United Nations Educational, Executive Board Hundred and...

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Executive Board ex

Hundred and sixty-fifth Session

165 EX/19 PARIS, 5 September 2002 Original: English

Item 5.3 of the provisional agenda

THE UNESCO EVALUATION STRATEGY

SUMMARY

In accordance with the provisions of 164 EX/Decisions 6.10 and 8.5, the Director-General hereby submits the UNESCO Evaluation Strategy to the Executive Board.

Decision proposed: paragraph 30.

165 EX/19

I. Introduction

1. When the Internal Oversight Service (IOS) was created in 2001 it was evident that UNESCO had a relatively weak evaluation culture, and the quality of many evaluations in progress was low. The evaluation capacity within IOS was limited with few staff with appropriate skills. In practice there was heavy reliance on sector-led evaluations whereby programme managers took the decisions about what should be evaluated, selected the evaluators and managed the whole evaluation process often without reference to the Central Evaluation Unit (the predecessor to IOS in providing support to the evaluation function). This did not provide optimal conditions for objective, independent and credible evaluations. Further, the system in place for establishing evaluation priorities was unsatisfactory and there was no strategic plan or evaluation cycle established to ensure that all major areas of UNESCO’s activities would be evaluated within a given time period.

2. This paper proposes an Evaluation Strategy covering the period of UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy, 2002-2007 (31 C/4). It has been considered and endorsed by the UNESCO Oversight Committee.1 The Strategy positions evaluation as a strategic management tool. It clarifies and streamlines the roles to be played by various stakeholders in the planning, execution and management of the evaluation function. The key objective of this strategy is to develop a strong culture of evaluation and improve the quality of evaluations in UNESCO. The strategy also sets in motion for the first time in UNESCO a six-year evaluation cycle that is linked to the Medium-Term Strategy and provides clear criteria for establishing evaluation priorities.

II. The current status of evaluation in UNESCO

3. The observed weaknesses in evaluation in UNESCO are the result of a number of conceptual problems and the absence of a strategic approach to evaluation. The following are some of the major issues that are addressed by the Strategy:

(a) The dominance of sector-led evaluations poses one of the major constraints to evaluation credibility. In practice programme management decides what must be evaluated without reference to any organizational priorities or evaluation cycle; selects evaluation consultants without clear, transparent and objective recruitment criteria; develops terms of reference without guidelines on what should be evaluated and without methodological support and tools; manages evaluations and often accepts whatever final product is given to them by evaluators in the absence of quality standards. There has been insufficient distance between the evaluators and those being evaluated. This process compromises the objectivity, independence and credibility of evaluations even if outside consultants are used. Moreover there is limited evaluation capacity and expertise within the programme sectors and field offices.

(b) The recruitment of evaluators is often not based on professionalism. The process does not take into account first and foremost the candidate’s competence, expertise and relevant experience as primary considerations and is sometimes driven by the relationships that the programme sectors have with certain subject specialists.

(c) The majority of evaluations are not strategic nor are there any comprehensive evaluation plans that cover both regular budget and extrabudgetary activities nor do they cover thematic, cross-sectoral and emergent issues. Evaluations are not systematically built into the planning and programming processes of UNESCO. This results in a piecemeal

1 This Committee, chaired by the Deputy Director-General and including a respected external evaluation specialist

in its membership, advises the Director-General and the Director of IOS and seeks to raise the profile of evaluation throughout the Organization.

165 EX/19 – page 2

and sectoral approach to evaluation. As a result many major areas of UNESCO’s work are not evaluated, in other cases evaluations are not comprehensive, and many extrabudgetary activities are not included and hence their complementarity to the regular budget is never assessed.

(d) Evaluation is currently not used fully as a management tool. Most of the evaluation recommendations have never been implemented, due in part to the absence of a mechanism to follow-up the implementation of the recommendations. Evaluations are not sufficiently used for learning purposes and there is no feedback mechanism.

(e) Evaluation and audit functions have up to now operated in isolation and in consequence the linkages and potential synergies between the two have not been developed.

(f) Gender implications have not been explicitly and fully addressed in the evaluation process in the past.

III. Basic principles for evaluation in UNESCO

4. Evaluation in UNESCO should be guided by a number of basic principles:

(a) Evaluation is a management tool that should provide programme sectors and field offices with indications of progress or lack thereof in the achievement of programme objectives and results as well as of the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation.

(b) Evaluation must cover both regular and extrabudgetary activities of UNESCO.

(c) Participation by the stakeholders must be a fundamental feature at all stages of the processes of evaluation in UNESCO. The participatory roles of each of the stakeholders and partners must be defined clearly, and agreed to upfront at the start of the process. Such participation aims to secure a strong sense of ownership of the outcome of evaluations and a commitment to act upon agreed recommendations.

(d) Evaluation must be integrated into governance and management structures in UNESCO so as to demonstrate its critical role to both performance measurement and accountability.

(e) Evaluation must be integrated into policy development at the appropriate stage in the programme planning cycle to ensure that lessons from evaluations are used in future programme and project planning.

(f) Evaluation in UNESCO must be used as a major knowledge management tool. This strategy challenges the Organization to use accumulated experience, and to systematically disseminate information to create a framework for dialogue and debate.

IV. What evaluation means in UNESCO

5. There is a need to develop a common understanding of what evaluation means in UNESCO. This is necessary if the Organization is to move in the same direction.

What is evaluation?

6. Evaluation at UNESCO is a process of organizational reflection that assesses systematically and objectively the achievements of results in the light of the relevance, efficiency, impact and

165 EX/19 – page 3

sustainability of ongoing and completed projects/programmes. Evaluation is concerned with the measurement/assessment of outcomes and impacts rather than with the delivery of outputs. It is about taking stock of what has been achieved, both positive and negative. But it is also about taking stock of delivery mechanisms, constraints, weaknesses and learning where progress has not been made. Evaluation in UNESCO is about the Organization’s willingness to learn from both successful and less successful programme activities. There must be a commitment to take corrective action and to strengthen weak areas. Evaluation encompasses qualitative and quantitative measurement of project/programme implementation against stated objectives, expected results and outcomes. It is also a tool for decision-making by the governing bodies.

Why evaluation?

7. The UNESCO Secretariat sees evaluation as a systematic way of accounting for the resources entrusted to it by showing Member States and other stakeholders what outcomes/results and degree of effectiveness/efficiency have been achieved with the resources given to it and points to the ways in which programme delivery can be improved. Evaluation is also a management tool that uses lessons from experience and incorporates them into future planning and programming. Moreover, evaluation is about providing cumulative evidence regarding UNESCO’s competence and achievements that enable the Organization to raise its profile. It is about the management and utilization of cumulative knowledge from programme implementation. The emphasis, therefore, is on how best to utilize evaluation results for informed and effective decision-making. It is about how best to incorporate lessons learned from evaluation into policy development, planning and programming as well as how to use evaluation results to improve management and programme delivery. Evaluation can also help in making choices when alternatives are presented.

8. Evaluation provides an opportunity for critical assessments on whether or not the objectives of the Organization have been met in satisfying the needs and priorities defined in UNESCO’s domain. The evaluation process should provide the Organization with independent assessments of progress it is making towards the achievement of its objectives and expected results. UNESCO needs to know what impact, influence and difference its activities and delivery modalities are making, and evaluation provides the necessary independent validation. The evaluation process provides the Director-General with an independent assessment to show what is going well (success/achievements) as well as pointing out areas, approaches and modalities that need to be improved. It provides accurate information so that the Director-General can confidently report to Member States on the progress being made, but also assure them of the improvements and innovations being initiated by the Organization.

