executive board 194 ex/17 part i - unescounesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002265/226516e.pdf · 194...

194 EX/17 Part I

Executive Board

Item 17 of the provisional agenda

CATEGORY 2 INSTITUTES AND CENTRES

PART I

REPORT ON CATEGORY 2 INSTITUTES AND CENTRES

SUMMARY

In response to Executive Board 192 EX/Decision 15 (I), this report sets the plan for the conduct of evaluations of non-operational category 2 institutes and centres.

Proposed decision in paragraph 9.

1. By its 192 EX/Decision 15 (I), the Executive Board requested the Director-General to present to the current session a timetable for the evaluations of non-operational category 2 institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO.

2. Category 2 institutes and centres identified by responsible programme sectors as non-operational fall in three categories: (i) due to a high risk security situation in a host country as a result of conflict or restrictive conditions in a post-conflict or post-disaster situation; (ii) due to the absence of an agreement signed between UNESCO and a host country facing internal legislative, governmental, administrative, financial or other constraints; (iii) due to a lack of response to repeated requests from UNESCO for reports on institute/centre activities and a governing board meetings.

3. The following institutes and centres under the responsibility of programme sectors are concerned:

ED

• Guidance, Counseling and Youth Development Centre for Africa (GCYDCA), Malawi; • Regional Centre for Early Childhood Care and Education in the Arab States (RCECCE),

Syria; • South Asian Centre for Teacher Development, Sri Lanka.

PARIS, 18 February 2014 Original: English

Hundred and ninety-fourth session

194 EX/17 Part I – page 2

SC

• International Centre on Hydroinformatics for Integrated Water Resources Management, Parque Technologico Itaipu Binacional, Brazil and Paraguay;

• International Research and Training Centre on Urban Drainage (IRTCUD), Serbia; • International Centre on Water Resources and Adaptation to Global Change, Germany; • International Training and Education Centre in Proteomics, Functional Genomics and

Bioinformatics (BIOmics), Israel; • Regional Centre for Water Management Research in Arid Zones, Pakistan; • International Centre of Water for Food Security, Charles Sturt University, Australia.

SHS

• Observatory on Women, Sport and Physical Education, Greece; • West Africa Institute for International Research on Regional Integration (WAI), Cape

Verde; • International Children Centre (ARTEK), Ukraine.

4. Planning for in-depth evaluations of concerned institutes/centres also has to distinguish between agreements that entered into force before or after 2005 when the General Conference adopted 33 C/Resolution 90.

5. By its 37 C/Resolution 93 the General Conference approved the amended integrated comprehensive strategy and its attachments (37 C/18 Part I), as recommended by the Executive Board in its 190 EX/Decision 18 (I). The General Conference also decided that this strategy supersedes all its prior resolutions on the subject and requested the Director-General “to apply the strategy to all proposals for the establishment of category 2 institutes and centres and all renewals of existing agreements”.

6. Article H.3 – Review and adaptation of existing agreements of the strategy states that “each existing agreement with category 2 institute or centre shall be reviewed in consultation with the Member State(s) with a view to bringing it into conformity with the present strategy for category 2 entities and respective sectoral strategies. In case of need for changes in the agreement Member States with such an agreement shall be provided with a reasonable transitional period to adapt the agreement to the revised strategy in future renewals”.

7. Likewise, under Article E – Financial aspects, provision 1.3 of the strategy foresees that “if a category 2 institute or centre ceases to receive financial support from sponsoring Member State(s) or any other funding source the Director-General shall invite sponsoring Member State(s) to explore other funding possibilities within the period of six months. Should there be no result, the Director-General may propose to the Executive Board to terminate the agreement signed and cancel the designation as category 2 entity”.

8. In view of the above, it is planned that six evaluations of the non-operational institutes and centres be carried out each year during the present biennium, subject to the consultations with the Member States concerned.

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

The Executive Board,

1. Recalling its 192 EX/Decision 15 (I) and 37 C/Resolution 93,

2. Having examined document 194 EX/17 Part I,

3. Takes note of its content.

Printed on recycled paper

194 EX/17 Part II

Executive Board dd four



PART II

ESTABLISHMENT, IN THE PREMISES OF THE VILLA OCAMPO IN BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA, OF A REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

SUMMARY

Following discussions between UNESCO and the Government of Argentina on the need for a more cost-effective and strategic use of the Villa Ocampo (owned by UNESCO since 1973), the Government of the Argentina submitted to the Director-General, on 26 December 2012, a note proposing the establishment of a category 2 centre in the premises of the Villa Ocampo, in the Province of Buenos Aires. Initially referred to as a “Regional Centre for Arts and Culture”, the Centre was subsequently formally renamed “International Centre for Cultural Diversity, Development and Creativity Policies”. By 37 C/Resolution 46, the General Conference welcomed this proposal and invited the Executive Board to examine, at its 194th session, the corresponding draft agreement and to approve, if it deems it appropriate to do so, the establishment, in the premises of the Villa Ocampo, of a regional centre for arts and culture, as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO. The General Conference also invited the Executive Board to authorize the Director-General to sign the corresponding agreement.

