REPORT of the MEETING of EUROPEAN NATIONAL COMMISSIONS for UNESCO LEUVEN, BELGIUM 26 April 2013
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT OF THE MEETING OF EUROPEAN NATIONAL COMMISSIONS FOR UNESCO LEUVEN, BELGIUM 26 April 2013 I – Introduction 1. The meeting of European National Commissions was convened at the initiative of the Flemish Commission for UNESCO and organized together with the Netherlands and German National Commissions, with the support of the UNESCO Liaison Office in Brussels. The meeting was attended by the Secretaries-General of the ten following European Member States: Austria, Croatia, Finland, Flanders-Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Switzerland and The Netherlands. 2. The Presidents of the Netherlands and the Flemish Commissions also participated in this international meeting. Experts from Flanders, the Netherlands and Germany made presentations on the themes of World Heritage and Open Access. A number of external panellists took part in the discussions (see annex I). The Head of the UNESCO Liaison Office in Brussels and two staff members attended the meeting as observers. 3. In 2012, during an informal meeting between representatives of the Flemish and German Commissions as well as the UNESCO Liaison Office in Brussels, all parties agreed that UNESCO’s intellectual mandate is its core role. Moreover, it was emphasised that this mission of UNESCO is crucial for successfully coordinating and advising policies. Consequently, UNESCO’s intellectual power need to be strengthened. As an intellectual agency, UNESCO must develop the highest standards in dealing with the most urging issues in its fields of competence. All parties further agreed that National Commissions for UNESCO should be mobilized to achieve this fundamental objective. 4. Prior to the Leuven meeting, the Flemish Commission sent a memorandum recalling UNESCO’s history as an organization founded to promote intellectual cooperation. This memorandum highlights the importance of the National Commissions for UNESCO in achieving its intellectual mandate. In addition, it outlines the expectations of the first meeting. The memorandum under cover was the basis of the in-depth discussion during the seminar. II – Opening of the Meeting 5. In his opening statement, Professor Marc Vervenne, President of the Flemish UNESCO Commission in Belgium, dwelt upon an article in Der Spiegel (20/2008), building on the premise that UNESCO "has lost much of its former relevance". Professor Vervenne pointed out that the National Commissions originally were often entirely composed of scientists, writers and philosophers. Their intellectual and cultural contribution ensured that UNESCO assembled expertise and pursued a scientifically grounded policy. Recently, there are concerns about the danger of politicization of the Organisation which may lead to compromising the organisation's independence. This is clearly a real stumbling block. It is both an issue to work on and an encouragement to cultivate UNESCO's initial reflective power and bring it more explicitly to the fore. Professor Vervenne remembered in this respect the late Baron Georges-Henri Dumont, an intellectual of many talents and a committed citizen, who died on 6 April 2013 and had been General Secretary of the Belgian National UNESCO Commission for more than two decades (1974-1995). 6. In his introduction, the Secretary-General of the Flemish Commission for UNESCO, Mr Tijs D’Hoest, referred to the origins of UNESCO: the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC), which was a true international platform of intellectuals, scientists and artists. Mr D’Hoest particularly encouraged the participants to reaffirm the importance of 1 National Commissions for UNESCO in its fields of competence. Moreover, he emphasized the importance of building bridges between National Commissions from neighbouring countries in Europe and worldwide. 7. Mr Robert Quarles van Ufford, Secretary-General of the Netherlands National Commission for UNESCO, dealt with the Organization’s relevance in the fields of developing innovative ideas and ethical attitudes. Its success in intercultural dialogue, conflict and identity, and sustainable development make UNESCO a unique platform of dialogue, often referred to as the ‘UN think tank’. However, there is a risk that UNESCO’s visibility and credibility may gradually erode, especially in Europe, if one does not maintain high standards for the participation of qualified experts in UNESCO. Therefore Mr Quarles van Ufford invited the National Commissions to seize the present occasion to play a more prominent role, referring to Director-General Irina Bokova. Quoting three recent successful examples from the areas of education, cultural heritage and digital preservation, Mr Quarles van Ufford stated that National commissions should