9. Evaluation provides UNESCO with operational and strategic management information that helps the Organization to better plan and manage its future activities. But it should also play a strategic role by linking evaluation results to strategic planning and management decision-making so that programme and project delivery is improved. Evaluation results help the Organization to take corrective action where necessary but also to ensure that it avoids similar pitfalls in the future.

Accountability and compliance

10. Evaluation is used to support accountability at different levels of management within UNESCO (the Director-General, programme sectors and the field). Accountability is required and demanded by UNESCO’s governing bodies, external stakeholders and partners and this makes it necessary for the Secretariat to use evaluation results to provide an objective and independent accountability mechanism.

165 EX/19 – page 4

11. The UNESCO Secretariat uses evaluation to demonstrate that it has complied with the mandate, instructions and decisions of the governing bodies. The UNESCO governing bodies approve programmes and budgets for the Secretariat to carry out various activities. Further, the governing bodies take decisions about the work of UNESCO including which programmes and projects are to be evaluated. Evaluation therefore provides the means by which the Secretariat can demonstrate that it has complied with the decisions and instructions of the governing bodies.

Lessons learned and evaluation as a management tool

12. UNESCO is committed to being a “learning organization”. While evaluation obviously satisfies many needs, it is first and foremost a learning process. Lessons learned and cumulative experience and knowledge from evaluations must translate into improved policy development, decision-making processes, improved programming, better management as well as more efficient programme delivery. Learning derived from evaluation can improve the overall quality of ongoing and future programmes and projects. Lessons must be shared widely within UNESCO as a whole. Lessons that have the potential for wider application must be identified and disseminated to a wider audience of stakeholders that could benefit from such lessons. Lessons from evaluation must be analysed, synthesized and managed in a database maintained by IOS that can be used as a reference for learning purposes.

13. Increasingly, programme managers should use evaluation as a tool to take decisions, and corrective action, and to manage programmes more efficiently. Evaluation must play a major role in UNESCO’s continuous effort to improve programme and project delivery. The value of evaluation is, however, only realized when evaluation results, lessons learned, constraints identified and associated policy-related and programmatic recommendations are acted upon and internalized by all concerned.

14. A feedback mechanism is critical in ensuring that relevant lessons are made available to the appropriate parties at the right time for action to be taken. In particular lessons from evaluation must be systematically fed back into the planning and programming cycles. The Bureau of Strategic Planning (BSP) as the custodian of the planning process plays a critical role in making sure that lessons learned from evaluations are incorporated into the planning and programming processes. IOS works with BSP to institutionalize this feedback mechanism by drawing lessons that have the potential for broader application.

V. Evaluation – a shared responsibility

15. Evaluation is a shared responsibility between IOS, the programme sectors, UNESCO Institutes, Centres and field offices with BSP and central services as key stakeholders. Programme sectors, institutes and field offices are the primary users of evaluation results and hence evaluations must satisfy their needs first and foremost.

VI. Types of evaluations

16. Evaluations can be classified by agent, timing or scope.

(a) By agent

(i) Internal or self-evaluation: Evaluations conducted directly by those involved in the formulation, implementation and management of programmes or projects. This is the case with “The Report of the Director-General on the Activities of UNESCO” (C/3) which must, nevertheless, be underpinned by a rigorous validation process and by external or independent evaluations in priority areas.

165 EX/19 – page 5

(ii) External or independent evaluation: Evaluations conducted by those who are not directly involved with the formulation, implementation and management of programmes.

(b) By timing

(i) Mid-term evaluation: An evaluation conducted at mid-point of a programme or project.

(ii) Terminal evaluation: Conducted at the end of a programme or project implementation.

(iii) Ex-post evaluation: Conducted two years or more after the completion of the programme or project by which time the outcomes/impact are evident.

(c) By scope

(i) Project evaluation: Evaluation of a single project.

(ii) Sectoral evaluation: Evaluation of programmes in a sector or sub sector.

(iii) Thematic evaluation: Evaluation addressing a particular theme that may cut across sectors or geographical regions.

(iv) Programme evaluation: Evaluation of programmes, portfolio of activities under the same management.

(v) Policy evaluation: Cluster evaluation of projects or programmes dealing with particular policy issues at the sectoral or thematic level.

(vi) Strategic evaluation: This may be undertaken because the nature of the topic has significant corporate implications or because of conflicting views on the issues that need to be resolved.

(vii) Process evaluation: An evaluation of programmes or projects to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of particular processes or modalities (for example, conferences or fellowships).

VII. Short- and medium-term strategy

17. The strategy is a response not just to the weaknesses observed above but also to address growing concern of the governing bodies of UNESCO and donors alike for greater effectiveness of operations/implementation and accountability for results. A number of strategic actions must be taken in the short to medium term to ensure that a culture of evaluation is developed in UNESCO.

18. The primary responsibility for evaluation has in the past rested solely with programme sectors and field offices. There is a need for a radical review of this approach so that IOS, with the support and guidance of the Oversight Committee, can play a strategic role and provides the critical leadership and support that will enable UNESCO’s evaluation function to rise to the expectations of the Member States and donors. The basic building block of this strategy is to develop a strong partnership between IOS, central services, in particular BSP, and sectors. However, it is important to create a distance between the programme line management and the management of external evaluations which will be the responsibility of IOS. This will increase the independence of external

165 EX/19 – page 6

evaluations, secure their objectivity, add credibility to the evaluation results and enhance accountability. Programme sectors will, nevertheless, continue to play a key role in monitoring and undertaking self-evaluations as envisaged in SISTER. Hence, there is a crucial need to develop capacities in the sectors and field offices to undertake internal or self-evaluations more professionally and objectively. To this end IOS will support sectors and field offices by providing backstopping, capacity-building and participating in evaluation quality assurance. IOS will gradually be able to place greater reliance on self-evaluations as and when the sectors gain evaluation capacity and are more able to undertake self-evaluations objectively. It has to be recognized that the users of self-evaluation reports are the programme managers at various levels who use them to periodically monitor the performance and progress of their programmes.

19. There is a tension between proposing a centrally driven quality assurance role for IOS and the need for a learning perspective within programme sectors. The strategy seeks to balance these delicate needs. The following are key elements of the strategy:

(a) There will be close collaboration between programme sectors, BSP and IOS at the design stage of programmes and projects to ensure that expected results at various levels are formulated in a way that facilitates subsequent monitoring, evaluation and reporting. IOS, working closely with the sectors and BSP, will base its actions on the results and indicators developed for programme planning and it will develop appropriate performance indicators as appropriate with BSP. These activities will further help to reinforce linkages between the expected results at main line of action level in the Programme and Budget for the biennium (C/5) and the work plans set up in SISTER.

(b) After close consultation with programme sectors and BSP, IOS will develop an Evaluation Work Plan for the period of UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy (2002-2007) that ensures that major programme areas and all key strategic, cross-cutting and thematic issues are evaluated during this period. The proposed evaluation work plan for this period is at Annexes I and II and includes a revised Evaluation Plan for 2002-2003. Detailed Evaluation Plans will be prepared for subsequent biennia.

(c) All external evaluations will be managed by IOS. This will take evaluation management away from programme sectors and secure the necessary independence, objectivity and credibility for external evaluations. IOS will approve the methodology to be applied on all external evaluations, approve the selection of the evaluation team drawing on a roster of evaluation consultants, and approve the final evaluation report following a rigorous quality assurance screening. Programme sectors will be active participants and provide substantive and logistical support to evaluation teams during the progress of evaluations.

(d) Programme sectors will have an important role to play in undertaking self-evaluation of programme activities for which they are responsible. IOS will help to build evaluation capacity in sectors, field offices and Member States. Key features of this important task are considered in section X of this paper. Once this capacity has been built, greater reliance can then be placed on the self-evaluations undertaken.

