REPORT OF THE AD HOC IHP GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 Paris, 13 July 2004 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION INTERNATIONAL HYDROLOGICAL PROGRAMME 16 th Session of the IHP Intergovernmental Council (Paris, September 2004) REPORT OF THE AD HOC IHP GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE Item 12 of the Provisional Agenda SUMMARY This document provides the report of the Ad Hoc IHP Governance Committee as stipulated in Resolution XV-7. It should be noted that in the relevant parts of the report comments by the secretariat have been added as footnotes. This document should be considered in conjunction with the three other documents concerning IHP Governance: IHP/IC-XVI/11 (Chairperson s paper on IHP Governance), IHP/IC-XVI/12 (External evaluation of IHP-V), and IHP/IC-XVI/13 (Strengthening and empowering the IHP National Committees). The Council is invited to examine the concluding recommendations. It should be noted that the Chairperson s paper puts forward suggestions for decision by the Council about IHP Governance, which take into account the recommendations of the Ad Hoc IHP Governance Committee. (SC-2004/CONF.203/CLD.8)

2 1. In Resolution XV-7, the 15 th session of the Intergovernmental Council of IHP decided to establish a new Ad Hoc IHP Governance Committee, adopted terms of reference, and asked that this Committee report to its 16 th session 1. The terms of reference are provided in Annex I. 2. The Chairperson of the Committee presented a report on the status of its work to the 36 th session of the IHP Bureau The final report of the Ad Hoc IHP Governance Committee is provided in Annex II. 4. After reviewing the status report and considering the history of discussions about IHP governance, the Bureau decided to invite the Chairperson of the Bureau to present a Chairperson s Paper for submission to the 16 th session of the IHP Council, in the spirit of bringing this matter [IHP governance] to a conclusion once and for all 3. The Chairperson s paper has been reproduced as document IHP/IC-XVI/11. 1 Ref. IHP/IC-XV/3, para for a report on the discussion, and Annex V, page 7 for Resolution XV-7. 2 Ref. IHP/Bur-XXXVI/13 for the status report, and XXXVI/13 Add. for an update on the status report and comments by the IHP Secretariat. 3 Ref. IHP/Bur-XXXVI/3, para

3 Annex I 1. OBJECTIVE ANNEX I NEW TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE AD HOC IHP GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE 1 The ad hoc IHP Governance Committee is a body re-established by the 15 th session of the Intergovernmental Council of the IHP in order to assess ways of enhancing the participation of all Member States of UNESCO in the IHP and the efficiency of the IHP governance and report to that effect, to the 16 th session of its Council, aiming at creating a consensus on the IHP governance. 2. COMPOSITION 2.1 The ad hoc IHP Governance Committee will be composed of 12 Members elected at the 15 th session of the Intergovernmental Council, reflecting an equitable geographical distribution, without financial implications for the IHP. 2.2 The Members of the Committee will elect the Chairperson among them. 2.3 Each Member shall consult and convey the views of all other interested Member States of UNESCO belonging to the same regional group, on the governance of IHP. 2.4 The Committee will communicate by and hold additional intersessional meetings as necessary and feasible. The Chairperson or a representative designated after consultation within the Committee may be invited to present reports of the Committee at the sessions of the Bureau of the Intergovernmental Council of the IHP. 3. FUNCTIONS 3.1 To prepare a report: Reviewing, on grounds of efficiency, flexibility and practicability, the existing and possible alternative governance structures of IHP; Considering all other aspects related to the Governance of IHP, including a strengthening of the test system of Regional Meetings; Hereby taking into account the report of the former ad hoc Governance Committee, presented at the 15 th Session of the Intergovernmental Council of IHP, encompassing the functions of Regional Meetings further revised and endorsed at the first meeting of the new ad hoc IHP Governance Committee, held 21 st June 2002 and annexed to these Terms of Reference, as well as all other relevant documents. 3.2 During the preparation of the above-mentioned report, to build on opinions and information from as many IHP National Committees as possible, in particular as expressed through the reports of the Regional Meetings. 3.3 To submit recommendations, as appropriate, to the Council at its 16 th session. 1 From IHP/IC-XV/3, Annex IV.