This document presents the draft agreement, reviews the prerequisites for the establishment of the centre and outlines the arguments in favour of Argentina’s proposal.

Financial and administrative implications: see paragraph 11.

Action expected of the Executive Board: decision proposed in paragraph 14.

PARIS, 5 March 2014 Original: English


194 EX/17 Part II

INTRODUCTION

1. The Villa Ocampo is the former house of Ms Victoria Ocampo, a great Latin American cultural figure. In conformity with Ms Ocampo’s testament, the Villa was donated to UNESCO in 1973 to be used for cultural purposes in line with the Organization’s mission. In recent years, UNESCO’s Secretariat had expressed the wish to revise the terms of the use of the Villa Ocampo, with a view to a more cost-effective and strategic use of its premises. Following discussions on this matter, on 26 December 2012, the Government of the Argentina submitted a note addressed to the Director-General, proposing that a UNESCO category 2 centre on Cultural Diversity, Development and Creativity Policies be established in the premises of the Villa Ocampo.

2. In reply to this request for action, a preliminary mission was carried out to Villa Ocampo on 4 and 5 March 2013 by the Director of UNESCO’s Office of Legal Affairs, the Director and the Culture Specialist of the UNESCO Montevideo Office, and UNESCO Executive Director for Villa Ocampo. The UNESCO delegation met the Director of the Argentine Secretariat for Culture and representatives of the National Commission for Cooperation with UNESCO (CONAPLU). Various aspects of the operation of Villa Ocampo were considered. From 6 to 11 May 2013, a second feasibility mission was carried out in Buenos Aires by the UNESCO Montevideo Office, aimed at clarifying and exchanging views with the main stakeholders involved on aspects required in the formulation of the documentation to be submitted to UNESCO’s Executive Board. Finally, from 20 to 23 May 2013, a mission to Buenos Aires was carried out by UNESCO’s Montevideo Office, to examine administrative aspects of the proposal.

3. As a result of the above-mentioned negotiations, a draft agreement was prepared by the parties concerned. Owing to insufficient time for fine-tuning and finalizing wording, the draft agreement could not be submitted for preliminary examination to the Executive Board at its 192nd session. Argentina therefore requested that the item be inserted in the provisional agenda of the 37th session of the General Conference and proposed that the latter invite the Executive Board to examine the finalized draft agreement at its 194th session.

4. In 37 C/Resolution 46, the General Conference welcomed the proposal of the Government of Argentina and invited the Executive Board to examine, at its 194th session, the corresponding draft agreement and to approve, if it deems it appropriate to do so, the establishment, in the premises of the Villa Ocampo, of the aforementioned Centre as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO.

5. The draft agreement, now finalized, has been established in compliance with the Guidelines concerning the creation of institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO (category 2) as revised by the General Conference in 2013 (37 C/Resolution 93), and with the standard model agreement (attachment 2 of document 37 C/18), with the sole exception of Article 14, referring to the loan of the Villa Ocampo to the Government of Argentina, and Article 18, concerning the settlement of disputes. The official name of the Centre will be: “International Centre on Cultural Diversity, Development and Creativity Policies”.

6. Indeed, since the donation to UNESCO, the Villa Ocampo (building, land, furniture) has been the exclusive property of UNESCO. In view of the establishment of a category 2 centre in the premises of the Villa Ocampo, the Government of the Republic of Argentina has agreed that it will ensure that the Centre conforms to the use of the Villa as desired by Ms Ocampo in her deed of gift (document 92 EX/41, Annex 1). UNESCO will retain ownership of the Villa Ocampo, but it will provide the Government of Argentina with a contract of loan for use (“commodatum”), which is annexed to and forms an integral part of the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Argentine Republic for the establishment of a category 2 centre (Article 14). The loan will be made free of charge, while all costs (maintenance, inventory, taxes, charges, insurance, etc.) will be borne by the Government of Argentina. All agreements that governed the management of Villa

194 EX/17 Part II – page 2

Ocampo as property of UNESCO will be progressively phased out after the signing of the Agreement for the establishment of a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO.

7. Article 6 of the draft agreement states that the main objective of the Centre shall be to strengthen the implementation of the 2005 Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, and points out that its specific objectives shall be to:

• catalyse the promotion of dialogue and exchange of information among UNESCO Member States regarding diversity, development and creativity;

• incorporate culture as a strategic element in regional and international development policies;

• contribute to the strengthening of capacities to analyse and/or implement programmes, projects and actions in the above-mentioned areas;

• identify and promote activities geared at boosting cultural and creative economies, as decisive factors in guaranteeing the sustainability of development;

• adopt measures for the protection of the diversity of cultural expressions and their contents, particularly those in danger of extinction or serious impairment.

