Speeches and Interventions

2007 | 2006

18/04/2007

Intervention of the Ambassador to the plenary of the 176th Session of the Executive Board

176th session UNESCO Executive Board
16 to 26 April 2007

Paris, 17 April 2007

Intervention of Canada in plenary
on Item 4 “Report of the Director General on the execution of  the programme adopted by the General Conference”
Item 5 “Report of the Director General on the follow up
of decisions and resolutions adopted by the Executive Board and the General Conference at their previous sessions”
Item 6 “Report of the Director General on the implementation of the reform process”
Item 24 “Draft Medium Term Strategy for 2008-2013 (34 C/4) and Executive Board recommendations” and
Item 25 “Examination of Draft Programme and Budget for 2008-2009
(34 C/5) and Executive Board recommendations”

M. Gilbert Laurin

Ambassador
Permanent Delegate of Canada

Check on Delivery

Mr. Chairman,

We first wish to thank the Director-General for his excellent intervention which emphasized the priorities for the Executive Board during this Session, and which set the tone for our debate.

I would like to start with the reform of the United Nations, which the Director-General supported with enthusiasm. We are pleased with UNESCO’s active role in the implementation of the “One-UN Concept” in eight pilot countries. We believe that this experiment provides a unique opportunity for UNESCO to review its working methods, its system of decentralized offices, and programming. It is important that the entire United Nations system recognize the contribution of UNESCO’s sectoral expertise, particularly as regards the role of culture in national development plans. However, UNESCO must withdraw from areas of involvement where its value-added is minimal so as to better focus on the areas where it excels.

Thanks to its efforts to fulfill its role as global coordinator for Education for All, we believe that UNESCO has put in place the preliminary framework for reinforced multilateral cooperation in the field. Given its new structure and the refocusing of its resources on priority objectives, the education sector has taken the steps necessary to champion Education for All.  The departure of the ADG Education should not slow our momentum.  Like the Director-General, we believe that we must continue pursuing these reforms with vigor and determination.

Canada commends UNESCO for its efforts to apply the principles of results-based management (RBM). As a result, the 34 C/4 and C/5 are more-focused and offer more opportunities to measure specific results than previous documents.   However, progress is still needed in defining expected results, impact or effectiveness and in stating the role of Member States. 

The Draft Medium Term Strategy describes very well what UNESCO does “now”. But we fear that by wanting to do too much, the Organisation will not achieve its main objectives.  As the Greek Philosopher Aesop once said “When all is said and done, more will be said than done”. 

We would have expected a more concise Strategy; one that provides a vision of where we will be in six years and how we will get there. In fact, we wonder what is different from the previous Strategy.   In particular, what meaningful changes were introduced as a result of the Science Review? 

Six years ago, we agreed to have a rolling Strategy.    With this new C/4, we expect that the Executive Board will play an active role in defining how the Strategy will evolve from biennium to biennium.   In this regard, we welcome the suggestion by the Director-General to conduct an evaluation of UNESCO’s capacity to achieve the objectives set out in the Medium-Term Strategy.  This approach seems highly relevant.  In our view, such evaluations should become an integral part of the planning process. 

Canada has prepared a number of suggestions for revising the Mission Statement, the Overarching Objectives and the Strategic Program Objectives. These proposals are attached to this statement that will be distributed.  I would ask that our written text be considered by the Drafting Group in its deliberations.

At this time, I will only comment on three specific issues concerning the objectives in the C/4.

Firstly, Canada believes that freedom of expression should play a much larger role in the Organization’s overarching objectives.

Secondly, our Strategic Objectives should clearly state UNESCO’s key role in scientific knowledge dissemination and capacity-building in areas where the Organisation can make a significant contribution. 

Thirdly, we do not agree with the new emphasis being given to energy issues.  There are currently 20 UN agencies already involved in energy and we see no need to make UNESCO the 21st. 

Turning to the C/5, Canada welcomes the addition of the linkage between the biennial sectoral priorities and international goals and commitments.

We propose that the “target audience” and net beneficiaries of the program activities be more clearly defined. The purpose and the contribution of programme activities should be made more explicit.

With respect to Education, Canada supports Education for All as the overarching objective for Education. We look to UNESCO for dynamic, strategic leadership and to facilitate others in engaging effectively towards the achievement of the EFA goals. We believe that UNESCO has two major roles to play: firstly, as the global coordinator and facilitator of the EFA, and secondly, in support of country level action in favour of quality Education for All.

Canada also supports the proposals to make fuller use of the Education Institutes and Centers. Their role should be more explicit.  In Education, we call on UNESCO to pay adequate attention to fragile states and states facing emergencies.

With respect to Sciences, we agree with the recommendations of the expert team on the Review of the Science programmes. In our view the report constitutes a good basis for further reflection on the strategic reorientation of these two programmes.  

In Social and Human Sciences, we are pleased to see the linkages to the wider UN human rights agenda. We support both the emphasis on ethics and promotion of the implementation of the three existing declarations related to bioethics, as well as the move away from actions relating to human security. We believe that issues related to human security can be addressed more effectively by other UN organizations.

While we believe that the emphasis on policy-oriented research is important, we consider that UNESCO should be focusing on capacity-building at the country-level and should avoid the temptation to produce its own research papers and publications.  

In Culture, Canada strongly supports the emphasis on cultural diversity in the program priorities, and especially its important role in both development and inter-cultural dialogue.  We are supportive of the reorganization of the Culture Sector as it brings together the resources for a more rational execution of the programme.  

In the area of Communications and Information, we support the emphasis on free, independent and pluralistic communication, and universal access to information. It is necessary to be constantly reminded of these fundamental principles in an era of media concentration and technological convergence.

Turning to the Budget, Canada favours a zero nominal growth budget for all organizations within the UN system. For us, this budgetary rigour must lead to greater prioritisation as well as to a more rational use of resources. We are glad to see that certain activities of marginal impact have been cut.  As the Director-General noted in his intervention, however, the C/5 still includes programmes that are not a priority. Unfortunately, the cuts presented in the different budgetary scenarios do not demonstrate any priority-setting or strategic choices, but instead an “equitable” distribution between all the Main Lines of Action.

In concluding, I would note that we are very pleased with the recent entry into force of two Conventions of great importance to Canada. 

At the first Conference of Parties to the Convention against Doping in Sport in February, we announced a $50,000 contribution to the Fund for the Elimination of Doping in Sport. The Conference of Parties identified a limited number of priorities that will enable UNESCO to assist countries in the fight against doping in sport by providing access the Fund.

We also have high expectations for the first Conference of Parties to the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions.  Canada has already publicly announced we will contribute to the fund for the diversity of cultural expressions. We are counting on UNESCO to provide the resources necessary for the implementation of the Convention. We encourage those countries that have not yet done so to ratify the Convention. As you know, we are a candidate for election to the Committee so as be able to play an active role in the development of its operational directives. 

Finally, we hope to have the honour to welcome the World Heritage Committee to Québec in July 2008 as part of the 400th anniversary celebrations of this World Heritage City.