4 Annex II ANNEX II AD HOC IHP GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE AD HOC GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE The Ad Hoc Governance Committee (AHGC) was established during the 15 th Intergovernmental Council (IC) of IHP due to the fact that a consensus on changes in the governance mechanisms of IHP was not reached at that IC. The IC appreciated the efforts of the former AHGC, but considering the importance of a governance mechanism for IHP and the functioning of the IHP National Committees (NCs) the IC decided that the efforts should continue and a new AHGC be established. The IC adopted the terms of reference for the AHGC and elected the following persons as members: Electoral Group I: Electoral Group II: Electoral Group III: Electoral Group IV: Electoral Group Va: Electoral Group Vb: Mr D. Rosbjerg (Denmark) and Mr P. Givone (France) Mr M. Domokos (Hungary) and Mr V. Manukalo (Ukraine) Mr C.A. Castaño Uribe (Colombia) and Mr C. Aguilar Molina (El Salvador) Mr K.K.S. Bhatia (India) and Mr K. Abdullah (Malaysia) Mr J.A. Hanidu (Nigeria) and Mr M.R. Van Vliet (South Africa) Mr M.R. Shatanawi (Jordan) and Mr. O.M. Salem (Libya) The AHGC elected Mr D. Rosbjerg as its Chairperson. TERMS OF REFERENCE Functions 1. To prepare a report: - Reviewing, on grounds of efficiency, flexibility and practicability, the existing and possible alternative governance structures of IHP. - Considering all other aspects related to the Governance of IHP, including a strengthening of the test system of Regional Meetings, Hereby taking into account the addendum to the report of the former Ad Hoc Governance Committee, presented at the 15 th Session of the Intergovernmental Council of IHP, encompassing the functions of Regional Meetings further revised and endorsed at the first meeting of the new Ad Hoc IHP Governance Committee, held 21 st June 2002 and annexed to these Terms of Reference, as well as all other relevant documents. 2. During the preparation of the above-mentioned report, to build on opinions and information from as many IHP National Committees as possible, in particular as expressed through the reports of the Regional Meetings. 3. To submit recommendations, as appropriate, to the Council at its 16 th session. The Addendum to the report of the former committee to be taken into account recommends: To continue with a system of Regional Meetings and Joint Regional Meetings of the IHP National Committees, as follows:

5 Annex II - page 2 (a) The composition of the Meetings will generally correspond to the electoral regional groups of UNESCO. Participation in the Meetings will be open to governmental representatives of all Member States of the pertinent region, as well as to other interested members from other regions. Representatives of relevant non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations may assist as observers. (b) The IHP National Committees can decide the convening of subgroups or trans-regional meetings by taking into account the diverse hydrological, demographic, language, geographic or political characteristics. The conclusions of the Meetings should be informed to all countries in the regions. (c) Generally, at least one session of the Meetings should be held between consecutive sessions of the Council. (d) The Chairperson of the National Committee for IHP of the host country will be the Chairperson of the pertinent Meetings. The Meetings will elect other officers, as appropriate. (e) The Meetings should contribute to the decision-making process and governance of the IHP by performing the following functions: To specify the needs of the regions and set the priorities for implementing their needs within the framework of IHP; To encourage an active participation of the countries in the planning and implementation of the IHP; To review and follow-up on the progress of all IHP-related activities in the region; To follow-up on resolutions adopted by the IHP Intergovernmental Council; To share the knowledge of best practices and experiences in management of water resources for enhancing the regional co-operation; and, To make recommendations for consideration of the IHP Bureau. (f) The Meetings will be preferably held in accordance with other technical or scientific meetings with the aim of ensuring a greater participation and optimising costs. (g) The organization of the Meetings should not generate a substantive financial impact on the IHP regular budget. Participation should primarily be funded by the governments sending representatives. The host country and the pertinent regional office of UNESCO will facilitate the organization of the respective Meeting. CONDUCTANCE OF THE WORK (a) Initiating Letter Since the final report should build upon opinions in particular of the NCs as expressed through the reports of Regional Meetings, the Chairperson in a letter of 14 February 2003 addressed to the AHGC and copied to the Regional Hydrologists requested the committee members to initiate Regional Meetings as appropriate for their region and in that effort to call upon assistance from the Regional Hydrologist. It was suggested that the meetings should take place at the latest by early In support of the initiative the IHP Secretariat distributed the letter to all NCs urging them to become actively involved in the Regional Meetings. (b) Status Report To assess the progress in planning for Regional Meetings a meeting was held 14 August 2003 in Copenhagen between the AHGC chairperson and UNESCO staff member/ Secretary of the AHGC, Mr L. Mandalia. While in some regions the planning was in good progress, it was found that in other regions the necessary steps to ensure that regional meetings would be conducted were not yet taken.