8. The functions of the Centre, as indicated in Article 6 of the draft agreement, shall be to:

(i) strengthen capacities through workshops, seminars, courses and conferences on a regional and international level;

(ii) formulate recommendations on cultural policies based on research;

(iii) exchange lessons learnt with other UNESCO category 2 centres in order to achieve synergy and complementarities; and

(iv) formulate standards, regulations and guidelines.

9. The Government of Argentina shall ensure that the Centre enjoys within its territory the functional autonomy necessary for the execution of its activities and the legal capacity to contract, to exercise its functions to receive subventions, to obtain payments for services rendered and carry out the acquisition of all means required, as well as to institute legal proceedings and to acquire and dispose of movable and immovable property.

10. The Centre shall be at the service of Member States and Associate Members of UNESCO that wish to cooperate with the centre; it shall be guided and overseen by a Governing Board renewed every four (4) years including: (i) a representative of the Government of Argentina; (ii) representatives of Member States, which have sent to the Centre notification for membership and have expressed interest in being represented on the Board; (iii) a representative of the Director-General of UNESCO.

11. In the framework of its functional autonomy, the Centre will have its own programme budget and staff, to be approved by its governing board and determined by the objectives of the centre. By signing the agreement, the Government shall undertake to provide all the resources, financial or in kind, needed for the administration and proper functioning of the Centre. The Government shall allocate to the Centre an annual budget to be distributed according to needs and foreseen activities.


Feasibility

12. From an examination of the documents and the information received during the meetings and discussions held during the missions, and in the following exchanges, the proposal of Argentina appears to be realistic, timely and feasible, and permits a more cost-effective and strategic use of the premises of the Villa Ocampo. In addition:

(a) The authorities of Argentina agree to support the costs for the proposed Centre and the maintenance of its premises, and are ready to allocate the necessary intellectual and financial resources; they are also determined to call upon experts and civil society actors to help the centre flourish and to ensure that it plays a major role at the heart of a global network.

(b) In the light of the skills, experience and commitment of a large number of national institutions, organizations and individuals in Argentina, the Government of Argentina considers that the Centre will be able to duly perform the functions listed in paragraph 8 above, thereby contributing to UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives relating to cultural diversity and culture and development.

(c) The objectives proposed for the Centre are in line with UNESCO’s strategies and objectives in the areas of cultural diversity and culture and development, and those covered by the 2005 Convention.

(d) In addition to promoting several objectives and priorities of UNESCO’s programme, the Centre will also serve as a key platform for the study, the identification and promotion of activities geared at boosting creative economies.

(e) The draft agreement between UNESCO and the Argentinian authorities in this respect fully satisfies the requirements spelled out in the above-mentioned Guidelines concerning the creation of institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO, and conforms to the standard model agreement proposed in attachment 2 of document 37 C/18, with the sole exception of Articles 14 and 18.

13. The points listed above clearly indicate the viability of the centre proposed by Argentina’s authorities, and the benefits it may bring to UNESCO and to Argentina. The Director-General therefore welcomes the proposed establishment at Villa Ocampo, in Beccar, San Isidro, Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, of a category 2 International Centre for Cultural Diversity, Development and Creativity Policies under the auspices of UNESCO.

Action expected of the Executive Board

14. In the light of the foregoing, the Executive Board may wish to adopt the following decision:


1. Having examined, in compliance with 37 C/Resolution 46, document 194 EX/17 Part II providing the outline of the proposal to establish an International Centre for Cultural Diversity, Development and Creativity Policies (previously provisionally named “Regional Centre for Arts and Culture”) at Villa Ocampo, in Beccar, San Isidro, Province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO,

2. Aware of the importance of international and regional cooperation for the promotion of cultural diversity, development and creativity,


3. Taking note of the observations and conclusions of this feasibility study,

4. Deeming the considerations and proposals contained therein to be such as to meet the requirements needed for the creation of institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO (category 2),

5. Approves the establishment, in Argentina, of the International Centre for Cultural Diversity, Development and Creativity Policies as a centre under the auspices of UNESCO, and authorizes the Director-General to sign the corresponding agreement between UNESCO and the Government of Argentina, in compliance with 37 C/Resolution 46.

194 EX/17 Part II Annex

ESTABLISHMENT, IN THE PREMISES OF THE VILLA OCAMPO IN BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA, OF A REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARTS AND CULTURE AS A CATEGORY 2 CENTRE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF UNESCO

ANNEX

PROVISIONS DEVIATING FROM THE MODEL AGREEMENT

ARTICLE 14 – ENTRY INTO FORCE

The loan for use contract (commodate) included in the Annex constitutes an integral part of the present Agreement.

This Agreement, including its Annex (loan for use contract (commodate)), shall enter into force following its signature by the contracting parties and once they have informed each other reciprocally and in writing that all formalities required to that effect by the domestic law of [country] and by UNESCO’s internal regulations have been completed. The date of reception of the last notification shall be deemed to be the effective date of entry into force of this Agreement.

