Category 1 Institutes discussion room

Dear colleagues,

We’re excited to open this space to all members contributing to the development of UNESCO’s new Partnership Strategy—with a special spotlight on the vital role of Category 1 Institutes.

This is your space for open dialogue, shared reflection, and creative thinking. We warmly invite you to contribute your experiences, challenges, and ideas on how the strategy can better harness the strengths of CAT1 Institutes to build more impactful, inclusive, and forward-looking partnerships.

To kick off the conversation, we encourage you to revisit the key themes already introduced—such as strengthening collaboration, scaling successful models, addressing common challenges, and identifying areas where CAT1 Institutes can lead.

Please join by replying to this post or starting a new thread—your voice matters. Every contribution will help shape a strategy that reflects the diversity, innovation, and leadership of the CAT1 network.

Thank you for your engagement—we look forward to a vibrant and inspiring exchange!

Dear Ilona 

Here are some Inputs from MGIEP

a) Multiple institutes should apply for international funding leveraging comparative strengths (e.g., research in science of learning for SEL/ Peace, curriculum for UNESCO MGIEP, data and planning strengths from another). There should be collective call and an HQ person should coordinate this. A dashboard of available research grants will be helpful for all.

b) Many times member states look to UNESCO for very specific problems and seek research informed solutions and technical expertise in their countries and different Category 1 institutes may have the technical expertise to respond to such a need, but oft times the category 1 is not aware of that demand unless informed by HQ or personal contact by field office. The presence of a cat 1 can really help elevate the quality of response, how do we make a mechanism so that Cat1s know the demand side from member states? Some dashboard? That we can look into every month and if relevant get in touch with the designated FO/ HQ Focal?

c) Developing policy forming research indicators ( like WB owns GDP) UNESCO should own the Education for Peace index or SEL index in education, or a Youth Competency Index for Peace,  or as MGIEP had developed an indicator to measure how does lack of SEL in education affect GDP ( like MGIEP’s Digital Readiness Index to help governments decide where to put money for maximum effect in implementing  their Digital strategy for education ), we can work with other cat 1 to think up and develop these UNESCO owned indicators. HQ should use its as a tool in its list of services for policy advise in measuring effectiveness and monetise the service. Cat1 and UNESCO chairs should brainstorm for what kind of indicators for UNESCO to own and make them.

d)MGIEP will soon have the first scientifically validated Empathy assessment gamified tool, UNESCO should own it (Like OECD owns PISA) Just like literacy and numeracy are assessed empathy assessment measures SDG4.7 skills in learners that is foundational and necessary to build peace. It should be rolled out for adoption across member states.

Regards

Archana Chaudhary

1. In what ways can UNESCO better leverage the unique expertise and capacities to strengthen strategic partnerships at global, regional, and national levels?

UNESCO-UNEVOC manages the UNEVOC Network, a global community of over 250 Centres in 152 countries including ministries, national bodies, TVET institutions, and training providers. Within this network, we have established a Roster of Experts and a group of UNEVOC Reference Centres, which serve as regional leaders in innovation and capacity development.

UNESCO can better leverage this ecosystem by:

• Tapping into the roster of experts for program implementation, technical advice, and regional coordination.
• Engaging ministries and national partners already part of the UNEVOC Network who, in several instances, have directly funded projects led by UNEVOC.
• Creating collaborative initiatives that involve both global expertise and localized ownership, ensuring long-term sustainability.

2. What types of partnerships have proven most effective in advancing your institute’s mandate, and how could these be scaled or replicated across your network?

Our most effective partnerships fall into three categories:

• Government and national body cooperation: These partnerships often involve co-funding and joint implementation. One scalable model is when national partners finance activities while UNESCO ensures technical quality and coordinates key personnel involvement.
• Collaboration with countries bilateral and multilateral partners:  To jointly provide at country level:
  • Continuous professional development programmes for TVET staff.
  • Institutional capacity-building interventions tailored to national systems.
• Private sector collaboration: We have worked successfully with companies such as HP, Huawei, and KPMG. These partnerships bring innovation, digital tools, and market relevance to TVET initiatives. However, scaling them across the network requires:
  • Streamlined due diligence processes to reduce administrative delays.
  • More flexibility in cost structures, especially regarding indirect costs, which often deter private partners.

These models can be expanded across the UNEVOC Network with strategic support and co-financing mechanisms.

3. How can the new Partnership Strategy support more systematic collaboration and knowledge exchange among UNEVOC and with other parts of UNESCO?