(e) IOS, in collaboration with BSP, will develop a set of methodologies, tools and guidelines to be used on evaluations and will monitor closely the implementation of evaluation recommendations, promote the dissemination of evaluations that have relevance to UNESCO at large and encourage the application of lessons learned.

165 EX/19 – page 7

(f) Developing bridges between evaluation and audit by developing common methodologies and by undertaking joint work.

(g) Ensuring that adequate financing is made available for evaluations. This issue is considered further in section XI of this paper.

(h) Ensuring that IOS is adequately staffed with the right skills to discharge the responsibilities set out in this strategy. When three posts under recruitment are filled, IOS will have six professional staff devoted to evaluation. Staffing requirements will be kept under close review.

VIII. Evaluation work plans (Annexes I and II)

20. UNESCO currently produces an evaluation plan covering a biennium. The evaluations in this plan are reflected in the Approved Programme and Budget (31 C/5, Appendix IX). The strategy proposed for the period of UNESCO’s Medium-Term Strategy (2002-2007) includes criteria for the selection process to be used for the whole period and for revising the Evaluation Plan for 2002-2003. At this stage, however, the Evaluation Work Plan is indicative and may need to be revised in subsequent biennia once the related C/5 documents have been approved. These plans link both regular and extrabudgetary activities. Extrabudgetary activities complement regular programme funded activities and these are now built into the evaluation plan. The evaluation of extrabudgetary activities must show how these activities enable UNESCO to deliver the C/5 programme and the Medium-Term Strategy set out in the C/4 document.

IX. UNESCO’s evaluation priorities

21. IOS has consulted widely to identify evaluation priorities. Agreement on priorities was based on sectoral, cross-cutting, intersectoral and thematic considerations using the criteria developed. Priorities were also influenced by the pilot nature of the activities, the strategic nature of programme/project, the size of programmes/projects budgets and the potential lessons for the whole of UNESCO and external stakeholders.

22. The criteria include cross-cutting themes, and functional or process areas such as the evaluation of capacity-building, conferences, publications, training and programme delivery through non-governmental organizations. These evaluations cut across sectors and geographical boundaries and enable UNESCO to learn from the experiences of a number of sectors on the progress being made in implementing these activities. Specific methodologies and tools will be developed to measure these activities and mechanisms. In view of UNESCO’s commitment to mainstreaming a gender perspective in policy and programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, IOS will be ensuring that its approaches and methodologies relating to evaluation are gender sensitive.

X. Evaluation capacity-building

23. IOS must work with programme sectors, BSP, BFC and field offices on performance management capacity-building, backstopping and support for evaluation. There is a need to educate all programme managers in performance management and in the importance of evaluations. Key elements of the support provided are:

(a) IOS and BSP will provide training to develop performance measurement and evaluation skills required to carry out self-evaluations and to facilitate external evaluations.

165 EX/19 – page 8

(b) IOS will fully support and backstop field evaluations through training and identification of a roster of qualified evaluators who can be hired as consultants.

(c) By working with the field staff, IOS will assist field offices in developing evaluation frameworks, strategies and plans as well as developing exit strategies for their activities. IOS will also help to develop initiatives to build evaluation capacity within the Member States served.

(d) Where appropriate evaluation specialists will be hired at the field office level or at the cluster office level.

XI. Funding strategy for evaluations in UNESCO

24. UNESCO needs a robust strategy to fund evaluation activities. Three different categories for funding evaluations are envisaged.

25. Regular programme activities. Evaluation costs should be provided for in the programme budget and should be treated as an integral part of programme design and implementation. A separate budget line for evaluation will be shown in the budget and made available for purposes of evaluation. The evaluation budget once made available must be protected through a mechanism that will ensure that this budget line cannot be accessed by anyone else except IOS. As a guideline about 1% of the budget for a particular programme should be allocated to evaluation needs. In document 31 C/5 this equates to some $1 million.

26. Thematic and cross-cutting issues. A budgetary provision for IOS to undertake these evaluations is provided for from the regular budget based on evaluation work plans. IOS is however challenged to augment these resources by seeking additional funding from Member States who have a significant interest in evaluation. A budget for evaluation is included for each cross-cutting project.

27. Activities funded from extrabudgetary resources. Donors should include resources for evaluation in project budgets. Evaluations should be built into the project planning process and treated as integral to the projects. IOS should be consulted during project planning and make an input to both the development of the approach proposed for evaluating the project including the development of performance indicators to be established in SISTER-based work plans and the budget for evaluation. The budget for evaluation will depend on the size and complexity of the project, the methodology used and the size of the evaluation team. All these should be considered at the planning stage so that a realistic estimate of what evaluation would cost can be made.

XII. Conclusions

28. There is a need for IOS to take clear leadership for the evaluation process, to raise the profile of evaluation and to provide an assurance on the quality of evaluations. Success in evaluation will come once IOS and programme sectors have the same vision. IOS must promote a culture of evaluation, to convince and bring programme sectors, field offices and Institutes on board on these issues. It is IOS’s responsibility to make sure the whole of UNESCO shares the same evaluation vision. But above all evaluation will succeed once all stakeholders find value and utility in evaluation.

165 EX/19 – page 9

XIII. Reviewing the outcome of the short- and medium-term evaluation strategy

29. The evaluation strategy outlined in this paper seeks to build evaluation capacity in IOS, within the sectors, field offices and to a certain extent in Member States. A major review of the evaluation strategy proposed will be undertaken in 2005 to identify a longer-term strategy.

30. In light of the evaluation strategy and the evaluation plans, the Executive Board may wish to adopt a decision along the following lines:

The Executive Board,

1. Recalling 164 EX/Decisions 6.10.7 and 8.5.6 on the elaboration of the “UNESCO Evaluation Strategy” and reform of the evaluation process,

2. Having examined document 165 EX/19, welcomes the UNESCO Evaluation Strategy and takes note of the indicative Medium-Term Evaluation Plan 2002-2007 which includes a revised comprehensive Evaluation Plan 2002-2003,

3. Underscores the importance of the strategy and the need to allocate adequate financial and human resources to the evaluation function;

4. Invites the Director-General to prepare comprehensive and costed evaluation plans as part of the C/5 programming process;

5. Requests the Director-General to take the necessary steps to implement the Evaluation Strategy and work plans and to report periodically to the Executive Board on the implementation of the Strategy;

6. Further requests the Director-General to review the Strategy in 2005 and to propose to the Executive Board a longer term evaluation strategy.

165 EX/19 Annex I

ANNEX I

EVALUATION WORK PLAN COVERING THE PERIOD OF THE UNESCO MEDIUM-TERM STRATEGY (2002-2007)

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This evaluation work plan translates the UNESCO Evaluation Strategy into a concrete plan of work for UNESCO-wide evaluation activities over the period of the UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy, 2002-2007 (31 C/4)

2. Through an extensive consultative process, IOS has developed a unified programme of evaluation that ensures: major and strategic UNESCO activities get evaluated within the period of the Medium-Term Strategy; synergy is created among thematic/system-wide and sectoral evaluation priorities.

3. The Programme and Budget for 2002-2003 (31 C/5) translates the 31 C/4 Medium-Term Strategy into a programme of activities by breaking them into six levels of programming: Major programmes, programmes, subprogrammes and main lines of action, actions and activities, all designed to hierarchically contribute to the intended outcomes of the major programmes and ultimately to UNESCO’s mission. Document 31 C/5, in its present form, is composed of five major programmes broken down into 12 programmes, 19 subprogrammes, and 75 main lines of action. Document 31 C/5 also incorporates 34 cross-cutting projects planned for implementation on an intersectoral basis.

