UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE BOARD. Hundred and sixtieth Session

Transcription

1 160 EX/INF.10 PARIS, 20 October 2000 English & French only UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION EXECUTIVE BOARD Hundred and sixtieth Session Item of the agenda REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL ON THE REFORM PROCESS AND TIMETABLE FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS AND THEIR IMPACT UPON THE ORGANIZATION s NEXT BUDGETS PART III SUMMARY This document contains information to clarify the structure, relationships and expectations within the reformed field system presented in document 160 EX/6, Part III, Decentralization, and its costings.

2 160 EX/INF.10 I. Introduction 1. The following information document is a response to the request by Executive Board Members for clarification of structure, relationships and expectations within the reformed field system presented in document 160 EX/6, and of costings. 2. Currently the UNESCO field office resources are spread too thinly, with 70 offices distributed unevenly and with radically different sizes and structures, and overlapping mandates in programme delivery. The reform resolves these difficulties by building as its core, a rationally distributed global network of cluster offices, each serving a manageable number of Member States through multidisciplinary teams, and backed at a regional level by specialized regional bureaux in each of UNESCO s fields of competence. Thus, intersectoral issues can be dealt with professionally and immediately in every Member State, and quality of specialized knowledge input is guaranteed. The system, once in place, while delivering significantly upgraded performance, costs no more than the current field office system as its additional staffing requirement is met through a 5% internal redistribution of staffing commitment from Headquarters to the field. It is essential to realize that, while some national offices that do not fit into this new rational system may be closed, it is the fundamental purpose of reform to strengthen not withdraw from direct field office presence for Member States. II. The new field system Clarifications 3. A number of interacting organizational elements appear in the system as it is described in document 160 EX/6: first tier cluster offices; second tier regional bureaux, virtual bureaux, project teams, and country-specific or national offices. Lines of authority and reporting to Headquarters are to both programme sectors and the Bureau of Field Coordination. In the context of a document that was purposively brief in presentation of detail, confusions have arisen about how these various parts fit into one overall rational cluster office system, and avoid the expansion and overlaps that plague the current field office system. 4. One core idea dispels these confusions. That is, the cluster offices are the delivery platform for all UNESCO activities at Member State levels; their director is the Representative to each of the Member States that the office covers in its cluster. The functions of national offices are set aside for a moment and dealt with in paragraph 5(8) below. 5. In keeping with this central delivery platform role of cluster offices, several design features follow: (1) Cluster offices ( first tier ) contain a multidisciplinary team in order to deal with activities across all UNESCO s domains of competence and are directly linked with Headquarters in allocation of budget and programme responsibilities, and in accountability. Regional bureaux are not an administrative layer in between. cluster offices do not report through regional bureaux. (2) Regional bureaux ( second tier ) are specialized poles of expertise in education, natural sciences and so on, that provide support for the quality of knowledge inputs into programmes run through cluster offices, where, for example, one specialist in the natural sciences cannot be fully knowledgeable in hydrology, physics, chemistry of natural products, solar energy, and so on. The system goal is to have this expertise close to Member States, not far away where travel expense