The Agreement set out below is terminated as of right by the parties at the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

“Agreement between UNESCO, the Government of the Argentine Republic, the Fundación Sur, the Asociación por Villa Ocampo and the Fundación Victoria Ocampo, (Buenos Aires, 25 March 2003)”.

ARTICLE 18

Nothing in or related to this agreement shall be deemed a waiver, express or implied, of any of the privileges and immunities of UNESCO.


194 EX/17 Part III

Executive Board



PART III

MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND UNESCO FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT IN GERMANY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE ON WATER RESOURCES AND GLOBAL CHANGE

SUMMARY

Following a proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany to establish the International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change under the auspices of UNESCO, in Koblenz, Federal Republic of Germany, and further to the decision of the Executive Board at its 181st session, the General Conference at its 35th session approved the establishment of the Centre and authorized the Director-General to sign the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

A draft agreement was drawn up between UNESCO and the Federal Republic of Germany. However, the latter modified it taking into account legal and procedural specificities as prescribed by German legislation. The proposed agreement therefore deviates from the Model Agreement for category 2 centres and institutes (annexed to document 37 C/18) approved by the General Conference at its 37th session in 37 C/Resolution 93.

The Federal Republic of Germany now seeks to proceed with the signature of the agreement, the deviations of which are highlighted in the present document.

Action expected of the Executive Board: proposed decision in paragraph 8.

PARIS, 20 March 2014 Original: English


194 EX/17 Part III

INTRODUCTION

1. The Executive Board at its 181st session welcomed the proposal of the Federal Republic of Germany to establish the International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change under the Auspices of UNESCO. The General Conference at its 35th session approved the establishment of the Centre and authorized the Director-General to sign the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany as contained in Annex II to document 181 EX/17 Part II.

2. Taking into account the legal and procedural specificities as prescribed by German legislation, the Federal Republic of Germany has since modified the above-mentioned draft agreement. The major modifications from the draft agreement approved by the General Conference at its 35th session and deviations with the Model Agreement for category 2 centres and institutes (annexed to document 37 C/18) approved by the General Conference at its 37th session in 37 C/Resolution 93 are as follows (the articles refer to the Model Agreement for category 2 centres and institutes (annexed to document 37 C/18) and to the draft agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany).

3. Article 4 (Legal Status) of the Model Agreement for category 2 centres and institutes/Article 5 to the draft agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany (Autonomy).

The Centre will not have its own legal personality. The provisions in the modified Article 5 make reference to the legal principle of “legal supervision” (Rechtsaufsicht) which applies in German administrative law. Whenever a corporation or similar legal entity is established under public law it will be supervised by the State as far as it is concerned with administrative functions. This is because, according to the principle of supremacy of law, the respective body is bound to German law, especially civil and administrative laws. This does not preclude that the centre will enjoy functional autonomy. In fact, this principle only seeks to ensure compliance with national laws.

The new category 2 centre will be legally supervised by the Ministry of Transport in so far that the protection of staff, the granting of holidays etc. is guaranteed and that contracting and hiring concur with German laws and jurisdiction (Rechtsaufsicht). The supervising body only interferes when there is a malfeasance, i.e. acts performed by the inferior body which violate German laws. The legal supervision will not, in any way, hinder the autonomous functionality of the proposed centre or preclude legal actions such as hiring, contracting and acting in courts; i.e. the centre will be able to act under private law.

4. Deletion of Article 5 (Constitutive Act) of the Model Agreement for category 2 centres and institutes.

The Article on the Constitutive Act has been deleted due to the absence of legal personality of the Centre. The Centre will not have a Constitutive Act as it will not have legal personality.

5. Deletion of Article 7.2 (d) (Governing Board) of the Model Agreement for category 2 centres and institutes.

“(d) examine the periodic independent audit reports of the financial statements of the Institute/Centre and monitor the provision of such accounting records necessary for the preparation of financial statements;”

194 EX/17 Part III – page 2


6. Article 12 (Evaluation) of the Model Agreement for category 2 centres and institutes is modified as follows:

Article 14

Evaluation

1. UNESCO may, at any time, carry out an evaluation of the activities of the Centre in order to ascertain:

(a) whether the Centre makes a significant contribution to the strategic goals of UNESCO;

(b) whether the activities effectively pursued by the Centre are in conformity with those set out in this Agreement.

2. UNESCO undertakes to submit to the Government, at the earliest convenience, a report on any evaluation conducted.

7. Article 12.3 of the draft Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The German Government is fully committed to provide funding for the Centre as necessary (staff, hardware, projects, review and evaluations undertaken by UNESCO). This follows from Art. 12.2 of the modified agreement. However, the parliamentary procedure, by which funds are allocated in Germany to institutions similar to the Centre, is not an automatic procedure. Its execution cannot be filed in court. Therefore, the modified Article 12.3 clarifies that financial contribution to the Centre is voluntarily granted by the German Government which as already stated is fully committed to support the Centre financially.

