Prepared by BSP/PMR Bureau of Strategic Planning REFORMING UNESCO: PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING APPROACHES AND PRACTICES Presentation to ACABQ by Hans d’Orville

Prepared by BSP/PMR

Bureau ofStrategic Planning

REFORMING UNESCO:PROGRAMMING AND

BUDGETING APPROACHES AND PRACTICES

Presentation to ACABQby Hans d’Orville

Director, Bureau of Strategic Planning

Paris, 21 June 2002

Prepared by BSP/PMR


Scope and phases of UNESCO’s reforms

1. Structural Reform – restructuring completed

2. Administrative reform – completed

3. Decentralization reform – in progress

4. Programming reform – in progress

5. Reform of Human Resources framework – in progress

(6. Review of governance- by governing bodies – on-going)

Prepared by BSP/PMR


OutlineI. Introduction and Organization-wide application

of results-based programming, budgeting, management and monitoring (RBM)

II. Concentration and focusIII. Transparency and accountabilityIV. IntersectoralityV. DecentralizationVI. PartnershipsVII. Programme and Budget 2002-2003 VIII. Extrabudgetary fundsIX. Monitoring and evaluationX. New management tools and integration

Prepared by BSP/PMR


I. Introduction and Organization-wide application of results-based programming, budgeting, management and monitoring (RBM)

The RBM Chain:1. The six-year Medium-Term Strategy, 2002-2007

(31 C/4) , approved by the General Conference, defines for 12 strategic objectives and two cross-cutting themes specific expected outcomes

2. The two-year Programme and Budget, 2002-2003(31 C/5), approved by the General Conference , specifies for each sector one principal priority and three to four other priorities together( with expected results

3. The annual work plans, approved by the Director-General, translate the 31 C/5 into concrete activities and actions, for each of which expected results and outputs are formulated.

Prepared by BSP/PMR


4. Work plans are placed on-line, utilising the electronic management tool: the management-tool System of Information on Strategies, Tasks and the Evaluation of Results (SISTER)

5. All other programme documents, presented by the Director-General, must henceforth define expected results

6. In context of CEB (ex-ACC) and UNDG activities – specific reference to and alignment with Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

7. Regular feedback and monitoring of programme implementation by DG and Senior Management (College of ADGs)

I. Introduction and Organization-wide application of results-based programming, budgeting, management and monitoring (RBM) cont’d

Prepared by BSP/PMR


II. Concentration and Focus

• Medium-Term Strategy (2002-2007)– 12 Strategic Objectives for the entire

Organization (3 per major programme)– Two cross-cutting themes

• The eradication of poverty, especially extreme poverty• The contribution of information and communication technologies to the

development of education, science, culture and the construction of a knowledge society

• Programme and Budget (2002-2003)– One principal priority for each of the 5 Major

Programmes (ED, SC, SHS, CLT, CI), receiving additional resources above those in preceding budget

– 3-4 other priorities for each major programme

Prepared by BSP/PMR


III. Transparency and Accountability

• Accountability for implementation of each major programme rests with each sector ADG

• 6-monthly review of implementation of programme by college of ADGs (collegial approach) focuses on:- use of resources and need for eventual reallocation- attainment of expected results

• Accessibility of SISTER to all Governments and National Commissions

• Semi-annual report to Executive Board on implementation of programme (referring to expected results)

• Bi-annual report to General Conference (C/3) results –oriented, self-critical, lessons learned

Prepared by BSP/PMR


IV. Intersectorality1. Two cross-cutting themes in 31 C/4

• The eradication of poverty, especially extreme poverty• The contribution of information and communication

technologies to the development of education, science, culture and the construction of a knowledge society

– Translated into concrete projects (with participation of a minimum of 3 sectors and/or Field Offices) in 31 C/5

– Allocation of US$ 12million– Competitive process for project selection– Involvement of HQ & Field– Allocation of US$ 1million for projects by young professionals– Team leaders granted authority equivalent to that of Divisional

Directors– Overall process lead and monitored by College of ADGs

2. Other intersectoral projects – e.g. human rights education, scientific and environmental education…

Prepared by BSP/PMR


V. Decentralizationa) New network of Field Offices (cluster, national and

regional) – separate by BFCb) Regular programme resources (decentralized to Field

Office by Main Line of Action of Programme and Budget (through a negotiated process among Field Office Director)

c) Other decentralization efforts:i. From HQ units to Field Offices or to other actors/parties in countriesii. Scientific programmesiii. National Commissionsiv. Participation Programme

Prepared by BSP/PMR


VI. Partnerships

• UNESCO will seek a broad range of partners in the implementation of its programmes

a) United Nations organizations and programmesb) Other international organizationsc) Civil society actors/NGOsd) Private sector

• The list of partners and their relative contribution as compared to that of UNESCO will be expressed in a “context map”

Prepared by BSP/PMR


VI. Programme and Budget 2002-2003

• Features:– US$ 544million, of which 113 million is for pure

programme activities– Zero nominal growth (for third time in a row)– Structure: -Major programme – programme – sub-

programme – main line of action– Appropriation is approved at the sub-programme level– Decentralization rates (to Field Offices) between 30

and 67 %

Prepared by BSP/PMR


• UNESCO benefits in its programme activities substantially from extra-budgetary resources; the ration of regular to extra-budgetary resources is about 1:4;

• Most extra-budgetary resources are directed to activities by Field Offices;• To avoid the danger of extra-budgetary resources diluting the strategic

objectives and the principal/other priorities of the Organization, the Governing Bodies and the Director-General insist that all extra-budgetary resources be fully integrated with, and complementary to/reinforcing regular budget activities;

• This is reflected in SISTER, into which all extra-budgetary resources must mandatorily be entered, together with work plans which, in turn, must be related to work plans for regular budget-funded activities

• The volume of resources from UNDP has decreased considerably over the past years; UNESCO’s Executive Board expressed concern at this trend.