3 160 EX/INF.10 - page 2 and lack of immediacy are barriers to delivery, so that the field system can be responsive and targeted to specific needs. (3) Regional bureaux will plan and conduct regional programmes, but the difference compared to now is that these programmes will be planned in cooperation with cluster offices and conducted through cluster offices in order to be more directly responsive to on-ground needs in each Member State. Again, to reaffirm their role, cluster offices form the platform for delivery of all activities within Member States. (4) Regional bureaux are not separate offices that duplicate the system. Regional bureaux are simply the poles of expertise referred to in the initial presentation of decentralization reforms to the Executive Board (159 EX/5), containing for example, five specialists in education, and will be located within a cluster office. That way, savings can be made on overhead and managerial costs, and the specialists cannot form a separate system that overlaps with the cluster offices. (5) Virtual bureaux: In some domains, for example, culture, social and human sciences (SHS), and communication and information (CII), it will not be possible to form an entirely separate group of specialists in a single location simply because of a limitation in resources. What will happen in this situation is that these experts will be placed in separate cluster offices, but then their expertise is brought together using networking, , meetings and so on to backstop any programme throughout the region where concentrated support in one domain of UNESCO s competence is required. The virtual bureau therefore performs the same duties as a normal Regional Bureau, except that instead of being located in one place the members are located in several locations where they will also be serving as members of a multidisciplinary cluster office team. As indicated by the Director-General in his response to the Executive Board on Friday, 13 October 2000, to avoid confusion, the term virtual bureau will no longer be used, although the reality of a specialized bureau distributed across more than one office will remain. (6) Lines of reporting from cluster offices to Headquarters are the same as now, except in one feature the transfer of administration support and overview from a so-called parent sector to the new Bureau of Field Coordination. As things stand at present, overview of administration of each field office is housed in one of the five sectors, so the field office director reports on management, financial responsibilities, performance of staff and so on, through this parent sector. This arrangement is a legacy of the past when all field operations were conducted by sectors through single sector regional offices. The arrangement made sense then, but not now, as UNESCO has become increasingly multidisciplinary or intersectoral in its operations. In offices now housing specialists from more than one sector this administrative arrangement has led to major inefficiencies, for example, in reporting on multidisciplinary projects, performance review of directors and arrangement of local staff administrative support for, say, culture, in an office that is notionally a science office. Under the new system, just this administration line of responsibility will be lifted out as is from the five separate sector locations and placed in one place, the Bureau of Field Coordination, BFC. BFC will administer and overview the indirect costs budget for the office, coordinate the appointment of the Administrative Officer and director, and coordinate field office reporting to Headquarters to ensure all sectors

4 160 EX/INF.10 - page 3 get the information they need not the case at present. All programme relations and overview will remain exactly as they are firmly in the hands of the programme sectors. As far as the field office is concerned there is no overlap in lines of authority; indeed these lines will be much clearer. (7) Project teams provide UNESCO with flexibility to deal with specific and timebound needs anywhere in the world, for example, in a post-conflict situation. The project team will always be attached to and responsible to a cluster office, and represent an extension of the cluster office s concentration on priority needs for limited periods of time in particular locations. Project teams would normally be funded by extrabudgetary funds. The leader will not be a representative to the Member State where the project is located. And the team pulls back into the cluster office as soon as the job is done. (8) National offices, as consistently presented, are exceptions in the reformed field office system, and will be rigorously evaluated as such against the criteria outlined in 30 C/Resolution 83 of the General Conference. Where national offices are maintained however they will function just the same as a cluster office, with the same lines of responsibility, except that their focus is on a single country programme. The director would be representative to that country, and maintenance of the office will be reviewed every four years. 6. The responsibilities of field offices both cluster and national, and National Commissions are quite distinct. (1) Cluster and national offices represent the Secretariat and Director-General of UNESCO, and ensure implementation at the local level of internationally approved policies. Cluster and national offices are responsible through the Director-General to Member States, and represent UNESCO s views and interests within the country-level United Nations system, thus ensuring that education, natural sciences, culture, social and human sciences, and communication and information are duly taken into account in United Nations-wide programming at local levels. (2) The tasks of National Commissions are spelt out in Article VII of the Constitution, in the Charter of National Commissions for UNESCO adopted by the 20th session of the General Conference in 1978 and a number of resolutions adopted by the General Conference thereafter. According to these legal instruments National Commissions act as consultation, liaison and information agent between the UNESCO Secretariat and Member States, and as major partners of the Secretariat in Member States in the preparation, review, promotion and implementation of UNESCO programme activities. National Commissions are responsible to their Member State and through the Member State to UNESCO, not directly responsible to UNESCO. National Commissions represent the individual Member State s view of UNESCO and their involvement within it. Occasionally, National Commissions pursue bilateral, subregional and international consultations, liaison and programme delivery activities either on a self-funded basis or within the framework of UNESCO support. (3) With these distinctions in mind, most overlaps between National Commissions and field offices can be avoided by goodwill in consultations, a policy of the Director-General.