To foster collaboration and shared value creation, the Strategy could:

• Establish bi-annual coordination meetings between UNEVOC and BSP to align on funding opportunities and strategic priorities.
• Allocate seed funding or technical assistance envelopes that UNEVOC could use to mobilize consultants for proposal development and strategic foresight—essential given the small size and high workload of the UNEVOC team.
• Promote horizontal knowledge exchange with other UNESCO entities through joint calls, collaborative missions, and shared research agendas.

4. What are the main challenges your institute faces in establishing or sustaining impactful partnerships, and how could UNESCO help address these through the new strategy?

We face several structural and operational challenges:

• Project-based nature of our activities: Most of our work involves training and institutional support lasting six months to two years, which limits long-term partnership engagement.
• Limited dedicated staff: Temporary staffing and turnover due to better offers make it difficult to sustain partnership efforts or maintain institutional memory.
• Decentralized partnership discussions: Many field-level discussions happen independently across institutes, often lacking coherence or coordination. Overlaps occur despite defined mandates, especially in areas such as youth employment, skills, and digital learning.

UNESCO can help by:

• Clarifying and reinforcing roles and mandates across its education entities.
• Promoting joint planning with field offices, avoiding duplication and maximizing collective impact.
• Providing stable resources for partnership management and institutional continuity. 

  5. Are there specific thematic areas or emerging issues where UNEVOC could play a leading role in shaping UNESCO’s partnership agenda for 2026–2029?

  UNEVOC is uniquely positioned to lead and support partnerships in the following strategic areas:

• Green and sustainable skills development.
• Youth employability and entrepreneurship.
• Work-based learning and quality apprenticeships.
• Skills foresight and anticipation.
• Private sector engagement and co-design of curricula.
• AI and digital transformation of TVET.
• Innovation and excellence in TVET, especially through the transformation of TVET institutions into hubs of innovation.
• Gender equality and social inclusion in TVET, to ensure that no learner is left behind.

Dear colleagues, 

Our sincere appreciation to ICTP, IITE, MGIEP and UNEVOC for enriching the discussion around UNESCO’s new Partnership Strategy. Your thoughtful inputs have helped illuminate pathways for more inclusive, impactful, and forward-looking partnerships.

Your contributions have laid a strong foundation—highlighting successful models, surfacing shared challenges, and showcasing the leadership potential of Category 1 Institutes.

We warmly invite the remaining Institutes to add their voice and share your perspectives, ideas, and experiences to help ensure the strategy reflects the full diversity and innovation of our institutes and centres.

Here are a few key reflections drawn from your contributions:

• ICTP emphasized the importance of leveraging scientific collaboration across borders, especially in support of capacity-building in the Global South. Their experience highlights how partnerships rooted in knowledge exchange can foster long-term impact.

• IITE brought forward valuable insights on digital transformation in education, stressing the need for inclusive technologies and teacher training. Their work underscores the potential of CAT1 Institutes to lead in shaping equitable digital learning ecosystems.

• MGIEP shared innovative approaches to social-emotional learning and gaming for education, reminding us of the power of creativity and learner-centered design in building future-ready education systems.

• UNEVOC highlighted the role of technical and vocational education in sustainable development, and the importance of scaling successful models through regional and global networks.

These contributions are already helping to shape a strategy that reflects the diversity, innovation, and leadership of the CAT1 network. Let’s continue building this strategy together—one that truly harnesses the collective strength of the CAT1 community.

Dear Ilona and colleagues.

Below some inputs from the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). Happy to continue eschanging further with you and to support this important exercise. Raphaelle.

**

In Part II.

Context- some missing characteristics/ challenges that could help better understand the environment UNESCO is evolving in:

UNESCO’s political perception can affect partnerships, particularly with governments. It’s important to consider how UNESCO manages this political dimension institutionally and ensures effective partnerships despite potential sensitivities.

The ODA cuts starting in 2024 will reduce funding opportunities for UNESCO, especially from key donors like the GPE and World Bank. This poses a growing risk, as these organizations will face shifting donor priorities, impacting education financing. From 2026-2029, GPE may also change its funding structure to adapt to this new environment. Scenario planning and diversification strategies are needed, including bilateral outreach, financing diagnostics, and early inclusion of C1 Institutes in multi-donor initiatives.

Donors increasingly demand proximity to results and country-level transformation. To meet this, UNESCO’s Field Offices and C1 Institutes need enhanced visibility and resources. The RM Strategy should prioritize localization by:

• Promoting C1 Institutes’ expertise through HQ and Field Offices.
• Creating joint country partnership briefs and offering technical support for local co-creation.

 While diversifying partnerships increases transaction costs and pressures UNESCO’s capacity, a stronger internal coordination mechanism is needed.