4. It is appropriate to emphasize the point that clear linkages must exist between the various programme levels such as the C/4 document (strategic thrusts, strategic objectives and sub-objectives) and the C/5 document (programme and implementation levels, subprogrammes, MLAs, actions and activities). The links between expected results of MLAs, projects, actions and activities and the expected outcomes of strategic thrusts and strategic objectives shown in the C/4 document must be easily discernible in the C/5 document. The use of SISTER provides the much-needed hierarchical mapping and cross-referencing that indicates which subprogrammes or MLAs contribute to which higher level expected outcomes of sub-objectives and strategic objectives and ultimately to the strategic thrusts of UNESCO, as articulated in the C/4 document. IOS has accordingly used this logic in the preparation of the Medium-Term Evaluation Plan. All evaluations will assess to what extent programmes and projects contribute to the attainment of strategic thrusts and strategic objectives in the C/4 document.

II. CRITERIA FOR SELECTING EVALUATIONS

Priorities at the international level

5. UNESCO has a major contribution to make to the achievement of United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).1 Of particular relevance are those which set targets for achieving universal primary education, and promoting gender equality and empowerment of women (MDG – Goals 2 and 3). As a United Nations agency with an important or lead role in these areas,

1 Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; Goal 2: Achieve Universal primary education; Goal 3: Promote

gender equality and empower women; Goal 4: Reduce child mortality; Goal 5: Improve maternal health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

165 EX/19 Annex I – page 2

UNESCO’s expected contribution towards achieving those targets is significant. Therefore, evaluations undertaken will assess the effectiveness with which UNESCO has cooperated with the sister agencies of the United Nations system and with national governments in helping to attain MDGs.

6. The C/4 and C/5 documents incorporate, in particular, the special needs of Africa, the least developed countries, women and youth into all UNESCO programme activities. IOS will conduct UNESCO-wide evaluations to determine whether UNESCO’s programmes are responding effectively to these needs (C/4, para. 32 and page 7) in the second year of each biennium. The outcome of this exercise may be fed into successive C/5 documents and, where appropriate, to the C/4 Medium-Term Strategy. IOS will closely consult with BSP, Africa Department (AFR), programme sectors, field offices and UNESCO Institutes in the detailed planning of these evaluations.

Gearing evaluation to strategic issues relating to UNESCO’s Programmes

7. This plan of work seeks to ensure that the main elements of the UNESCO programmes are evaluated over the medium term. The plans developed in Annex II lay out comprehensive medium-term (2002-2007) evaluation activities that are not restricted to sectoral programmes, but also feature evaluations that satisfy UNESCO-wide strategic management information needs. To this effect, the work plans include the following evaluations:

(a) Strategic and thematic evaluations: All thematic evaluations will also highlight to what extent contributions have been made to three main thrusts under the Organization’s mission and the strategic objectives of document 31 C/4, including those for the cross-cutting themes.

(b) Strategic thrusts and objectives: The three strategic thrusts identified as the means UNESCO employs to deliver its programme (its role as a standard-setter, laboratory of ideas, a clearing house of knowledge and information, its catalytic role in the building of consensus at the global level) are all important issues whose effectiveness should be evaluated to inform future UNESCO policies and strategies. Achievements of major programmes will also be evaluated against their individual contributions to the expected outcomes of respective strategic objectives set out in the C/4 document. IOS’s approach for all evaluations is to assess the extent to which programmes have contributed to the achievement of UNESCO’s three strategic thrusts and 12 strategic objectives. Towards the end of the 2006-2007 biennium, IOS will undertake three evaluations (one for each of the strategic thrusts), drawing on all the evaluations undertaken in the previous five or six years, to assess the extent to which the programmes have contributed to the achievement of UNESCO’s three strategic thrusts.

(c) Thematic evaluations: Under this category, IOS has identified the following strategic management issues for evaluation in 2002-2003. They include:

(i) Assessing the professional skill needs and gaps of UNESCO professional staff;

(ii) Analysing the reasons for low delivery rates of UNESCO programmes;

(iii) Evaluation of the effectiveness of programme delivery mechanisms:

• Effectiveness, appropriateness, and sustainability of the whole range of UNESCO capacity-building delivery mechanisms;


The following programme delivery mechanisms will also be evaluated in the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007:

• Effectiveness and impact of UNESCO publications;

• Review of the role of conferences and meetings in the overall realization of UNESCO programmes:

Conferences and meetings are the most frequently used methods for building policy consensus leading to declarations or plans of action on issues of global or regional significance, which governments and multilateral organizations voluntarily commit themselves to use as the basis for future action. Conferences and meetings are also used to inform beneficiaries and partners on the provisions of such actions. They are also used to periodically review and evaluate the performance or impact of such actions after they are put into effect.

• Support to NGOs engaged in activities related to UNESCO competencies at the community and grass-roots level;

• Effectiveness and impact of the range of awareness-raising mechanisms employed by UNESCO major programmes;

(iv) Review of the utilization of extrabudgetary resources in UNESCO. The importance of extrabudgetary resources to UNESCO’s ongoing activities is apparent. The ratio of extrabudgetary contributions increases every biennium. Every dollar spent for programme activities from the regular budget is matched by four from extrabudgetary sources. The evaluation will review the ways in which extrabudgetary resources support strategic objectives set out in the C/4 document and the priorities identified in the C/5 document as approved by the General Conference.

(v) Towards promoting intersectorality in UNESCO. The IOS consultation process on the evaluation work plan did not identify a substantial number of intersectoral projects. IOS intends to study why intersectorality is difficult to undertake and implement. The study will examine what possible incentive structures could be devised that encourage programme sectors to jointly own the process and the results of such intersectoral activities. Developing acceptable criteria and methodology for apportioning relative funding contributions and assigning lead sector(s) for the implementation or coordination of jointly developed intersectoral projects could encourage sectors to be more forthcoming in exploring such opportunities. While complementarity of the sectors is clear, the challenge for UNESCO is to enhance the impact of the overall programme by institutionalizing and internalizing an integrated approach to strategy, programme development and implementation.

(vi) The institutionalization of the UNESCO decentralization strategy and its effect on UNESCO programme delivery. This evaluation will draw on the evaluation of field offices and provide an important input to the Director-General’s commitment to review the field office network in 2004-2005.


(d) Evaluation of UNESCO Institutes: Five UNESCO Institutes, whose activities complement UNESCO’s effort to meet the commitments of the Dakar World Education Forum, will be evaluated in the 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 biennia. The outcomes of these evaluations will be building blocks to the evaluation scheduled for 2005 of the Strategic Objective 1 related to UNESCO’s contribution to promoting education as a fundamental right in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Evaluations of UNESCO Institutes are also scheduled to meet the provisions of document 162 EX/18, paragraph 20 that provides for the approval of budgetary allocations to institutions, starting from document 32 C/5, to be decided after an evaluation of their performances and the alignment and integration of their programmes with the overall priorities of UNESCO Major Programme I and across all major programmes for the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS).

(e) Evaluation of cross-cutting projects: with regard to the cross-cutting projects related to poverty eradication and to information and communication technologies, IOS plans to organize evaluations to assess contributions of relevant projects to seven strategic objectives identified in document 31 C/4, paragraphs 178-220 and document 31 C/5. In this way, IOS seeks to identify important UNESCO-wide lessons to inform future strategy and programme formulation in those areas.

8. IOS intends to determine the extent to which 34 cross-cutting projects have contributed to six strategic objectives (certain projects contribute to more than one strategic objective).

Sectoral and field programme evaluations

(a) Sectoral evaluations – major programmes: Sectoral programme evaluations will necessarily continue to be a significant feature in UNESCO. The thrust of the evaluation plan is, however, to link subprogramme and MLA evaluations with strategic objectives and thematic issues identified for each major programme. The results of MLAs and subprogrammes should contribute to relevant strategic objectives and expected outcomes of sub-objectives. The combined expected results of relevant 31 C/5 subprogrammes/MLAs/activities should contribute to the related expected outcomes of sub-objectives and the 12 strategic objectives in document 31 C/4. In this way evaluation findings will contribute important inputs to the formulation of successive UNESCO strategies and programmes. Evaluations of sectoral subprogrammes or MLAs are not an end in themselves, they are useful only to the extent they provide concrete indications of the level of contributions made to strategic objectives. The evaluation plan was, therefore, developed on the basis of this underlying theme.