5 160 EX/INF.10 - page 4 (4) Under the new partnerships the Director-General is encouraging between the Secretariat and National Commissions, the Commissions may be increasingly involved in implementing activities of UNESCO. In every case a clear rule must apply: where implementation utilizes UNESCO funds, this has to be under contract to the Secretariat, particularly through the relevant cluster office, as here the National Commission is responsible in its use of funds to all Member States via the Secretariat, not just to its own government. III. Estimated cost of the new network (160 EX/6, para. 40) 7. The US $18 million is an indicative estimate of the added cost of the fully operational new two-tier field system as compared with the present field system - according to assumptions outlined in Annex 3 of document 160 EX/6 Part III (attached here as Annex A.1). An outline of the comparative staff cost of each element in the new field network compared with the current system is presented in Annex A The added cost is only for additional posts to be transferred from Headquarters into the field. As indicated in paragraph 42, the Director-General considers it necessary to change the Headquarters/field staff ratio in the Secretariat so the US $18 million represents an internal redistribution of posts (approximately 90 implying a shift of 5% of overall staff costs from Headquarters to the field), and demonstrating the greater commitment to field presence of UNESCO, not an additional budgetary obligation. 9. It should be further observed that currently the cost of specialized sector poles for education and natural sciences in regional offices is approximately the same as will be required in the new system. Posts forming regional bureaux in the new system for culture, SHS and CII will be partially absorbed into posts transferred into cluster offices. 10. As noted in paragraph 41 the indicative US $18 million estimate may need to be revised upwards to the extent that country office exceptions are allowed to continue above the six assumed to be maintained based on their E-9 status. In addition, costs of separations for SSA contract staff cannot be calculated until there is final decision on specific office closures, and will need to be absorbed in the regular budget base. 11. Furthermore, in paragraph 40 an additional US $4 million is identified for the unavoidable one-off expenditures required for the transition period - of local staff separations, and increased levels of staff transfers to move Headquarters staff into the field. Transfer costs will be absorbed into normal rotation costs as the system settles down; costs of separations will not be repeated once offices are closed during the transition period. 12. In addition, there are other expenditures that are highly desirable during the transition period, i.e. networking, training, immediate injections of fresh expertise, and implementation of alternative arrangements to maintain UNESCO presence during the transitional period in countries where offices are closed. Proposed ways of handling these costs are dealt with in Section IV of the current document. 13. To ensure the smooth introduction of the new two-tier field system, a staged strategy is planned, taking into account: (1) the intrinsic time constraints that will be associated with matching new field requirements with existing Headquarters staff skills and utilizing retirements to vacate and re-classify posts; and,