Proposed decision

8. In the light of the above report, the Executive Board may wish to adopt the following decision.


1. Recalling 35 C/Resolution 25 and 181 EX/Decision 17 (II),

2. Taking into account document 181 EX/17 Part II,

3. Having examined document 194 EX/17 Part III,

4. Notes the circumstances necessitating certain changes in the draft agreement approved by the General Conference at its 35th session (35 C/Resolution 25) as well as the deviations between, on the one hand, the draft agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the host country of the International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change, reflected in document 194 EX/17 Part III and, on the other hand, the model agreement for category 2 institutes and centres approved by the General Conference in 37 C/Resolution 93;

5. Authorizes the Director-General to sign the corresponding agreement.

194 EX/17 Part IV

Executive Board



PART IV

RENEWAL OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF PERU AND UNESCO CONCERNING THE REGIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF

THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF LATIN AMERICA (CRESPIAL)

SUMMARY

In conformity with the revised integrated comprehensive strategy for category 2 institutes and centres (37 C/Resolution 93), UNESCO undertook an evaluation of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America. Based upon that evaluation, the Director-General recommends that the Executive Board renew the designation of the Centre as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO.

A draft agreement negotiated between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Peru is available online on the website of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section. Deviations between that agreement and the model agreement in the current integrated comprehensive strategy (37 C/18 Part I) are included in the annex to the present document.

The financial and administrative implications of UNESCO’s cooperation with the Centre fall within the parameters of document 37 C/5 Approved.


PARIS, 2 April 2014 Original: English


194 EX/17 Part IV

INTRODUCTION

1. Following a proposal by Peru to establish the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America (CRESPIAL), and further to the decision by the Executive Board at its 172nd session (172 EX/Decision 60), the General Conference at its 33rd session approved the establishment of the Centre and authorized the Director-General to sign the Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Peru (33 C/Resolution 46). The Agreement was signed on 22 February 2006 and entered into force on 20 February 2008 for a period of six years.

2. By its 37 C/Resolution 93 the General Conference approved the revised integrated comprehensive strategy for category 2 institutes and centres and its attachments (Document 37 C/18 Part I), as recommended by the Executive Board in its 190 EX/Decision 18 (I). In conformity with that strategy, an independent evaluation was carried out at the end of 2013 concerning the Centre’s activities and its contribution to the strategic programme objectives of the Organization. That evaluation included a recommendation that UNESCO renew the Centre’s status as a category 2 centre, while integrating certain ameliorations into the renewal agreement and aligning it with the integrated comprehensive strategy.

THE EVALUATION

3. In conformity with the integrated comprehensive strategy, the evaluation reviewed both the Centre’s performance with respect to its objectives and functions, as specified in the 2006 agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Peru, and its contribution to UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and sectoral programme priorities and themes, as set out in recent Programmes and Budgets of the Organization, specifically the 34 C/5 Approved, 35 C/5 Approved and 36 C/5 Approved that applied during the period under evaluation. The evaluation involved wide consultation with the respective teams at the Centre and at UNESCO, representatives of the host country and nine of the participating countries, as well as a site visit and observation of meetings of the Centre’s Governing Board and Executive Committee. The report of the evaluation is available in Spanish and English on the website of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Section, at http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/Category2/.

4. The evaluation found that the Centre has managed to consolidate a position that is respected and highly valued by the Member States in the region, as demonstrated by its growth to fourteen participating countries (a fifteenth country adhered after the evaluation was concluded). This position allows the Centre to promote its general objectives. Among these objectives, countries especially value its ability to promote coordination, exchange and dissemination of information about intangible cultural heritage between countries, leading to greater cooperation and coherence both at the conceptual and public policy levels for safeguarding intangible cultural heritage, to more efficient use of the resources available and even to leveraging additional resources for intangible cultural heritage. This exchange is especially valuable for less experienced countries that benefit through CRESPIAL from the expertise of those with greater experience, and for cultural expressions that go beyond established borders.

5. However, the evaluation also found that the Centre’s integration with and contribution to UNESCO’s programme priorities and objectives were less effective than is required in the current integrated comprehensive strategy for category 2 centres. The evaluation therefore offered a number of recommendations for strengthening the Centre’s governance, programming and planning, as well as the communications between the Centre and UNESCO, in order to increase the effectiveness both of its activities in general and of its contributions to UNESCO’s programme priorities and objectives in particular.