VII. Extra-budgetary resources

Prepared by BSP/PMR


VII. Extra-budgetary resources

2001Source Allocations Expenditure Allocations Expenditure Allocations Expenditure

M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$

United Nations

UNDP 14.5 6.0 18.6 6.5 12.6 7.4 SPPD 2.3 1.5 2.5 1.7 3.0 1.9 STS 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.7

UNFPA 1.3 0.7 1.9 0.9 4.4 3.3 TSS 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.6 2.2

Other United Nations

UNICEF 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 UNHCR 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 WFP 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 WHO/UNAIDS 3.1 2.5 1.9 1.0 1.7 1.0 UNOIP (Iraq) 58.8 26.3 27.4 12.4 20.1 15.1 UNEP 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 UNFIP 5.4 2.4 1.9 1.2 Autres 1.7 1.4 3.0 3.0 6.7 4.0 Sub-total, Other United Nations 70.9 33.8 35.6 18.6 30.2 21.1

0.0 162.7 78.1 97.5 49.0 53.8 36.6

19992000

Prepared by BSP/PMR


IX. Monitoring and Evaluation

a) On-going monitoring:• Sector ADGs• Bureau of Strategic Planning and Bureau of Budget• College of ADGs (every six months)• Director-General

b) Evaluation (+ Oversight)

presentation by IOS

Prepared by BSP/PMR


• SISTER• FABS

– Both are fully integrated and linked;– Complete entries into the SISTER system is a precondition for release of funds

through FABS;– Implementation of 31 C/5 is 100% based on the utilisation of both information tools

X. New Management Tools and Integration

presentation by ADM

R R

R R R

Responsible officer

Programming

elementResult

An element links a result to a responsible officer

The course of negotiation ...

6(Activity)

1(MP)

2(P)

3(SP)

4(MA)

5(A)

0

Levels :

FramingFraming

Generaldirectives

FramingFraming PrescribePrescribeRequestRequest

RequestRequestProposeProposedd

PrescribePrescribeRequestRequestProposeProposedd

PrescribePrescribe

PrescritPrescrit

DemandDemandee

ProposeProposedd

PrescribePrescribe

RequestRequest PrescribePrescribe

RequestRequest

ProposeProposedd

RequestRequest

PrescribePrescribeProposeProposedd

ProposeProposedd

RequestRequest

DemandDemandee

DemandDemandee

… is completed by a validation phase.

CadrageCadrage PrescritPrescritDemandDemandee

ProposéProposé PrescritPrescrit

ProposéProposé

PrescritPrescrit

DemandDemandee

ProposéProposé

PrescritPrescrit

DemandDemandee

PrescritPrescrit

DemandDemandee

ProposéProposé

PrescritPrescritDemandDemandee

ProposéProposé

CadrageCadrage PrescribPrescribee

RequestRequest


PrescribePrescribe

ProposeProposedd

PrescritPrescrit

DemandDemandee

ProposeProposedd

PrescribPrescribee

RequestRequest PrescribePrescribe

RequestRequest

ProposeProposedd

PrescribPrescribee

RequestRequest

RequestRequest

ProposeProposedd

6(Activity)

1(MP)

2(P)

3(SP)

4(MA)

5(A)

0Levels :

PrescritPrescrit

DemandDemandee

Prescribe


PrescribPrescribee

RequestRequest PrescritPrescrit

DemandDemandee

PrescribePrescribe


PrescribPrescribee

RequestRequest

Referencestatus

PrescribePrescribe

ProposeProposedd

PrescribPrescribee

RequestRequest

RequestRequest

ProposeProposedd

PrescribPrescribee

RequestRequest

ProposeProposedd

RequestRequest

ProposeProposedd

Request forvalidation

?

No

Hypothesis 1:Invalidation

Hypothesis 2:Validation

Yes

Expected

resultObtained

result

… as a whole this provides a first tool of evaluation.

= … … $

Complementary funds

Overall administration costs

Extra-budgetary resources

Staff cost

Regularbudget

= Real impact

Obtained

result

= … … $

Complementary funds


Extra-budgetary funds

Staff cost

Regularbudget

= Real impact?

= … … $

Complementary funds



Staff cost

Regularbudget Obtained

result

= Real impact

? Obtained

result

= … … $

Complementary funds



Staff cost

Regularbudget

= Real impact?= … … $

Complementary funds



Staff cost

Regularbudget

Obtained

result

= Real impact?Obtained

result

= … … $

Complementary funds



Staff cost

Regularbudget

= Real impact?

Documents

Prepared by BSP/PMR Bureau of Strategic Planning REFORMING UNESCO: PROGRAMMING AND BUDGETING APPROACHES AND PRACTICES Presentation to ACABQ by Hans d’Orville