6 160 EX/INF.10 - page 5 (2) the need to build the new system strategically, i.e. paying initial attention to building a basic but limited cluster office system first (i.e. with four rather than seven international staff), to strengthening priority offices (e.g. where the most significant staff gaps exist); and to rationalizing tier-2 regional bureaux staffing resources capitalizing initially on reshaping existing systems in education and science and building staff resources for other sectors progressively across cluster offices as virtual or distributed regional bureaux in the first instance. A limited version of the new two-tier system can be thus put into place by end-2003, with the movement of 50% of the full required staff complement to the field; the full system is targeted for completion by end IV. Justification of the US $9 million additional start-up budget for (160 EX/6, para. 46) 14. The additional US $9 million recommended as a start-up budget is an allocation to the change process rather than a contribution to ongoing support for the new field office system. It represents approximately 47% of the full estimated cost of transition, the rest of which is borne by the regular budget base. 15. This additional allocation is required to speed up the change process to ensure its early impact both within Secretariat field effectiveness and Member State benefits. The higher the budgetary allocation to the change process the more rapid and successful the transition period is likely to be. The figure of US $9 million represents a realistic amount that can be sought under current budgetary constraints, but which is substantial enough to provide a clearly identifiable impact. The proportionate allocations identified in paragraph 46 50% to costs of change ; 20% to fresh expertise ; and 30% to alternative phasing out arrangements have been designed to maximize the impact of this limited financial stimulus across the priority areas within the change process. An outline of the proposed distribution and use of the start-up budget both in summary and in detail is presented in Annex B, Tables 1 and There are four primary returns on this investment, all of which produce enhanced immediacy of benefit to Member States: (1) In the initial period of transition, without this investment, new initiatives will have to wait for cost savings as offices close, and vacated Headquarters posts are reassigned. The start-up budget will provide a credit bridge during this period, allowing immediate action and impact. (2) As offices are closed, phasing out will require investment in alternative arrangements to maintain presence in the Member States concerned. These Member States will benefit immediately if the start-up budget is in place, rather than later following accrual of cost savings. (3) Funding stimulus will allow the much more effective use of existing staff resources during the early period of the new system through networking and building cross-office teams, and the training within the Secretariat to better manage and work within the reformed system. Member States will therefore benefit from early enhancement of the quality of service from field offices. (4) As noted in paragraph 46, the allocation is crucial to strongly signal and create change, and thus an essential stimulus to staff morale and commitment during the period of transition.

7 160 EX/INF.10 - page 6 V. Added value of the new field network system 17. The new field network is more effective in many ways with no additional cost than the mixed and unequally resourced system that presently exists. A comparison of the benefits of the new field network system compared with the current system is presented in Annex C. In summary: (1) Economic efficiencies: The new system introduces organizational efficiencies that allow upgraded quantity and quality of programme delivery for the same cost, together with economies of scale, saving on overheads by a factor of approximately three compared with the small offices that currently operate, while at the same time providing a much more effective vehicle for fund-raising again, on the same basis in current data (small vs. larger offices), providing a four-fold increase in effectiveness. The closure of some offices will lead to savings that will be redistributed towards strengthening the new field network system. (2) Critical mass of competence: Under the new system offices reach a critical mass and can provide immediate multidisciplinary service to all Member States in powerfully enhanced national consultations and programme implementation, as well as in strengthened specialized regionally-based back-up support. (3) Performance quality: Meanwhile, the quality of performance of field offices is guaranteed by application of rigorous competency standards to appointments of directors, high quality training thereafter, the institution of a field office mentoring system for new directors of office, the placement of an international professional Administrative Officer in every office, and a staff rotation system that ensures the continuous flow-through of new expertise into the field system, and field-connectedness and sensitivity of UNESCO as a whole. (4) Organizational clarity and impact: Furthermore, lines of authority and reporting are consistent and clear, while current overlaps and confusions between Headquarters, regional, subregional and national offices are resolved. The emphasis of UNESCO both in programmes and culture has shifted significantly from a Headquarters to a team-based field orientation with an associated 5% move in staff costs. And, decentralized autonomy allows decision to lie closer to where results are achieved in the field; while the greater emphasis on networking and team-building allows significantly enhanced use of all UNESCO staff in shared programme implementation. (5) National Commission partnerships: The added value to UNESCO activities that can be provided by National Commissions is capitalized upon more effectively. Relationships between the Secretariat and National Commissions are clarified and focused; significantly enhanced and technically supported proactive involvement of National Commissions in setting national priorities into UNESCO s global planning is set in place; and strengthened partnership in implementation is instituted via the new cluster office system. 18. Finally, it should be noted that benefits of the new field network cannot be measured in terms of financial return on investment and offset profits. UNESCO s business is to bring a human dimension into development in connection with the major issues confronting twentyfirst century society, like education-for-all and globalization. What matters is quality and impact of this contribution. The new field network system guarantees this through bringing massively increased interdisciplinary potential and consistent specialized back-up attention to