(b) Extrabudgetary activities: The significant volume of resources being channelled to UNESCO programmes, the need to meet accountability requirements of donors and the need for management to assess and ascertain the complementarity of these resources to UNESCO regular budget activities call for evaluation of specific extrabudgetary activities to be included in this plan of work. In practice many donors seek to cooperate with IOS in the evaluation of extrabudgetary projects, often agreeing on the timing and thrust of evaluations for which budgetary provision is made in the project funding. These evaluations are not separately identified in the plan. But it is apparent that the involvement of UNESCO in the evaluation of extrabudgetary projects should be institutionalized. Lack of clarity on this issue seems to be why the programme sectors proposed a very small number of such projects for evaluation.


(c) Evaluation of field offices: Evaluation of selected field offices, to be undertaken by IOS, is important in view of the need to assess the relevance and effectiveness of UNESCO’s strategy of decentralized programme delivery. Evaluation of field offices should consider such issues as: adequacy of human and financial resources available to field offices; adequacy and level of headquarters policy, programmatic and administrative support; interaction between the different types of offices and the UNESCO National Commissions, and effectiveness of communication and clarity of delegation of authority. Evaluation should also confirm the impact of all these issues on programme delivery under a decentralized structure.

(d) Field office projects: Substantial decentralization of programme funds to field offices reflected in document 31 C/5 indicates that the number of projects managed by field offices will be on the increase in this biennium. Field office projects are composed of regular budget and extrabudgetary funded activities. Field offices will manage evaluation of their projects with IOS support in the preparation of evaluation TORs, selection of evaluators and approval of the final evaluation report.

(e) Emerging issues, innovative and pilot activities: These projects are of special interest not only for their demonstrative values but also because of the need to monitor their time frame so that they do not drag on for too long and thereby compromise their raison d’être. Such projects should be evaluated in time to discern lessons or determine their potential for replication and further refinement.

(f) Participation Programme: The evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the Participation Programme in contributing to the strategic objectives of UNESCO. It will assess whether existing criteria for approving requests from Member States or Associate Members take into account their potential contribution to strategic objectives articulated in the C/4 document, and whether the outcomes secured from the programme in practice support those objectives.

165 EX

/19 A

nnex II ANNEX II

2002-2007 MEDIUM-TERM EVALUATION WORK PLAN

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

1. Strategic and thematic evaluations 1.1 Strategic thrust All evaluations will assess to what extent the programmes and projects contribute to the strategic thrusts in the Medium-Term Strategy 2002-2007 (31 C/4). Three consolidated reports reviewing the extent to which programmes contributed to the attainment of the strategic thrusts will be prepared during the latter part of the 2006-2007 biennium, drawing on evaluations produced earlier in the period of document 31 C/4.

1. Strategic and thematic evaluations 1.1 Strategic thrust All evaluations will assess to what extent the programmes and projects contribute to the strategic thrusts in the 31 C/4. Three consolidated reports reviewing the extent to which programmes contributed to the attainment of the strategic thrusts will be prepared during the latter part of the 2006-2007 biennium, drawing on evaluations produced earlier in the period of document 31 C/4.

1. Strategic and thematic evaluations 1.1 Strategic thrust All evaluations will assess to what extent the programmes and projects contribute to the strategic thrusts in document 31 C/4. Three consolidated reports reviewing the extent to which programmes contributed to the attainment of the strategic thrusts will be prepared during the latter part of the 2006-2007 biennium, drawing on evaluations produced earlier in the period of document 31 C/4.

1.2 Strategic objectives All evaluations will assess the extent to which programmes and projects contribute to the achievement of strategic objectives.

1.2 Strategic objectives 1.2.1 Strategic Objective 1 – UNESCO’s contribution

to the promotion of education as a fundamental right in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (31 C/4, paras. 57-66).

1.2 Strategic objectives 1.2.2 Strategic Objective 2 – “Improving the quality of

Education through the diversification of contents and methods and the promotion of universally shared values” (31 C/4, paras. 67-74).

Note:

All evaluations will assess the extent to which programmes, projects and institutions contribute to the attainment of Strategic Objective 1. • UNESCO Institutes (in current and previous

biennium). • Relevant subprogrammes and MLAs evaluated in

2002-2003 biennium (ref: Major Programme education evaluations 2002-2003);

• The evaluation of Strategic Objective 1 and the evaluation of MLA, 31 C/5, paras. 01111, 01112, 01114, and 01122 (See Education Sector evaluations in this biennium below) will be conducted in tandem. The former will use the evaluation of these

Note:

All evaluations will assess the extent to which programmes and projects contribute to the achievement of Strategic Objective 2.

165 E

X/19

Annex II – page 2

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

MLAs as an additional vehicle/means for determining UNESCO’s contribution to the realization of the Dakar Framework for Action.

• Will assess the effectiveness of UNESCO’s strategies of: building partnerships for EFA, supporting policy reforms in favour of EFA, and empowering the poor and reaching the unreached through education at national, regional and international levels.

• This is a more comprehensive higher level evaluation that assesses goals, strategies and programming mechanisms and programme coherence. This evaluation benefits from the findings of the various related evaluations carried out previously. It deals with strategic issues related to this UNESCO priority programme and of relevance to the Executive Board and Member States.

• If these evaluation plans (2002-2003 and 2004-2005) are adopted, it means Programme I.1 – Basic Education for All will have been evaluated by the end of the second biennium, i.e. 2004-2005. Through this evaluation UNESCO will have established the extent of its contribution towards achieving the target set by the Millennium Development Goals 2 and 3 for 2015 and the Dakar Declaration. It will then be possible for evaluation findings to serve as important input to the development process of the next Medium-Term Strategy for 2008-2013, by allowing for necessary adjustments as appropriate.

• Subprogrammes I.2.1 and I.2.2 to be evaluated in the 2006-2007 biennium and UNESCO’s extent of contribution to Strategic Objective 2, document 31 C/4, paragraphs 67-74 to be determined in mid-2007. This exercise will also benefit from subprogramme evaluations carried out during that biennium.

165 EX

/19 A

nnex II – page 3

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

1.2.2 Strategic Objective 5 – UNESCO’s contribution to the improvement of human security by better management of the environment and social change. (31 C/4, paras. 93-113).

Note: Utilizing evaluations carried out in 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 biennia, the Science Sector needs to assess the extent of contributions made to Strategic Objective 5. The objective of this exercise is to assess the hierarchical linkage of document 31 C/5 activities, outputs and results with document 31 C/4 relevant strategic objective and sub-objectives. Those relevant evaluations listed under the Natural Sciences Sector (below) will all assess the extent to which they contribute to Strategic Objective 5.

1.2.2 Strategic Objective 6 – Enhancing scientific, technical and human capacities to participate in the emerging knowledge societies (31 C/4, paras. 114-123 – proposed by IOS).

Note: All evaluations will assess the extent to which programmes and projects contribute to the achievement of Strategic Objective 6.

1.2.3 Strategic Objective 12 – UNESCO’s contribution towards the realization of access for all to information and communication technologies, especially in the public domain through promoting capacities – Institutional and human capacity-building in developing countries, least developed countries and countries in transition (31 C/4, para. 174 and 31 C/5, Subprogrammes V.1.2, para. 0512 and V.2.2, para. 0522).