Then , on your questions:

• In what ways can UNESCO better leverage the unique expertise and capacities of Category 1 Institutes to strengthen strategic partnerships at global, regional, and national levels?

To enhance the visibility and clarity of UNESCO’s technical offerings and demonstrate its added value, Category I Institutes (C1Is) should be more systematically integrated into UNESCO's strategic partnerships. This will showcase their unique expertise and comparative advantages.

This integration should be particularly driven through UNESCO Field Offices, as local engagement is crucial for donor and partner relationships.

Field Offices should actively promote the expertise and offerings of C1Is at the country level, ensuring a coherent and systematic approach. This can include organizing annual and institutional information sessions and pooling resources to communicate the Institutes’ contributions effectively.

To further enhance internal coherence, UNESCO could pilot Institute Visibility Days, fostering awareness and strengthening alignment across the organization.

• What types of partnerships (e.g., with governments, academia, private sector, civil society) have proven most effective in advancing your institute’s mandate, and how could these be scaled or replicated across the CAT1 network?

Partnerships with donor governments offering flexible funding are among the most effective for C1Is. Similarly, UN-UN partnerships, such as with UNICEF, are highly successful in delivering quality work at the country level, showcasing collaboration, and advancing global advocacy.

To build a strong ecosystem, partnerships with universities and civil society organizations (CSOs) are also valuable. While these are often non-financial, they play a critical role in engaging local actors and countries, supporting discussions with donors when necessary, and enhancing credibility and technical capacity.

Working with regional organizations and development banks is more challenging, but UNESCO HQ and Field Offices can support C1Is in these strategic partnerships by integrating C1Is into discussions with these actors, increasing their visibility and impact.

We could also propose high-level ADG-led brokering missions, with C1Is’ technical expertise as the foundation for these initiatives.

• How can the new Partnership Strategy support more systematic collaboration and knowledge exchange among Category 1 Institutes and with other parts of UNESCO?
• UNESCO HQ should support Category I Institutes (C1Is) in developing and communicating performance frameworks that link funding to results using investor-friendly indicators. This will help build strong investment cases and enhance the appeal to potential funders. These frameworks should be developed in collaboration with several C1Is to ensure coherence and improve readability for partners and donors.
• BSP and relevant sectors should better incorporate C1Is into the preparation and discussions of the annual Structured Financing Dialogue with Permanent Delegations. Similarly, C1Is should be more involved in strategic dialogues with partners and donors when relevant, ensuring they have access to important information to engage effectively. This will increase visibility and readability of C1Is' technical expertise, supporting impact-driven and strategic discussions.
• To further enhance internal collaboration, Partnership Officers or Executive Officers from C1Is should be integrated more formally into BSP team meetings, or working groups with improved information sharing and tools exchange. This will create a network of C1Is, enabling them to share challenges and opportunities.

Additionally, we should:

• Establish regular cross-Institute learning exchanges coordinated by BSP.
• Launch a shared digital dashboard for C1Is to track opportunities

• What are the main challenges your institute faces in establishing or sustaining impactful partnerships, and how could UNESCO help address these through the new strategy?

External factors of risks like ODA cuts are the main challenges.

• Are there specific thematic areas or emerging issues where CAT1 Institutes could play a leading role in shaping UNESCO’s partnership agenda for 2026–2029?

UNESCO can leverage its gender equality priority to lead in gender-transformative education and systemic reforms, positioning itself as a unique player in global education:

• Highlight gender equality as a driver for education quality, equity, resilience, and peacebuilding.
• Focus on gender equality to drive high-impact partnerships with foundations, donors, and youth platforms.
• Embed these priorities into partnership offers and support cross-institute initiatives and pooled investment cases linking gender, planning, resilience, and learning outcomes.

Other impactful thematics:

• Using data and evidence for policy making.

• Education planning capacity development and training with national or regional training institutions  
• Education financing
• Education policy implementation
• Crisis-sensitive and climate-resilient education systems;
• UNESCO could also consider hosting or co-convening a flagship pooled fund (e.g. on gender and learning resilience)

Dear colleagues at IIEP and UIS,

Thank you for sharing such a rich and insightful contribution to the reflection on UNESCO’s evolving partnership strategy. Your input brings valuable perspectives that will help shape a more responsive and impactful approach to resource mobilization and collaboration.