8 160 EX/INF.10 - page 7 these issues at no greater cost. Therefore, any savings made from greater economic efficiencies will not go back into consolidated revenue, but into further strengthening of UNESCO s efficiency and impact within the Organization s field presence in Member States. VI. Milestones 19. The following key milestones can be identified: (1) December 2000: Announcement by the Director-General of the shape of the new field system, including all the clusters of Member States. (2) May 2001: Announcement by the Director-General to the 161st session of the Executive Board of full information on the location of all cluster offices, regional bureaux, and exceptional national offices, plus information on the timing of office clustering and closures, as well as detailed information on the alternative arrangements offered in cases where existing offices are to close. (3) December 2001: Finalization of full field-oriented staffing of the Bureau of Field Coordination and all new management and staff selection systems. 20. By December 2003 the following Outcomes will then have been achieved: (1) The basic global network of cluster offices will be established staffed at least at the level of the limited initial model discussed in paragraph 13(2); (2) Forty-five staff posts will have been transferred from Headquarters or within the field to cluster offices (with start-up funding ) or 35 posts (without start-up funding ). (3) All national offices identified for closure in the Director-General s announcement in May 2001 will have been closed.

9 160 EX/INF.10 Annex A ANNEX A - TABLE 1 BASES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR COSTING THE TWO-TIER APPROACH TO THE CLUSTER STRATEGY 1. Costings of the current field office system are based on budgetary allocations made for the biennium (30 C/5). 2. Only staffing costs are calculated. 3. Indirect costs - of running and maintaining the offices would remain as at present. 4. There would be 23 cluster offices across the four following regions: Africa, Arab States, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Costs are calculated on the basis of the most expensive of alternatives in each region. In the fifth region, Europe, one of the four existing offices would be upgraded to cluster-office status, which implies additional costs, and all other costs would remain as at present. All Western Europe and possibly some Eastern Europe countries would be served direct from Paris. 6. Staffing levels used for calculation are those presented in paragraph 19 of the main text. 7 Current regional offices would be retained and single regional advisers would become part of cluster offices, and eventually of virtual regional bureaux. 8. The number of international professional staff in a regional bureau would be as follows: five each for education and science, and three each for social and human sciences, culture, and communication and information. 9. Out of the offices already existing in E-9 countries, three would become cluster offices, and six other remain as country-oriented ones. Each of the latter would include the basic staffing mix of four international professional staff and eight local staff. 10. Separation costs are estimated on the basis of current costs in each subregion. 11. Average costs of rotation between Headquarters and field and between field offices are based on actual staff rotations in 1998/1999 (i.e. 50% of rotations are between Headquarters and field and 50% between field offices).

10

11

12

13 ANNEX B - TABLE 2 PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF START-UP BUDGET: DETAILED Action supported Total cost Financed from budget base Additional income sought and outcomes 1. Costs of change US $6.3 US $1.8 US $ EX/INF.10 Annex B - page 2 (1) Separations: (one-off cost) US $1.3m US $0.3m:! covers 25% of separation costs after savings made from office closures US $1.0m:! covers first 75% of separations! cost only incurred during transition period with office closures (2) Staff transfers (one-off cost) US $1.6m US $0.6:! costs of transfers of approx. 16 staff (18% of total to be transferred into the new field system) (See Item 2. Fresh expertise costs )! after the transition period, the pace of staff movements slows, so transfer and rotation costs will be absorbed into normal budgetary arrangements US $1.0:! covers costs of transfer of 29 reassigned staff to the field, including the 9 fresh expertise in the initial period where accelerated staff movement is required (32% of overall transfers) (3) Networking (stimulus, then ongoing) US $2.4m US $0.4m:! start-up budget is required to ensure full multidisciplinary teams can service Member States in the early phase of transition; in the longer term as full cluster office teams form, these mission costs will be absorbed partially into regular programme funded missions and into a dedicated field network budget US $2.0m:! astrongimmediate stimulus must be added to cross-office networking during the period when full multisectoral teams are not yet in place in cluster offices! covers approximately 150 full multidisciplinary team missions to Member States! covers approximately 30 full multidisciplinary team missions for Member State assessments