Note: All evaluations will assess the extent to which programmes and projects contribute to the Strategic Objective 12. The totality of the evaluation outcomes will then be fed into the World Summit on the Information Society planned for December 2005.

1.2.3 Strategic Objective 8 – Safeguarding cultural diversity and encouraging dialogue among cultures and civilizations. (31 C/4, paras. 134-147).

All evaluations will assess the extent to which programmes and projects contribute to achievement of Strategic Objective 8. • Promotion of cultural pluralism and intercultural

dialogue (31 C/5, MLA para. 04221 – Construction of cultural pluralism and strengthening of action in favour of indigenous peoples (activities running for the period 1995-2004)).

• Transatlantic Slave Route Project – the evaluation will assess the second phase of the project (up to 2005) and draw upon an evaluation (March 2002) of the first phase (1998 – 2001) funded by NORAD.

• The outcome of evaluation on MLA 04211, carried out in the first biennium.

• These evaluations will be carried out at the same time to assess the Sector’s overall contribution to Strategic Objective 8 over the last decades.

165 E

X/19

Annex II – page 4

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

1.2.4 Strategic Objective 9 – Enhancing the linkages between culture and development through capacity-building and sharing of knowledge. (31 C/4, paras. 148-153).

Note: All evaluations will asses the extent to which programmes and projects contribute to the achievement of Strategic Objective 9. The cross-cutting projects on eradication of poverty implemented by this sector, already evaluated, will also provide input to this evaluation.

• Strategic Objective 10 – Promoting the free flow of ideas and universal access to information (31 C/4, paras. 162-168).

CI’s contribution to this strategic objective will be determined by evaluating pertinent MLAs under Subprogrammes V.1.1 – Formulating principles, policies and strategies to widen access to information and knowledge and V.1.2 – Development of infostructure and building capabilities for increased participation in the knowledge society.

1.3 Thematic evaluations

1.3.1 Programme delivery mechanisms

• Capacity-building: Review of the effectiveness, appropriateness, and sustainability of capacity-building concepts, programmes, delivery mechanisms (workshops, training courses, fellowships, developing institutional frameworks, technical assistance, policy advisory services, project approach versus strategic/programme approach to capacity-building, regional versus national, etc.) carried out over the last decades across major programmes and regions/subregions.


1.3.1 Programme delivery mechanisms

• Evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of UNESCO publications on programme delivery

Note: Evaluation to conduct an in-depth study on the underlying principles of production and dissemination of UNESCO publications including the following aspects: content, form and presentation, target groups, dissemination system, monitoring mechanism, means and ease of access, regular publications, one-off publications – impact on policy consensus at national and international levels, on the academia, opinion leaders, the media, civil society, communities, etc.


1.3.1 Extent of institutionalization of the UNESCO decentralization strategy in the medium-term 2002-2007 (and its effects on UNESCO programme delivery).

165 EX

/19 A

nnex II – page 5

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

• Review of the role of conferences and meetings in the overall realization of UNESCO programmes.

• Support to NGOs engaged in activities related to UNESCO competencies at the community and grass-roots level – At what level do NGOs engage with UNESCO? Programme conceptualization, project formulation, joint funding, joint implementation, mode of operandi, etc. Development of “best practices” in working with NGOs and CBOs.

• Awareness raising mechanisms Concepts, use of multimedia, and approaches adopted by sectors to raise awareness of issues under their competencies, such as:

– International decades as platforms for mobilization and attainment of objectives and the added value they give to UNESCO’s constitutional goals;

– Science and the Parliament; – World Science Day – popularization of Science; – UNESCO science prizes.

Evaluation is expected to establish the effectiveness of the range of existing mechanisms, and constraints encountered across all the major programmes of UNESCO and recommend improvements and new mechanisms.

1.3.2 Assessment of the level of delivery of UNESCO programmes Note: Low implementation has been of considerable concern to the Executive Board. This evaluation would analyse the various reasons for low implementation and propose remedial actions.

1.3.2 Review of the utilization of extrabudgetary resources in UNESCO Note: In view of their increasingly important role, extrabudgetary activities will be evaluated to determine their complementarity with UNESCO priorities, assess the solicitation, approval and allocation process related to extrabudgetary resources and to identify potential lessons from the growth.

1.3.2 Human Rights Education Action – The study/evaluation to help define the necessary synergies between the formal, non-formal and informal education levels in order to maximize the impact of human rights education programmes. This will follow up the evaluation undertaken in 2001.

165 E

X/19

Annex II – page 6

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

1.3.3 Human resources development • Assess and determine professional skill needs and

gaps of UNESCO programme staff

1.3.3 Towards promoting intersectorality in UNESCO

Note: This in-depth study will look into the feasibility of a unified UNESCO’s policy/strategy development and programming process, which builds in and anticipates that sectors work together in the joint development and implementation of programmes and projects. The evaluation will explore incentive structures that can be introduced in the planning process that could encourage major programmes to bring together their expertise and funds to create innovative programmes/projects.

2. UNESCO Institutes Evaluation of UNESCO Institutes will be carried out to meet the provisions of document 162 EX/18, paragraph 20, that approval of budgetary allocations, starting from document 32 C/5, to be decided after an evaluation of their performance and the alignment and integration of their programmes with the overall priorities of UNESCO Major Programme I and across all major programmes. • UNESCO Institute for Education (UIE) – Hamburg

(31 C/5, paras. 01330-01333) – supports Subprogramme I.1.1, MLA 1 and 2 and Subprogramme I.1.2, MLA 2.

2. UNESCO Institutes • UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS)

In this medium-term period, in addition to its other functions, UIS acts as the EFA Observatory for monitoring progress towards development goals. UIS’ contribution and continuing programmes on education indicators give it a pivotal role in assessing the progress of UNESCO’ Major Programme I. Its other functions involve the strengthening of statistical analysis in order to provide available data and to generate wider use of information in support of policy- and decision-making to all UNESCO major programmes and beyond.

• UNESCO International Institute for Capacity- Building in Africa (IICBA) (31 C/5, paras. 01360-01363) – supports Subprogramme I.1.1, MLA 1 and 4, and Subprogramme I.1.2, MLA 1.

Note : This evaluation will be part of the overall evaluation of UNESCO capacity-building concepts, approaches and mechanisms scheduled for this biennium (refer to item 1.3.3 above).

Evaluation of UIS will contribute to the periodic evaluation of Strategic Objective 1 and to other strategic objectives as appropriate. Evaluation of UIS will also involve assessing the effectiveness of UIS activities within the decentralized strategy of programme delivery of UNESCO.

165 EX

/19 A

nnex II – page 7

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

• UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education (IITE) – Moscow, (31 C/5, paras. 01340-01343) – supports Subprogramme I.1.1, MLA 1, and Subprogramme I.1.2, MLA 1.

• UNESCO International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.

This Institute contributes to Subprogramme 1.2.2 – MLA 3, 4 and 5. Note: • The first three evaluations cover important

aspects/components of the priority Programme I.1 Basic education for all: meeting the commitments of the Dakar World Education Forum.

• While the scope of evaluations of these institutes will cover their range of UNESCO-related activities, those evaluation findings specifically related to the Basic Education For All programme will be used for determining the status of Strategic Objective 1, document 31 C/4 at the end of the 2004-2005 biennium).

• The outcome of the above joint evaluations will be building blocks for the planned evaluation of the Strategic Objective 1, elaborated in document 31 C/4, scheduled for summer 2005.