We particularly appreciate the breadth and depth of your analysis. The following are just a few examples of the many valuable points you raised:

• The recognition of the growing donor preference for consortium-based funding and the call to strengthen collaboration with UN agencies, academia, and national authorities.
• The emphasis on systematically integrating Category 1 Institutes into strategic partnerships and country-level programming, including innovative ideas such as “Institute Visibility Days” and joint country briefs.
• The proposal to enhance internal coordination and knowledge exchange through cross-Institute learning platforms and shared digital tools.
• The strategic positioning of UNESCO in thematic leadership areas such as gender-transformative education, crisis-sensitive systems, and data-driven policy making, including the suggestion to host a flagship pooled fund.

These examples reflect a strong alignment with current donor trends and UNESCO’s mandate. We look forward to continuing this dialogue and exploring how these ideas can be operationalized in the next phase of the strategy development.

Dear colleagues from the Category 1 Institutes,

On behalf of BSP, our sincere thanks to each of you for your active engagement, thoughtful insights, and generous contributions to the SparkBlue consultations on UNESCO’s new Partnership Strategy.

Your inputs have been instrumental in shaping a more inclusive, coordinated, and impactful approach to partnerships. From highlighting successful models and surfacing shared challenges to offering practical suggestions for simplifying internal processes and capturing lessons across regions, your contributions have laid a strong input for the Strategy.

We are especially grateful for the examples and innovations shared which have helped illuminate pathways for more forward-looking and transformative partnerships. These reflections demonstrate the leadership, diversity, and creativity across the CAT1 network.

This consultation is part of a broader commitment to transparency and inclusivity. As we move forward with implementation, we will continue to rely on your collaboration, insights, and support to ensure the Strategy delivers on its ambitions and reflects the full strength of our Institutes and Centres.

Thank you again for your time, dedication, and for helping shape UNESCO’s future approach to partnerships.

Some inputs from IESALC:

1. Leveraging Category 1 Institutes' Expertise for Strategic Partnerships 

Category 1 Institutes collectively represent UNESCO's operational excellence and technical depth. To better leverage our unique position, UNESCO should:

• Position CAT1 Institutes as UNESCO's "Centers of Excellence Network": We are not merely implementing bodies but knowledge producers, standard-setters, and innovation hubs. Our collective mandate to conceptualize, design, and formulate UNESCO's programmes while maintaining functional autonomy makes us ideal partnership anchors. UNESCO should present us as a unified technical resource offering specialized expertise that partners cannot find elsewhere in the UN system.
• Establish a "CAT1 Institutes Partnership Gateway": Create a mechanism where partners can access the combined expertise of all nine institutes through coordinated entry points. Whether a government needs education sector planning, a foundation seeks to support scientific research, or a private sector entity wants to contribute to sustainable development, they should be able to engage the full CAT1 network's capabilities seamlessly.
• Leverage our dual nature - global mandate with specialized focus: Our institutes operate at the intersection of global standard-setting and specialized technical assistance. This positions us uniquely to broker partnerships that translate global commitments into regional and national action. UNESCO should systematically include CAT1 institutes in all major partnership negotiations as technical guarantors of quality and impact.
• Utilize our convening power and neutrality: As integral parts of UNESCO with degrees of functional autonomy, we can convene diverse stakeholders - from governments to civil society - with the credibility of the UN system while maintaining operational flexibility. This makes us ideal facilitators for complex multi-stakeholder partnerships.

2. Most Effective Partnership Types

From IESALC's specific experience in higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean, and beyond, several partnership models have proven particularly effective:

• Regional government networks with cascading implementation: Our partnership with Uruguay to develop joint work programmes that then influence other Latin American countries demonstrates how bilateral government partnerships can scale regionally. The programme aims to drive significant changes in higher education policymaking in UNESCO Member States, both at governmental and institutional levels. This model works because it combines high-level political commitment with technical expertise.
• University consortia and rector networks: Our Rectors' Network for Sustainability, bringing together 89 leaders from 30 countries, shows how peer-to-peer partnerships among university leaders drive faster change than top-down approaches. The network effect is powerful - when one rector sees another implementing successful changes, adoption accelerates.
• Hybrid partnerships combining capacity building with policy advice: Our Campus IESALC platform, which trained over 33,000 people in 2024, works because it combines online learning with direct technical assistance to governments. Partners value this dual approach - building individual capacities while strengthening institutional systems.
• South-South cooperation frameworks: Partnerships that facilitate exchange between Latin American countries and other Global South regions (particularly through our collaboration with the UN Office for South South Cooperation) have proven more sustainable than traditional North-South models because they build on shared challenges and contexts.