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/Category2/

194 EX/17 Part IV – page 2

6. Given that the creation of the Centre was approved by the General Conference in 2005 (33 C/Resolution 46), simultaneously with the adoption of the first integrated comprehensive strategy (33 C/Resolution 90), the 2006 Agreement to establish the Centre did not explicitly require that it contribute directly to UNESCO’s programme priorities and objectives. The evaluation cited this lacuna as an important factor impinging against a stronger contribution by the Centre. The evaluation therefore recommended a number of specific provisions be included in a renewal agreement in order, first, to conform as closely as possible to the model agreement that figures into the integrated comprehensive strategy (37 C/18 Part I) and second, to clarify the Centre’s responsibility to make a ‘significant contribution to the UNESCO’s strategic programme objectives and expected results aligned with the four-year programmatic period of C/5 document (Programme and Budget), including the two global priorities of the Organization, and related sectoral or programme priorities and themes’, as provided in the current model agreement.

7. The proposed agreement for the renewal of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America deviates from the model agreement (Document 37 C/18 Part I, Attachment 2) in minor respects. Because this is a renewal, UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Peru sought to maintain the greatest possible continuity with the 2006 Agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Peru while conforming to the model agreement of the current integrated comprehensive strategy and responding to the concrete recommendations of the evaluation. Consequently, and in order to facilitate the formalities required by the domestic law of Peru, several articles have been retained from the previous Agreement even if they are no longer required by the present model agreement.

8. The four articles that deviate from the model agreement are annexed to this document so that the Executive Board can be fully informed thereof and may consider whether or not to renew the designation as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO and authorize the divergences, if it so decides.

9. Article 8 of the draft agreement describes the functions of an Executive Committee of the Governing Board, corresponding to Article 8 of the 2006 Agreement. Such an Executive Committee figures into the constitutive act of the Centre, and has proven to be an effective mechanism for preparing the work of the Governing Board. Although not required by the current model agreement, this article does not contradict any of its terms.

10. Similarly, Article 9 of the draft agreement describes the composition and functions of the Centre’s Secretariat and corresponds to Article 9 of the 2006 Agreement. Article 10 of the draft agreement describes the functions and responsibilities of the Director of the Centre, corresponding to Article 10 of the 2006 Agreement. As with Article 8 cited above, these provisions no longer figure into the current model agreement, but do not contradict any of its terms. The constitutive act of the Centre refers to both its Secretariat and its Director.

11. Finally, Article 7.1 of the draft agreement diverges in a minor respect from the model agreement because it omits reference to a periodic renewal of the Governing Board. The Governing Board is constituted of a representative of the Government of Peru, a representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, and a representative of each Member State that has sent notification for membership, in accordance with the stipulations of the agreement, and has expressed interest in being represented on the Board. Given that each entity should designate its own representative who acts in an ex officio capacity, and that each entity should have the prerogative to determine the duration of office of such representative, imposing a fixed period of renewal of the Board is not possible.

RECOMMENDATION

12. In conformity with the integrated comprehensive strategy, and based upon the results of the evaluation, the Director-General recommends that the Executive Board renew the designation of

194 EX/17 Part IV – page 3

the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO.

PROPOSED DECISION

14. In light of the above, the Executive Board may wish to adopt the following decision:


1. Recalling 37 C/Resolution 93 and 33 C/Resolution 46,

2. Taking into account document 37 C/18 Part I and its attachments,

3. Having examined document 194 EX/17 Part IV and its annex,

4. Notes the Director-General’s recommendation that the designation of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America (CRESPIAL) as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO should be renewed;

5. Further notes the deviations between, on the one hand, the draft agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Republic of Peru and, on the other hand, the model agreement for category 2 centres approved by the General Conference in 37 C/Resolution 93;

6. Decides to renew the designation of the Regional Centre for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Latin America (CRESPIAL) as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO;

7. Authorizes the Director-General to sign the corresponding agreement.

194 EX/17 Part IV Annex

ANNEX

DEVIATIONS OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE REGIONAL CENTRE FOR THE SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL

HERITAGE OF LATIN AMERICA (CRESPIAL) FROM THE MODEL AGREEMENT

Article 7 – Governing Board

7.1. The Centre shall be guided and overseen by a Governing Board (or comparable body) and include:

(a) a representative of the Government or his/her appointed representative;

(b) representatives of Member States, which have sent to the Centre notification for membership, in accordance with the stipulations of article 13.2 and have expressed interest in being represented on the Board;

(c) a representative of the Director-General of UNESCO.

[Articles 7.2 through 7.4 do not deviate from the model.]

Article 8 – Executive Committee

8.1. To ensure the effective functioning of the Centre, an Executive Committee composed of five members elected for four years by the Governing Board will be created. The Committee shall meet at least twice a year and be responsible for:

(a) monitoring the implementation of the long-term and medium-term programmes of the Centre as approved by the Governing Board;

(b) monitoring the implementation of the annual work plan of the Centre as approved by the Governing Board;

(c) reviewing the programme, the work plan and budget and submit its recommendations to the Board;

(d) proposing to the Board candidates for the post of Director of the Centre.

8.2. The Executive Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.

Article 9 – Secretariat

9.1. The Secretariat of the Centre shall consist of a Director and the staff necessary for the proper functioning of the Centre.