Strategic Objective I 31 C/4 – The two institutes deal with quality education and renewal of education systems.Subprogrammes I.2.1 and I.2.2 31 C/5 • UNESCO International Institute for Educational

Planning (IIEP) – Paris and Buenos Aires (31 C/5 01320-01323) – supports Subprogramme I.1.1, MLAs 1 to 4 and Subprogramme I.1.2, MLA 2

• UNESCO International Bureau of Education (31 C/5 01310-01313) – supports Subprogramme I.1.1, MLA 1 and Subprogramme I.1.2, MLA 1

165 E

X/19

Annex II – page 8

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

Note: The two institutes provide substantial support to building knowledge societies through quality education and a renewal of education systems. Subprogrammes I.2.1 and I.2.2, 31 C/5. They also contribute to the EFA programmes whose evaluation findings will be fed into the evaluation of Strategic Objective 1, 31 C/4 scheduled for 2005).

3. Cross-cutting projects

3.1 Eradication of poverty, especially extreme poverty

Note: Evaluation deferred to later biennia to give time for project implementation.


3.1 Eradication of poverty, especially extreme poverty.

3.1.1 Strategic Objective 2 – To support the establishment of effective linkages between national poverty reduction strategies and sustainable development frameworks, focusing on UNESCO’s areas of competence. Furthermore, to help mobilize social capital by building capacities and institutions, especially in the public domain, with a view to enabling the poor to enjoy their rights (31 C/4, paras. 194-197).


3.1 Eradication of poverty, especially extreme poverty

3.1.1 Strategic Objective 1 – To contribute to a broadening of the focus of international and national poverty reduction strategies through the mainstreaming of education, culture, the sciences and communication (31 C/4, paras.188-193).

UNESCO’s contribution to this strategic objective will be measured by the results of 13 projects implemented by the five major programmes. Evaluation will assess achievements made and constraints encountered in the implementation of the following projects:

UNESCO’s contribution to this strategic objective will be measured by the results of the following three projects:

• Education: two projects – 31 C/5, paras. 01411 and 01412

• Natural Sciences: three projects – 31 C/5, paras. 02411, 02412, 02413 and 02414

• Education: one project – 31 C/5, para. 01411

• Social and Human Sciences: three projects – 31 C/5, paras. 03411, 03413 and 03417

• Culture: three projects – 31 C/5, paras. 04411, 04414 and 04415

• UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS): one project – 31 C/5, para. 06411

• Social and Human Sciences: one project 31 C/5, para. 03415

• UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS): one

project, 31 C/5, para. 06411

165 EX

/19 A

nnex II – page 9

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

Note: In the course of assessing the extent of the above projects’ contribution to Strategic Objective 1, it has to be noted that they should be assessed in terms of their short-term (actual) and medium-term and long-term (potential) contributions that can be expected on the basis of their current achievements. The evaluation exercise should identify and consolidate lessons learned from implementation. The assessment should contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the development of appropriate poverty eradication strategies, which can be input to the poverty eradication strategy development process for the next UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy.

3.2 The contribution of information and communication technologies to the development of education, science, culture and the construction of a knowledge society

Note: Evaluation deferred to later biennia to give time for project implementation. Approved in 31 C/5, Appendix IX • The effectiveness of UNESCO’s action to combat

HIV/AIDS (1987-present)

3.2 The contribution of information and communication technologies to the development of education, science, culture and the construction of a knowledge society

3.2.1 Strategic Objective 3 – Strengthening capacities for scientific research, information sharing and cultural exchanges Evaluation will assess achievements made and constraints encountered in the implementation of the following five projects in order to assess UNESCO’s accomplishment of this Strategic Objective:

3.2 The contribution of information and communication technologies to the development of education, sciences, culture and the construction of a knowledge society

3.2.1 Strategic Objective 1 – Agreeing on common principles for the construction of knowledge societies (31 C/34, paras. 206- 207) Evaluation will assess the performance and results of the following six projects to determine the overall contribution to the above Strategic Objective:

Note: HIV/AIDS is considered as one of the priority areas in document 31 C/4 (para. 17 and box, page 7). UNESCO recognizes that it has a comparative advantage in areas of work regarding preventive education against HIV/AIDS.

• Education: one project – 31 C/5, para. 01421

• Natural Sciences: one project – 31 C/5, para. 02422

• Social and Human Sciences: one project – 31 C/5, para. 03421

• Communication and Information: two projects – 31 C/5, paras. 05421 and 05425

• Natural Sciences: one project – 31 C/5, para. 02421

• Social and Human Sciences: one project, 31 C/5,

para. 03422 • Communication and Information: four projects,

31 C/5, paras. 05421, 05422, 05424 and 05425

165 E

X/19

Annex II – page 10

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

3.2.2 Strategic Objective 4 – Promoting the use of ICTs for empowerment, governance and social participation (31 C/4, paras. 217-220). UNESCO’s contribution to this strategic objective will be measured by assessing the level of contribution of the following five projects: • Education: two projects – 31 C/5, paras. 01421 and

01424 • Natural Sciences: one project – 31 C/5, para. 02421 • Social and Human Sciences: one project, 31 C/5,

para. 03421 • Communication and Information: one project –

31 C/5, para. 05423

3.2.2 Strategic Objective 2 – Enhancing learning opportunities through access to diversified contents and delivery systems (31 C/4, paras. 208-212). Evaluation will assess the performance and results of the following seven projects to determine their contribution to the above strategic objective: • Education: three projects – 31 C/5, paras. 01422,

01423 and 01424 • Social and Human Sciences: one project – 31 C/5,

para. 03422 • Communication and Information: three projects –

31 C/5, paras. 05423, 05424 and 05425

4. Evaluation to determine whether UNESCO is responding to the needs of priority areas (Africa, the least developed countries, women and youth. (31 C/4, para. 32 and page 7)). One priority area will be selected in each biennium.

4. Projects implemented by UNESCO to respond to the needs of priority areas (Africa, the least developed countries, women and youth)

. Projects implemented by UNESCO to respond to the needs of priority areas (Africa, the least developed countries, women and youth)

IOS will closely consult with Africa Department (AFR), sectors, field offices and Bureau of Strategic Planning/Division of Women, Youth and Special Strategies (BSP/WYS) in the detailed planning of these evaluations.

IOS will closely consult with AFR, sectors, field offices and BSP/WYS in the detailed planning of these evaluations. A participation approach will be employed that will include partners and beneficiaries.

IOS will closely consult with AFR, sectors, field offices and BSP in the detailed planning of this evaluation.

5. Field offices – to inform the review of decentralization in 2005

• Cluster offices – 4 • Regional bureaux – 2 • National offices – 2 (Geographical and substantive considerations to be discussed with Bureau of Field Coordination (BFC)).

5. Field offices • Cluster offices – 4 • Regional bureaux – 2 • National offices – 2 (To be identified in due course in consultation with BFC and programme sectors).

5. Field offices • Cluster offices • Regional bureaux • National offices (To be decided on the basis of the Director-General’s review of decentralization in 2004-2005).

165 EX

/19 A

nnex II – page 11

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

Note: The field office evaluation findings of 2002-2003 and 2004-2005 will form part of the Director-General’s review of the status of decentralization strategy to the Executive Board in 2005.

6. Participation Programme (31 C/5, Part II.B, paras. 08001-08007)

Note: The evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the Participation Programme in contributing to the strategic objectives of UNESCO. It will assess whether existing criteria for approving requests from Member States or Associate Members take into account their potential contribution to strategic objectives articulated in the 31 C/4 document, and whether the outcomes secured from the programme in practice support those objectives.