14 Action supported Total cost Financed from budget base Additional income sought and outcomes (4) Training and mentoring (stimulus, then ongoing) US $1.0m US $0.5m:! training for effective management of a new multidisciplinary field system is essential US $0.5m:! given the priority of training in the initial stages, a committed new stimulus is required! covers high level executive training for 10 heads of office who will then be used in creating mentoring Offices for subsequent staff! a continuing biennial earmarked allocation of US $0.5m to training for quality improvement of field office management is foreseen within the training budget of UNESCO! this additional allocation would allow the expansion of high level executive training and mentoring to an additional 10 offices, thus covering approx. two thirds of the new field office system 2. Costs of fresh expertise" (and staff redistribution to the field) (stimulus, then ongoing) US $9.1m US $7.3m:! given structural delays in matching and moving expertise from Headquarters to the field, reallocation of staff posts from Headquarters to the field is likely to be limited in the early period of transition: 40% of required staff reallocations are targeted: this will be absorbed by redistribution of post costs in the regular budget base! in the longer term the costs of the increased field office proportion of Secretariat staffing will be offset against Headquarters retirements and post vacancies: total transfers of post cost to the field constitute 16% US $1.8m:! immediate funding of 10% of new field posts ( fresh expertise posts) in priority areas for two years as an immediate stimulus for new approach to field operations! on-going costs of fresh expertise posts will be offset against reclassification of Headquarters posts vacated through retirements during the period (99 retirements in Headquarters at P3-P5 levels will occur during this period) 160 EX/INF.10 Annex B - page 3

15 Action supported Total cost Financed from budget base Additional income sought and outcomes of current Headquarters Major Programme staff budget; plus savings available from reclassification of vacant Central Services posts 160 EX/INF.10 Annex B - page 4! during the biennium the remainder of posts will be transferred from Headquarters to the field (60% including those absorbing fresh expertise temporary posts) 3. Costs of alternative arrangements to maintain presence (stimulus, then ongoing) US $3.7 US $1.0m:! costs of maintenance of presence where offices close, offset against savings from the initial period of closures! initial presence costs will be reduced over time as, for example, international antennae staff are replaced by national officers, and nationally-focused initial stimulus funding leads to extrabudgetary projects; presence costs will therefore be absorbed into the regular budget base in the biennium US $2.7m:! immediate new funding is required to provide maintenance of presence where offices close in the first period of transition, and before savings are available! on a selected basis, would include: - maintenance of UNESCO staff presence in United Nations system as UNESCO antenna - additional inputs to cluster office National Commission partnership contracts - additional nationally-focused activity from the relevant cluster office

16 Annex C. Comparative benefits of the new field network system Category of benefit Current network of field offices New decentralization plan Without the start-up budget (See also, Annex B, Table 2) 1. Economic efficiencies (1) Programme delivery (2) Overhead costs (1) Uneven distribution of offices; unbalanced concentrations of staff for equitable programme delivery. (2.1) Current aggregate overhead office running cost per staff member: US $56,000 pp; (2.2) Current overhead office running cost per staff member for 27 one-person offices (37% of total): US $125,000 pp (1) At no additional staff cost, but 5% redistribution of posts to the new field office system, balanced distribution of offices and staffing concentrations for equitable programme delivery. (2) Based on current costs for offices of limited cluster size or more (i.e.: 4+ international staff): US $41,000 pp; - represents a threefold increase in efficiency over one-person offices (1.1) Slow-down in initial staff transfers; (1.2) Some inefficient offices will remain open as staff separation costs and alternative transition arrangement costs must wait for cost-savings; (1.3) Longer period of coexistence of old and new systems, leading to increased short-term cost (2) Slow-down in implementation. (3) Savings from office closures (3) Current savings: zero (3) Financial savings become available for redeployment into further support for the field system as offices are closed: (3) Slow-down in accrual of savings. 160 EX/INF.10 Annex C

