely with CI to support the Sector’s efforts to develop a resource mobilization strategy for CI, in the same way that it is currently helping the Natural Sciences Sector (SC) to design a resource mobilization strategy for SC within the framework of a working group.

Recommendation No.11. The External Auditor recommends better identification of roles and responsibilities within the Headquarters teams for the mobilization of resources, by setting targets for the directors, chiefs of section and directors of field offices that have a CI Sector specialist.

Recommendation accepted. NO 2017





recommendation

Recommendation No. 12. The External Auditor recommends involving programme sectors more closely in the performance appraisals of field staff under their budget.

Recommendation accepted. According to DG/Note/14/3 of 3 January 2014 aiming to improve the delegation of authority in UNESCO field offices and revise reporting lines: “All staff working in field offices, including programme officers out-posted in UNESCO desks and programme antennas, report directly to the directors/heads of their respective office concerning all aspects of programme design and implementation. Directors/heads of field offices will consult the concerned programme ADG when assessing the performance of international programme staff”. Further efforts will be made to ensure such consultation.

NO 2017

Recommendation No. 13. The External Auditor recommends updating the projects database of the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) for 2014 and 2015.

Actions have been taken addressing the concerns expressed in the recommendations. The database was updated in May 2016. http://www.unesco-ci.org/ipdcprojects/

NO May 2016

Recommendation No. 14. Without calling into question the actions undertaken, the External Auditor recommends submitting to the Executive Board a study of the costs and benefits of maintaining specific governance for the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC).

Recommendation accepted. Note that the IPDC Intergovernmental Council had already requested an assessment at its 29th session, after the completion of the general audit of all the governing bodies. The next session of the IPDC Intergovernmental Council in November will study the terms of reference, including the aspects noted in the recommendation, following which

Approximately $60,000 June 2017 (depending on the availability of funds).


http://www.unesco-ci.org/ipdcprojects/

http://www.unesco-ci.org/ipdcprojects/




recommendation

the evaluation is planned to start.

Recommendation No. 15. The External Auditor recommends inviting the States Members of the Intergovernmental Council of the Information for All Programme (IFAP) to prepare and adopt a strategic plan for the Programme for the coming years that will make it possible to highlight the concrete contributions of the Programme, distinguished from the other activities of the CI Sector in the same fields.

Recommendation accepted. The recommendations made by Member States at the 9th session of the IFAP Intergovernmental Council provide for the development of a strategic plan that will engage the IFAP network. The Council might be able to approve such a strategic plan in June 2017, by virtual communication, or alternatively in 2018, at a physical meeting.

Documentary study, consultations and drafting of a strategic plan - $10,000; validation process - $25,000. Total $35,000.

June 2017 (depending on the availability of funds)



Forty-ninth Session of the IOC Executive Council Paris, 7-10 June 2016

Decision EC-XLIX/6.2

II

The Executive Council,

Taking note of document IOC/EC-XLIX/2 Annex 10 that could not be sufficiently discussed during this session,

Recalling 38 C/Resolution 101,

Requests the Executive Secretary and the Officers of the Commission to initiate a broad and inclusive consultation process with Member States in order to prepare a proposal on governance, including the working methods and procedures of the Commission in the context of the review conducted by the open-ended Working Group established by the 38th session of the General Conference of UNESCO and the April 2016 audit of the IOC by UNESCO’s external auditor for the consideration by the IOC Assembly in 2017;

Decides to convene a meeting of an open-ended working group on this issue during the next session of the IOC Executive Council to examine the results of the consultation process and formulate recommendations to the IOC Assembly at its 29th session, with a view to submitting the results of these consultations to the Open-ended working group on governance of UNESCO;

Further decides to include the item on the governance and the working methods and procedures of the Commission in the agenda of the next sessions of the IOC Executive Council and the IOC Assembly in 2017.

Adopted on 10 June 2016