I. EDUCATION

1. Subprogrammes

Approved in 31 C/5, Appendix IX • I.1.2 Evaluation of the inclusion of children from

various marginalized groups within formal education programmes (31 C/5, para. 0112, MLA para. 01121)

• I.1.1 Evaluation of UNESCO action in support of the E-9 countries (high-population countries) initiative in education (31 C/5, para. 0111, MLA para. 01113)

Note: These two subprogrammes are under the UNESCO’s programme contributing to the realization of the six goals of the Dakar Framework for Action. The outcome ofthese evaluations will serve as building block and input to the evaluation of Strategic Objective 1 document

I. EDUCATION

1. Subprogrammes

• I.1.1 Policy research, monitoring and information dissemination in regard to Education for All (31 C/5, MLA 1, para. 01111)

• National and regional education strategies and EFA

action plans (31 C/5, MLA 2, para. 01112) • Forging EFA partnerships and coordinating the EFA

global initiative (31 C/5, MLA 4, para. 01114) • I.1.2 Promoting literacy and non-formal education

through the diversification of delivery systems (31 C/5, MLA 2, para. 01122)

• Assess UNESCO’s experience in Teachers education related to activities over the last two decades

I. EDUCATION

1. Subprogrammes

• I.2.1 Towards a new approach to quality education (31 C/5, para. 0121)

• Education for a culture of peace and human rights (31 C/5, para. 01211, MLA 1)

• Education for a sustainable future (31 C/5, para. 01212, MLA 2)

• Preventive education in response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic (31 C/5, para. 01214, MLA 4)

• I.2.2 Renewal of education systems (31 C/5, para. 0122)

• Reorienting general secondary education (MLA 1, para. 01221)

165 E

X/19


2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

31 C/4, paragraphs 57-66 in 2005 later in biennium 2004-2005. • Associated Schools Project Network – Monitoring

Learning Achievement (ASPnet) (MLA para. 01210) (ongoing in 2002)

31 C/5, para. 01222, MLA 2 and 31 C/5, para. 01224, MLA 4 will be evaluated along with this evaluation. Note: These evaluations will be carried out in conjunction with and under an evaluation team that will be responsible for assessing the contribution of the Education Sector programme to Strategic Objective 1 (see above under thematic evaluations) Sector thematic evaluations • UNESCO’s activities addressing post-primary age

group (which are not included in the youth programmes)

Note: The purpose of the evaluation is to suggest policies and programme areas that should be considered in order to reach this target group.

• Developing of new norms and standards (MLA 5, para. 01225)

• Reform, innovation and internationalization in higher education (MLA 3, para. 01223)

Note: The above evaluations will be conducted by the same team responsible for evaluating the expected contributions to Strategic Objective 2 (see thematic evaluations above). Sector thematic evaluations • Meeting gender concern across all Education Sector

II. NATURAL SCIENCES Approved in 31 C/5, Appendix IX • II.2.1 Hydrology and water resources development

in vulnerable environment – (31 C/5, para. 02211) (preparations ongoing)

• II.2.3 Evaluation of the International Geosciences Programme (IGCP) – 1997-2002 (31 C/5, para. 0223)

Additional • Capacity-building for Natural Disaster Reduction

(CBNDR) (preparation in progress)

II. NATURAL SCIENCES 1. Assessing the effectiveness of IOC regional

programmes and their delivery mechanisms

2. Assessment of programme integration within the Natural Sciences Sector – towards better inter-linkages between programmes in order to enhance human security. (Note the findings of this evaluation can contribute to the evaluation on “intersectorality” scheduled for this biennium).

3. II.2.2 Biosphere reserves: the ecosystem approach in action (31 C/5, para. 02221, MLA 1)

Note: These evaluations will be linked with the evaluation of Strategic Objective 5 (reference above).

II. NATURAL SCIENCES • UNESCO’s contribution to the development of

appropriate science and technology policies to Member States

(Evaluation will examine the extent of UNESCO’s contribution and the effectiveness of modalities and mechanisms employed including those considered by the World Conference on Science, Budapest, 1999.) • Science Education – the whole spectrum in formal

education – evaluation activity to be particularly strongly linked with Education Sector

• University and Industry Partnership (UNISPA)

165 EX

/19 A

nnex II – page 13

2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

• I.1.2 Science and Technology Capacity-building – three MLAs, in mathematics, physics and chemistry (MLA 1, para. 02121), biological sciences and biotechnologies (MLA 2, para. 02122), and engineering sciences and technological research and their applications to development issues (MLA 3, para. 02123)

Note: These evaluations will be carried out in conjunction with the evaluation on “Capacity-building – concepts, programmes and activities” scheduled for early 2003 (Refer 1.3.3 above under thematic evaluations). • Trust for the Support of UNESCO’s Activities in the

field of science (IHP and IOC) – evaluation in progress

• To further develop, within the Global Ocean and Global Climate Observing Systems (GOOS and GCOS), the monitoring and forecasting capabilities needed for the management and sustainable development of the open and coastal ocean (Subprogramme II.2.5 – UNESCO Intergovern-mental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), 31 C/5, para. 02252, MLA 2)

Note: This evaluation links with Strategic Objective 5.

III. SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES Approved in 31 C/5, Appendix IX

• III.3 Final evaluation of the MOST Programme (31 C/5, para. 0330, and particularly MLA 03301) (ongoing)

• Evaluation of the intersectoral project “Urban

development and freshwater resources: small historical coastal cities”

Note: The outcome of these evaluations will be input to the planned evaluation of Strategic Objective 5 in the 2004-2005 biennium.

III. SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES SHS is undergoing restructuring of the sector’s programme delivery. Self-assessment of the sector’s performance, with the involvement of outside contributors, is being carried out in areas such as development of strategy for each of the regions, formulation of strategies in women and gender, poverty and human rights, and outreach and dissemination of results. The sector is also developing a strategy on extrabudgetary funding. It has therefore not been possible to formulate any specific sectoral evaluations at this stage.

III. SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES The same considerations apply as for 2004-2005.

165 E

X/19


2002-2003 2004-2005 2006-2007

IV. CULTURE Approved In 31 C/5, Appendix IX • IV.2.1 Evaluation of UNESCO’s action in the

preservation of cultural heritage damaged by conflict – 1996-2001. The experience of UNESCO activities in Cambodia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (31 C/5, para. 04211)

Note: Major evaluations were carried out in the last two biennia, the findings and recommendations of which served in the reorientation of the programme. It is, therefore, the view of the sector that evaluation of the other 31 C/5 programmes be scheduled for the last biennia in order to give reasonable time for implementation.

IV. CULTURE The same considerations apply as in 2002-2003.

IV. CULTURE 1. UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (Subprogramme IV.2.2 – 31 C/5, para. 0422) 2. Evaluation of the programme of artistic education and curriculum development 3. Implementation of the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage adopted on the 31st session of the General Conference on 6 November 2001 (31 C/5, 04121) 4. The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), particularly the 1970 UNESCO Illicit Traffic Convention. (Implementation of MLA, 31 C/5, paras. 04122 and 04211 in Cambodia and Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Note: This evaluation will be linked to Strategic Objective 8 (see above).

V. COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION Approved in 31 C/5, Appendix IX • V.1.1 “Webworld” Internet portals (as from 2000),

(31 C/5, para. 0511 and specifically addresses MLA 3, para. 05113)

• V.1.2 UNESCO’s partnership aimed at strengthening communication capacities (31 C/5, para. 0512)

Note: These evaluations link with Strategic Objective 10.

V. COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION • UNESCO’s activities aimed at enhancing

sustainable development and social participation at grass-roots level through communication capacity-building (community radio and multimedia centres)

• Multi-purpose Community Telecentres (MCTs) (extrabudgetary project)

Note: These evaluations link to Strategic Objective 12 (see above).

V. COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION Note: • Three cross-cutting projects will be evaluated for

which CI will provide facilitation. • CI will also provide facilitation for the evaluation of

Subprogrammes V.1.1. and V.1.2 along with Strategic Objective 10 (See under thematic evaluations above).

United Nations Educational, Executive Board Hundred and...

Documents

Transcript of United Nations Educational, Executive Board Hundred and...