strive to mobilize their best experts and professional networks to contribute to the improvement of UNESCO’s standard setting policy work. He also encouraged European National Commissions to act as real catalysts linking expertise from the field to joint policy work in UNESCO and the EU. 8. Dr Roland Bernecker, Secretary-General of the German National Commission for UNESCO, referred to the 2008 article from Der Spiegel already quoted. In line with this statement heidentified as the main question of the Leuven meeting: Can we, National Commissions for UNESCO in Europe, contribute to strengthen UNESCO’s intellectual role in order to make it shine again? To achieve this objective, it will be necessary to make better use of the National Commissions’ unique feature as flexible agencies and their force as coordinators of strong expert networks. A structured and focused cooperation of National Commissions in Europe could be an important strategic step to significantly increase relevance, impact and visibility of National Commissions and of UNESCO in Europe. The cooperation should not be limited to current members of the EU. Dr Bernecker concluded by asking the participants to reflect on a concrete structure for such a network which could comprise an annual plenary meeting, the election of a small group of speakers, and procedures to identify relevant issues which could be dealt with by transnational expert teams etc. III – Round-table discussion 9. Ms Marie Paule Roudil, Head of the UNESCO Liaison Office in Brussels, explained that the Liaison Office is at the National Commissions’ disposal to accompany them in their interactions with the EU. The Liaison Office is willing to contribute to the construction of the platform that the National Commissions will propose. The expertise of the National Commissions is an asset for the EU as well: after adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, many fields of competence of UNESCO are now shared with the EU but are not met by experts. Mr Jan De Bisschop intervened to elaborate on the way cooperation with the EU works. He concluded by saying that National Commissions are the ideal and only partner for UNESCO in this regard. 10. Ms Bénédicte Selfslagh, a World Heritage expert, shared her experience about emerging initiatives and explained that the framework that is to be developed with the EU must go beyond solely financial aspects. Ms Selfslagh then insisted on the importance of constructive critique and on the main asset of National Commissions: expertise. Many participants re- emphasized the expertise aspect, which is where the National Commissions will make a difference. 2 11. Mr Guy Clausse, Director at the European Investment Bank (EIB), evoked cooperation opportunities for UNESCO with the EIB, namely in the fields of heritage and arts education. Mr Clausse also mentioned the availability of structured funds to be used for cooperation projects in Europe. The Liaison Office could be the main instrument for acquiring such funds. 12. Some participants expressed their concern about the term “intellectual”. They questioned whether it could be seen as deceiving into believing that the objective of the network of National Commissions is to share expertise in UNESCO’s fields of competence at international level. Moreover, the term might refer to an outmoded idea on “intellectuals” that is no more relevant today. They preferred the idea of experts who are able to communicate in an understandable way to spread UNESCO’s work. See in Annex IV a stimulating note (German) on this issue by Dr Gabriele Eschig, Secretary- General National Commission for UNESCO, Austria. 13. All participants welcomed the initiative because it is an opportunity for National Commissions to contribute to renewing UNESCO’s power of inspiration and credibility by instigating a real platform for debate and dialogue. However, a majority also insisted on the need to clearly define the concept of “the intellectual role” of UNESCO as well as the objectives National Commissions aim at achieving with this particular mission of the organization. Moreover, how can they realize these goals? Is there a common position? What message will be sent to UNESCO and to the Brussels Liaison Office? Without a clear structure, the momentum risks to get lost. 14. Concerning the first steps of a concrete cooperation among European National Commissions, one participant suggested to communicate on a more frequent basis , among others to carefully prepare the Executive Board documents as well as to report to others on regional meetings, such as the Nordic Meeting of National Commissions. Another participant proposed to start mobilizing civil society rapidly by making a list of experts who are able to communicate to the broader public on UNESCO’s work. One participant said it is time to think about concrete cooperation