6 Annex II page 3 With the dual purpose of reminding the regions lacking behind about the need for starting the procedure, and providing all the regions with an extended basis for their deliberations, it was decided to produce a Status Report for dissemination to the AHGC members, the Regional Hydrologists and the NCs. It was agreed that the Regional Hydrologists, in cooperation with the regional AHGC members, should be requested to take responsibility for: (i) (ii) (iii) Bringing the Governance Issue to the agenda of the Regional Meetings; Organising a discussion around the questions raised below; and Reporting to the AHGC chairperson on the findings of the meetings no later than February 2004 *. It was further agreed that the regions should be requested in particular to discuss the points A. and B. A. There is a wide consensus that all Member States should be actively involved, not only in participating in activities, but also in formulation and steering the IHP programmes. The general opinion is that Regional Meetings, where all concerned regional countries are able to participate, could be of great importance for the coherence and development of IHP. There is, of course, the problem that some National Committees are not in a position to finance their attendance at Regional Meetings. The setting up of Regional Councils raises financial demands to governments, by sending their delegations, as UNESCO is not covering the costs of administrative nature, and some governments may not be able to meet these demands. The Finance Committee, at its meeting in 1998, examined the financial implications of the various governance options and concluded that costs as well as benefits of the various options have to be taken into account. The Finance Committee was aware that benefits could only be expressed in qualitative terms. B. There has so far been a strong disagreement among the Member States about the possible upgrading of Regional Meetings to a system of Regional IHP Intergovernmental Councils. Very briefly the claimed pros and cons can be summarized as: a. Pros Regional councils will imply a stronger commitment of the Member States to the IHP activities and allow all Member States to take part in the governing mechanisms of IHP. b. Cons Regional councils will add another level to the decision-making process in the governing mechanism of IHP, imply additional costs, and impede a flexible structure of regional meetings **. No consensus has yet emerged over the past 13 years. In an effort to reconcile different positions, and as an interim measure for arriving at a consensus, the following was suggested: (1) The system of Regional Meeting is prolonged until a clear picture emerges. (2) The Regional Hydrologist will initiate, co-convene and co-organize regional meetings (joint regional, regional, or sub-regional meetings corresponding to the actual needs) and provide the necessary secretarial support. This will have minor financial implications for UNESCO, such as the mission costs of the relevant Regional Hydrologist. * ** Letter of 14 February 2003 refers. IHP/IC-XIII/Inf.14 para. 6 (see Annex III).