9.2. The Director shall be appointed for a term of four years by the Governing Board, after consultation with the Director-General of UNESCO, and shall have a university degree and recognized professional experience in one of the fields of intangible cultural heritage.

9.3. The other members of the Secretariat shall be:

(a) any person appointed by the Director in accordance with procedures established by the Governing Board;

194 EX/17 Part IV Annex – page 2

(b) any officials made available to the Centre by the Government, in accordance with national regulations.

Article 10 – Functions of the Director of the Centre

The Director of the Centre shall perform the following functions:

(a) direct the work of the Centre in accordance with the programmes and directives established by the Governing Board and the Executive Committee;

(b) propose, after consultation with UNESCO, the draft programme, work plan and budget to be submitted to the Executive Committee for recommendation to the Governing Board;

(c) prepare the documents for the Governing Board and the Executive Committee as well as the provisional agenda of their meetings, including any proposal he/she deems appropriate, and distribute them to their members no later than two weeks before the opening of the meetings;

(d) prepare and submit to the Governing Board reports on the activities of the Centre every six months;

(e) appoint staff members in accordance with the staffing table and the staff regulations and rules approved by the Governing Board.


194 EX/17 Part V

Executive Board dd four

Item 17 of the agenda


PART V

MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA AND UNESCO

FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT IN SRI LANKA OF THE SOUTH ASIAN CENTRE FOR TEACHER DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY

Following a proposal by the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to establish the South Asian Centre for Teacher Development as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO, in Meepe, Sri Lanka, the Executive Board at its 189th session approved the establishment of the Centre and authorized the Director-General to sign the corresponding agreement on the Centre with the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (189 EX/Decision 23).

A draft agreement was drawn up between UNESCO and the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. However, the latter is proposing modifications to it to take into account legal and procedural specificities as prescribed by the national legislation of Sri Lanka. The proposed agreement contained in document 194 EX/17 Part 5 deviates from the Model Agreement for category 2 institutes and centres approved by the General Conference at its 37th session in 37 C/Resolution 93. This document presents the proposals of Sri Lanka and the comments of the Director-General thereon to the Executive Board for its consideration.


PARIS, 9 April 2014 Original: English


194 EX/17 Part V

Introduction

1. At its 36th session in 2011, the General Conference delegated to the Executive Board the authority to take a decision on the establishment of the South Asian Centre for Teacher Development in Sri Lanka as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO and authorized the Director-General to sign the related Agreement (ref. 36 C/Resolution 15). Through 189 EX/Decision 23 (April 2012), the Executive Board approved the establishment of this Centre and authorized the signature of the corresponding Agreement (Annex of document 189 EX/23). This Agreement conformed to UNESCO’s guidelines concerning the creation of category 2 institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO and the Standard Model Agreement (35 C/Resolution 103), including on the Centre’s functional autonomy, legal personality, and governance and management.

2. At its 37th session in 2013, the General Conference revised the Integrated Comprehensive Strategy for Category 2 Institutes and Centres under the auspices of UNESCO and amended the Model Agreement for Category 2 Institutes and Centres as contained in document 37 C/18 (37 C/Resolution 93).

3. In July 2012, the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (GOSL) informed the Secretariat of its intentions to establish the Centre within the legal framework of a national institution, which is a deviation from the UNESCO standard model agreement. The GOSL further presented additional changes and deviations to the approved version of the Agreement which relate to the Centre’s functional autonomy, legal personality, and governance and management. From succeeding consultations, the Secretariat informed the GOSL that it was not within the Secretariat’s competence to approve the proposed modifications as they significantly deviate from UNESCO’s standard model agreement. Such substantive deviations can only be decided by the Executive Board.

4. In March 2014, the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (GOSL) submitted a request to include an item at the 194th session of the Executive Board on modifications to the Agreement on the South Asian Centre for Teacher Development.

Proposed modifications to the Agreement by the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

5. To ensure that the provisions of the Agreement are in conformity with the national legislation of Sri Lanka, and as all secondary educational institutions and the connected institutions come under the National Institute of Education (NIE), the GOSL has proposed modifications to the Agreement which relate to the functional autonomy, legal personality, and governance and management of the Centre. The details of the proposed modifications that deviate from the standard model agreement for category 2 centres and institutes can be summarized as follows:

(i) On Article 2 (Establishment) and Article 4 (Legal status) – the GOSL is proposing that the Centre shall be established as an integral part and within the legal framework of the National Institute of Education (NIE) established by the NIE Act No. 28 of 1985 of Sri Lanka, rather than a legally and functionally autonomous entity which is a key principle of UNESCO’s category 2 centres;

(ii) On Article 5 (Constitutive Act) – the GOSL is proposing that the Constitutive Act of the Centre would be the NIE Act No. 28 of 1985 of Sri Lanka rather than a separate constitutive act which would ensure its legal status;

(iii) On Article 6 (Functions/Objectives) – the GOSL is proposing that the Centre’s functions be within the framework of the overall objectives of the National Institute of Education while the Standard Model Agreement does not indicate that the functions of