3. Supporting Systematic Collaboration and Knowledge Exchange

The new Partnership Strategy should recognize that while each Category 1 Institute has specialized expertise, our collective impact depends on systematic collaboration:

• Create a CAT1 Institutes Collaboration Framework: Establish formal mechanisms for joint programming, shared learning, and coordinated partnership development. This should include regular directors' meetings focused on partnership strategy, joint proposal development workshops, and shared partnership evaluation processes.
• Develop interoperable knowledge management systems: Each institute generates valuable knowledge, but this remains siloed. The Strategy should support development of integrated knowledge platforms where partnership experiences, tools, and lessons from all institutes are accessible. This would prevent duplication and accelerate learning across the network.
• Establish cross-cutting thematic working groups: Create standing groups on themes like digital transformation, sustainability, or equity that include representatives from multiple institutes. These groups would identify partnership opportunities that require combined expertise and develop joint approaches.
• Institute partnership secondments: Enable staff from one institute to work temporarily with another when developing partnerships that could benefit from combined expertise. This human exchange is often more valuable than document sharing.
• Align with UNESCO's broader ecosystem: Ensure systematic linkages between CAT1 institutes and UNESCO's field offices, Category 2 centers, Chairs, and other networks. Many partnership opportunities are lost because these different parts of UNESCO don't communicate effectively about partnership possibilities.

4. Main Partnership Challenges 

IESALC faces several specific challenges that the new Strategy could address:

• Regional scope with global ambitions: As an institute focused on Latin America and the Caribbean but increasingly called upon for global expertise in higher education, we struggle to balance regional depth with global reach. Partnerships often expect us to work beyond our geographic mandate without additional resources. UNESCO could help by creating flexible partnership frameworks that allow regional institutes to contribute globally while maintaining their regional focus.
• Language and cultural barriers in partnerships: Operating effectively in Spanish, Portuguese, English, and French requires significant translation and cultural adaptation resources that are rarely budgeted in partnerships. Many potential private sector and foundation partners operate only in English, limiting our ability to ensure regional stakeholder participation. The Strategy should include provisions for linguistic accessibility in all partnership agreements.
• Sustainability of innovation partnerships: We've developed successful innovations like our Policy Observatory and Campus IESALC, but struggle to find partners willing to support platform maintenance versus new projects. Donors prefer funding new initiatives over sustaining successful ones. UNESCO could help by advocating for partnership models that include sustainability funding and by creating an innovation sustainability fund.
• Limited presence and visibility: Based in Caracas with a small team, we lack the physical presence to maintain partnerships across our vast region. Unlike institutes based in major diplomatic hubs, we face logistical challenges in partnership engagement. The Strategy could address this through virtual partnership frameworks and by supporting regional partnership liaison offices.
• Bridging academic and policy timelines: Higher education institutions operate on academic calendars while governments and donors often demand immediate results. This temporal mismatch complicates partnerships. UNESCO could help by educating partners about realistic timelines for educational change and supporting longer-term partnership commitments.

5. Thematic Leadership Areas for CAT1 Institutes

The Category 1 network is uniquely positioned to lead partnerships in several critical areas for 2026-2029:

• Integrated approaches to global education transformation: With seven of nine CAT1 institutes focused on education, we can offer comprehensive education system support that no other international organization can match. From early childhood through higher education, from curriculum to planning to statistics, we should lead partnerships that view education holistically rather than in segments.
• Evidence-based policy making and data governance: The combination of UIS's statistical expertise with other institutes' sectoral knowledge positions us to lead partnerships on educational data governance, helping countries build data systems that inform policy while protecting privacy and promoting equity.
• Education in crisis and resilience building: Our geographic distribution and technical diversity enable us to lead comprehensive partnerships for education in emergencies - from immediate response to long-term recovery and system strengthening. This is increasingly critical given climate change, conflicts, and pandemics.
• Future of learning and skills: The rapid transformation of work and society requires reimagining education. Our institutes can lead partnerships that bridge formal and non-formal education, integrate new technologies responsibly, and ensure no one is left behind in the digital transformation.
• Localization and decolonization of knowledge: As institutes rooted in different regions and contexts, we can lead partnerships that challenge dominant knowledge paradigms and elevate indigenous and local knowledge systems. This is essential for achieving truly inclusive and culturally relevant education.
• Planetary education for sustainability: Climate change and environmental degradation require educational transformation at all levels. Our institutes can lead partnerships that integrate sustainability across all educational levels and modalities, from early childhood environmental education to advanced scientific research on climate solutions.
• Artificial intelligence and ethical technology in education: With our shared ICT expertise and all institutes' pedagogical knowledge, we can lead partnerships that harness AI's potential while safeguarding human values, equity, and the irreplaceable aspects of human teaching and learning.