17 Category of benefit Current network of field offices New decentralization plan Without the start-up budget (See also, Annex B, Table 2) e.g. (hypothetically) if 20 of the smaller and less efficient offices that are unlikely to be cluster offices were closed,* cost saving: US $12 million. 160 EX/INF.10 Annex C - page 2 (4) Activities performance (4) Current performance of the (hypothetical) group of 20 offices that could close: (4) Significant performance enhancement: levels at least that of the other 50 offices (out of current 70 offices) assuming the closure of the (hypothetical) 20: (4) Slow-down in time before overall system performance is increased. (5) Funding multiplier of access to extrabudgetary funds - Regular programme activities costs / overheads: 32%. (5) Current performance of the (hypothetical) group of 20 offices that could close: - Regular programme activities costs / overheads: 71% i.e. >2-fold efficiency increase (5) Significant performance enhancement: levels at least that of the other 50 offices (out of current 70 offices) assuming the closure of the (hypothetical) 20: (5) Slow-down in time before overall system performance is increased. - Regular plus extrabudgetary activities costs / overheads: 71%. Note: 2 of these 20 offices account for 76% of aggregate extrabudgetary funds of the 20 offices) - Regular plus extrabudgetary activities costs / overheads: 280% i.e. 4-fold efficiency increase * Thishypothetical figure of 20 office closures does not represent a decision by the Director-General on numbers of offices to close. The figure is used to demonstrate that with any number of office closures, cost and efficiency savings accrue.

18 Category of benefit Current network of field offices New decentralization plan Without the start-up budget (See also, Annex B, Table 2) 2. Critical mass of competence (1) Concentration level (1) Currently, many very small offices and considerable variationinsizes,e.g.of70 offices, - 27 (38%) are one-person Offices; - 19 (27%) are of limited Cluster Office size or larger (i.e. 4+ international staff) - 2 (3%) have over 15 international staff. (1) After reform, 100% of field offices will have at least limited cluster office size (also equivalent to the targeted size of national offices). (1) Slow-down in time before overall system performance is increased. (2) Consultation and implementation in Member States (2) Generalized regional preprogramming consultations, with very limited involvement of the field offices. (2) Proactive programming through the direct involvement of the cluster offices and their multidisciplinary teams which will be given full responsibility for consulting Member States, their National Commissions and inter-agency partners, therefore: - global programming will pay much greater attention to the specific priorities of individual Member States. (3.1) Regional programmes will be designed in close consultation with cluster office inputs on individual Member State priorities, and cluster office distribution and cooperation ensures alignment with subregional economic group priorities; (2) Greater difficulty putting full multidisciplinary team structures in place for consultations early in the first two biennial programme cycles. (3) Specialized regional support (3.1) Regional programmes generally designed at a distance from direct Member State identified priorities, and irregularly connected to subregional economic group priorities; (3) Slow-down in time before overall system performance is increased. 160 EX/INF.10 Annex C - page 3

19 Category of benefit Current network of field offices New decentralization plan Without the start-up budget (See also, Annex B, Table 2) (3.2) Specialized competence is unevenly distributed across regions; in particular, weak in Culture, SHS and CII. (3.2) Specialized regional bureaux in all UNESCO s domains of competence will ensure immediate and equitably distributed access at regional level to specialized expertise when required; 160 EX/INF.10 Annex C - page 4 (3.3) Alignment with regional economic groupings plus availability of specialized competence will enhance access to extrabudgetary funds for regional programmes.