194 EX/17 Part V – page 2

the Centre shall be subsumed under the overall functions/objectives of a national entity;

(iv) On Article 7 (Governing Board) – the GOSL is proposing that the Centre shall be guided and overseen by a Management Board that shall be established by the Council of the National Institute of Education and fall under the purview of the Council. The composition of the Management Board is also proposed to be modified with representatives of the host country numbering over half of its majority. The NIE Act does not expressly foresee that the NIE Council can establish a separate Management Board. The standard model agreement foresees the establishment of a Governing Board or a comparable body that is independent. In addition, the proposed functions of the Management Board deviate from the functions foreseen for the Governing Board in the UNESCO Model.

(v) On Article 9 (Contribution by the Government) – contributions of the host country to the Centre will be made through the National Institute of Education.

Comments of the Director-General on the proposed modifications

6. Given the importance of holistic teacher development to enhance delivery of quality education, the proposed South Asian Centre for Teacher Development in Sri Lanka has the potential to significantly contribute to UNESCO’s education strategic priority on teachers in the region.

7. Yet at the same time, the Director-General would like to recall some fundamental characteristics of category 2 institutes and centres under the auspices of UNESCO, as stipulated in the revised integrated strategy for category 2 institutes and centres approved by the 37th session of the General Conference (37 C/Resolution 93). A category 2 institute and centre under the auspices of UNESCO must have the following characteristics:

• Functional and legal autonomy: Article 4.2 of the Model Agreement stipulates that ‘The Government/State shall ensure that the Institute/Centre enjoys within its territory the functional autonomy necessary for the execution of its activities and the legal capacity…’

• Global, regional, subregional or interregional scope: Article B.1 of the revised integrated strategy states that the activities of category 2 institutes and centres must be global, regional, subregional or interregional in scope. […] Entities with a national scope only do not qualify for designation as category 2 institutes and centres.

8. As regards the management and administration of category 2 institutes and centres, the Director-General acknowledges that the need for flexibility and conformity to national legislation and contexts should be balanced with the principles of Institutes/Centres’ legal and functional autonomy. With the GOSL’s proposed modifications, the Director-General notes that the Centre will be under the authority of the National Institute of Education (NIE), and that its constitutive act would be the NIE Act. As the Centre becomes an integral part of a national institution, this affects its functional autonomy, legal personality, governance and management. There is also the risk of non-alignment with UNESCO’s programmatic priorities.

9. Furthermore, she notes that the proposal for the Centre to be guided and overseen by a Management Board established by the Council of the NIE, with representatives of the host country numbering over half its majority, may impact the regional representation and scope of the Centre.

10. Based on the above arguments, the Secretariat wishes to record its strong reservations to the proposed modifications from the GOSL which would effectively establish an education-related category 2 centre that significantly deviate from the standard model. Moreover, the Secretariat is concerned on creating precedence and the possibility for similar requests from other Centres to

194 EX/17 Part V – page 3

change their status and function directly under national authorities. It is also to be noted that the Agreement presented to the 189th session of the Executive Board was drafted with mutual consent of the Secretariat and the GOSL. Should the proposed modifications of the GOSL be accepted at this point, it would therefore undermine the rules and procedures which were set by UNESCO’s General Conference at its 37th session on the establishment of category 2 institutes and centres.

Action expected of the Executive Board

11. It is not within the purview of the Director-General to accept an Agreement which deviates significantly from the one approved by UNESCO’s Executive Board at its 189th session and the standard model agreement. The GOSL is thus requesting the Executive Board to review and decide on whether these proposed modifications can be accepted and for the Director-General to sign the revised corresponding Agreement in view of establishing the South Asian Centre for Teacher Development as a category 2 centre under the auspices of UNESCO, in Sri Lanka.

Proposed decision

12. In the light of the above, the Executive Board may wish to adopt the following decision.


1. Recalling 36 C/Resolution 15 and 189 EX/Decision 23,

2. Noting the Agreement approved by the Executive Board at its 189th session as contained in the Annex of document 189 EX/23,

3. Also recalling 37 C/Resolution 93 which requested the Director-General to apply the revised integrated strategy for category 2 institutes and centres to all proposals for the establishment of category 2 institutes and centre,

4. Having examined document 194 EX/17 Part 5,

5. Noting the modifications to the Agreement, as presented by the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,

6. Further noting the deviations of the proposed agreement between UNESCO and the Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka on the South Asian Centre for Teacher Development as reflected in document 194 EX/17 Part 5 from the Model Agreement for category 2 institutes and centres approved by the General Conference in its 37 C/Resolution 93,

7. Takes into consideration the comments of the Director-General on the proposed modification;

8. [Paragraph to be finalized in light of discussions of the Executive Board ]


executive board 194 ex/17 part i - unescounesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002265/226516e.pdf · 194...

Documents