7 Annex II - page 4 Although some National Committees are functioning excellent, there are many that are less active for a number of reasons, the principal being lack of basic funding and secretarial support. Increased regional cooperation may not solve this national problem, but successful efforts from the Regional Meetings could act as a catalyst in activating these National Committees. Unfortunately, the Status Report of the AHGC fulfilled the above-mentioned two purposes only to a limited extent. The report was drafted late August 2003 but was for unknown reasons delayed at the IHP Secretariat for several months, such that it was first issued to the AHGC members and the Regional Hydrologists at 22 December Moreover, the IHP Secretariat decided that the Status Report, contrary to the Initiating Letter, should not be distributed to the NCs. Thus, the Status Report did unfortunately not serve as a background paper for the ongoing Regional Meetings. Later, the Secretariat forwarded the Status Report to the IHP Bureau, and the AHGC Chairperson was invited to present the report 2 April 2004 during the Bureau Meeting in Paris. After some discussion, in which the responses from the Regional Meetings were also taken into account, the AHGC was asked to submit its Final Report to the 16 th IC. Because the responses from the regions did not show any convergence, the Bureau also decided that, in parallel to the final work of the AHGC, the Chairperson of the present IHP Bureau should prepare a so-called Chairperson Paper on the Governance Issue for presentation at the 16 th IC. (c) Final Report Immediately following the April 2004 IHP Bureau Meeting the AHGC Chairperson prepared a draft final report, which was disseminated to the AHGC with a request for comments before 15 May Having received only supporting comments the AHGC Chairperson in June 2004 completed and submitted the final report to the 16 th IC. SUMMARY-REVIEW OF THE IHP GOVERNANCE SYSTEM AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES Obviously, the existing Governance Structure with an IC covering about 1/3 of the Member States does not directly involve all Member States in the planning and execution of the IHP. This situation, in combination with the fact that many NCs do not function in an optimal way, is the main background for the long-standing and still ongoing discussion on a possible change of the Governance System. It is generally agreed that a change of the Governance System can only be justified, if it will improve the efficiency of IHP, and if it will be to the benefit of the Member States by serving their needs. The AHGC has been requested to review the existing and possible alternative governance structures on grounds of efficiency, flexibility and practicability. Within the existing structure it is in principle possible to establish long-standing regional cooperation and conduct regional meetings. Before the current test system of Regional Meetings this was done to a varying degree, and where organised properly, it has led to great improvements in the functioning of the NCs and their involvement in the IHP. Examples are the Arab States and the South- East Asia Regional Steering Committee. The present test system of Regional Meetings tends to support the experience obtained by the forerunners. Thus, it seems possible to remedy a great deal of the problems with the existing Governance Structure by such enhanced regional cooperation. A major advantage of a system of Regional Meetings is its flexibility. It can adapt to the actual needs of the regions and allow for trans-regional or sub-regional meetings wherever needed. Problems, however, occurred in Africa, where it has not yet been possible to organise Regional Meetings due to lack of funding, and where some countries for the same reason have not been able to send representatives to Regional Meetings. Thus, special efforts are needed in order to find solutions to these problems.

8 Annex II page 5 The change of the Governance Structure by introducing Regional Intergovernmental Councils (RICs), as subsidiary bodies of the IC, has the great advantage that all member states will be directly involved in governance of IHP. It will become an obligation for the member states to fund their participation in the RICs, thereby, at least theoretically, solving the attendance problem. It might be a great improvement, but it may be questioned if all member states will indeed be able to comply with this obligation. A major drawback of the system is its lack of flexibility. RICs corresponding to the electoral groups of UNESCO will, because of the diverse hydrological, demographic, linguistic, geographical and political characteristics, in parts of the world not be considered as an appropriate regional representation. Another possible shortcoming of the RIC-system is the added bureaucracy due to the two-level governance system. Further, conducting RICs will be much more demanding than just holding Regional Meetings. In some regions, for example, simultaneous translation facilities may be needed. Thus, it is likely that RICs will become more costly than Regional Meetings. Another option for change is to establish a fully centralised Governance System in which all member states can play an active role. This will have the character of a general assembly and necessitate facilities for very large meetings, a requirement that will be difficult to meet. Alternatively, a fully decentralised Governance Structure comprising only RICs will not be able to respond adequately to the demands for global initiatives and should therefore not be considered as a viable solution. POSSIBILITY OF AN UPGRADED SYSTEM OF REGIONAL MEETINGS One of the obligations of the AHGC has been to consider a strengthening of the test system of Regional Meetings. This was done in the AHGC Status Report by describing an upgraded system of Regional Meetings in which the Regional Hydrologist initiates, co-convenes and co-organises joint regional, regional, or sub-regional meetings and provides the necessary secretarial support. This is actually true for a few of the regions/sub-regions, and the main change will therefore be that this system is extended to all regions, such that it will become an obligation for the Regional Hydrologist to initiate, co-convene and co-organise meetings according to the actual regional needs. In this way the procedure for conducting successful Regional Meetings can be distributed effectively to all other regions/sub-regions. Admittedly, no change of the Governance Structure is involved in the upgrading of the Regional Meetings, but the active role of NCs in the IHP will be greatly enhanced. Thus, indirectly the objectives of a changed Governance Structure are likely to be met. Some Regional Meetings have access to additional funding for participation of those NCs that encounter financial problems. This is perhaps one of the reasons for the successful performance of these Regional Meetings. Thus, finding a solution to the funding problem is crucial for improving the participation in regional cooperation. As IHP is not able to fund administrative meetings, Regional Meetings should preferably be organised in connection with such technical/scientific sessions for which funding can be provided. This is a challenge for the IHP system, which has so far not been given due consideration. As mentioned above, creation of RICs may theoretically solve the funding problem, but in real life the problem is likely to stay. More emphasis on innovative solutions to the problem of providing funding for regional cooperation/meetings is therefore needed. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM THE VARIOUS REGIONAL MEETINGS Group I and II (Europe and North America) held a joint meeting and showed high appreciation for a flexible structure. They are satisfied with the informal character of Regional Meetings, as opposed to RICs, and recommend that the present test system of Regional Meetings is made permanent. The central role of the Regional Hydrologist is emphasised. GroupIII (Latin America/Caribbean), in two sub-regional meetings, has come to the conclusion that they prefer the establishment of RICs. At the same time they recognise the needs for strengthening the NCs using a number of different instruments.