20 Category of benefit Current network of field offices New decentralization plan Without the start-up budget (See also, Annex B, Table 2) 3. Performance quality (1) Quality of field office directors and staff (1) Until now, staff policy has been unclear, yielding a series of inefficiencies, i.e. - Lack of competitive process and standards in the appointment of some Directors of Field Offices; - Very mixed staffing levels on which to build Field Office teams; - Insufficient provision of international Administrative Officers and support staff; - No consistent staff rotation policy (1) A clearly defined staff policy will be implemented, yielding significant enhancement of performance, i.e. - Directors of cluster offices will be appointed against defined competency standards (Assessment Centre approach); - Clearly defined staffing levels will be in place for each cluster office plus an emphasis on teambuilding; - There will be an international Administrative Officer in every cluster office, and adequate locally employed support staff provided; - A consistent staff rotation Policy will be introduced, linking field experience with career development policy. (1) Delays in: - Implementation of the Assessment Centre Approach in Competencebased recruitment of directors of field offices; - Putting full teams in place, together with a 22% lower transfer of staff from Headquarters to the field. (2) Quality enhancement of field directors and staff (2) With a 0.1% overall budget for training, very little training is possible or implemented for field staff; no executive training for field office directors is conducted. (2) In the context of an overall biennial budget allocation of 1% staff costs for training, there will be a significant increase in overall training of field staff; senior executive training will be conducted for 20 directors of office. (2) Main impact will be on senior executive training for directors of field offices: only 10 will be able to be trained, so only a partial impact can be made on quality of field office management, vs. for 87% of directors upgraded. 160 EX/INF.10 Annex C - page 5

21 Category of benefit Current network of field offices New decentralization plan Without the start-up budget (See also, Annex B, Table 2) 4. Organizational clarity and impact (1) Programme management (1) Currently, programme responsibilities are multiple and overlap in delivery at Member State levels between Headquarters, regional, subregional and national offices. (1) Clear programme delivery modality with cluster office (or national office) the delivery platform. 160 EX/INF.10 Annex C - page 6 (2) Administration management (2) Current administration management through parent sectors is uneven, confusing and inefficient; provides a barrier to interdisciplinary team building and performance. (2) Single-line management of administration will be introduced through the newly created Bureau of Field Coordination (BFC); BFC will also provide leadership in the development of teammanagement capability in field offices. (3) Cross-office networking and cooperation (3) No dedicated budget allocated to networking, so cross-office cooperation is not encouraged. (3) Systematic networking and team-building will be introduced facilitating more effective use of all staff in cooperative programme delivery. (3) Networking in the crucial initial transitionary period will be slowed down by 83%. (4) Decision-making (4) Currently, mainly Headquarters oriented. (4) Increased decentralized autonomy allows decision to lie closer to where results are achieved. (5) Organizational culture (5) Currently Headquarters oriented, with barriers in cross-sector cooperation. (5) With 5% reallocation of staff costs budget from Headquarters to the field, plus staff rotation, decentralized decision, crossoffice team building, and multidisciplinary field emphasis, the organizational culture of (5) Loss of initial momentum limiting signals of change and retarding enhanced staff morale during the transitionary phase.

22 Category of benefit Current network of field offices New decentralization plan Without the start-up budget (See also, Annex B, Table 2) UNESCO will become more field-responsive, team-oriented and cooperative. 5. National Commission partnerships (1) Clarity in relationships (2) National Commission role in global planning and programme delivery (1) Currently, elements of confusion and overlap at Member State level because of varying lines of communication with Headquarters, regional, subregional and national levels of the Secretariat; uneven attention of the Secretariat to partnerships. (2) Involvement in: - Planning is uneven at field office level, and largely via regional-level consultation inputs; (1) Lines of communication are clear with cluster offices (and national offices) being the delivery platform at Member State level for UNESCO activities. (2) Cluster offices will provide: - The opportunity for proactive involvement of National Commissions at national-level to define priorities concretely and input into regional and global strategies; - Implementation is inconsistently promoted and managed by the Secretariat. - Upgraded attention to identifying areas for National Commission involvement under contract in implementation. 160 EX/INF.10 Annex C - page 7