9 Annex II - page 6 Group IV (Central and South-East Asia/Pacific) in a sub-regional meeting of the South-East Asia Regional Steering Committee discussed the governance problem in detail. There were no strong wishes for change, and the conclusion was that the Addendum, i.e. a system of Regional Meetings, is an acceptable process for Regional Governance. Group V(a) (South Saharan Africa) has not been able to organise Regional Meetings. Group V(b) (Arab States) recommends to converting the Regional Meetings into a system of RICs, and emphasises the added commitment and the opportunity for all Member States to take part in the governing mechanism of IHP. They also recommend that Regional Meetings should be organised corresponding to the actual regional needs. CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS The above responses show that a consensus on RICs is still unlikely to be obtained. The positions of the regions are virtually unchanged on this matter. It is, however, obvious that a general agreement exists as regards the value of conducting Regional Meetings. The experience obtained during the extended test period has revealed that the increased activity of the NCs due to the meetings has a strong positive effect: NCs become more involved and can contribute in a much more organised way to the governance of IHP. This is happening despite the fact that the meetings are formally not an integral part of the Governance System. With this background in mind, and due to the fact that a consensus on continuation of Regional Meetings seems likely to be obtained, it is recommended that the system of Regional Meetings be upgraded with a stronger involvement of the Regional Hydrologist. Hence, a global coverage of Regional Meetings can be reached. A special effort will be required in Africa, and the funding problem must be tackled in a much more innovative and effective way. With full advice and technical support from the Secretariat it should be possible to overcome these problems to the benefit of a more viable IHP. Finally, as the minutes of the Regional Meetings are always sent to the IHP secretariat, it will be fully informed about the developments in the Regions and can respond appropriately. In this way an interactive and strongly improved dialogue is established between the NCs in the different regions and the central governance of IHP.

10 Annex III ANNEX III An extract of IHP/IC-XIII/Inf FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF IHP GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE The FC expressed its concern on the poor response and reiterated its opinion that costs as well as benefits of the various options have to be taken into consideration. The FC is aware of the fact that the benefits of both options can mostly be expressed in qualitative terms. Comments on budgetary aspects were raised in the response of some IHP/NCs. From the analysis of the responses of the IHP/NCs by the FC members, it has been concluded that there are additional questions that may be posed to the FC as well as statements on how to cover the cost differences between Option O and Option 3. The FC is of the opinion that these have to be analyzed by the FC before further decisions are taken on this matter..