null
Lucia A Keegan  12/19/2006 11:49:45 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 07828

SIPDIS
cxparis:
    ACTION: UNESCO
    INFO:   AMBO DCM POL SCI ECON AMBU AMB

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB: LOLIVER
DRAFTED: SCI: NCOOPER
CLEARED: DCM: AKOSS

VZCZCFRI505
RR RUEHC
DE RUEHFR #7828/01 3521644
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181644Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 3835

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 007828 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USUNESCO PARIS 
 
FOR OES - ANDREW REYNOLDS, ANTOINETTE CONDO, BARRIE RIPIN, CHRISTINE 
DAWSON 
FOR IO - JIM DUFTY 
DEPARTMENT PASS NSF FOR ROSE GOMBAY 
DEPARTMENT PASS OSTP FOR GENE WHITNEY 
DEPARTMENT PASS USGS FOR VERNE SCHNEIDER, MATTHEW LARSEN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO SCI SENV AORC EAID
SUBJECT: UNESCO REFORM: NATURAL SCIENCES SECTOR PONDERS POTENTIAL 
RAMIFICATIONS OF ONGOING REVIEW 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY:  U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Executive Director 
Susanna Connaughton used her December meetings with leaders of 
UNESCO's Natural Sciences Sector to query them on the ongoing review 
of the Sciences sectors, and on how they assess the impact of their 
programs.  Her interlocutors, who included Assistant Director 
General for Natural Sciences Erdelen, highlighted the need for the 
panel to:  define a role for UNESCO science vis-a-vis the rest of 
the UN family; suggest ways to increase UNESCO's visibility; 
encourage interdisciplinary work; and reflect on an appropriate 
system of peer review.  From these conversations, it emerged that 
coordinating advice to governments in improving national science and 
technology infrastructure is becoming a new focus of the Natural 
Sciences sector, although these efforts do not appear to be 
concerted within the sector.  While it was clear that individual 
members of the Natural Sciences sector were determined to put a 
positive spin on the work of the review panel, this is a subject 
that is evidently of great concern to them. 
 
¶2.  On U.S. cooperation with the Natural Sciences sector, a planned 
February 2007 visit by ADG Erdelen will be an opportunity for him to 
meet with interested members of the U.S. National Commission for 
UNESCO.  At the 2007 General Conference, UNESCO plans to host a 
Ministerial Roundtable on Science and Technology, similar to the one 
organized in 2005 and attended by OSTP Director Marburger and NSF 
Director Bement; the organizers hope for similarly high-level U.S. 
participation in 2007.  On U.S. involvement with the 
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Executive Secretary 
Bernal highlighted the fact that he and the NSF are in the process 
of considering negotiation of a direct agreement, noting that the 
NSF is currently seconding staff to the IOC.  USUNESCO science 
officer (notetaker) accompanied Connaughton to her meetings.   End 
Summary. 
 
ADG Erdelen:  We need increased visibility 
 
¶3.  Assistant Director General for Natural Sciences Erdelen opened 
his meeting with Connaughton by highlighting the bustle of activity 
engendered by the C4/C5 (medium-term strategy, draft program and 
budget) deadlines, and by the sciences review panel.  He stressed 
the challenge of coordinating the five science regional field 
offices, and category I and II centers in "a joint exercise with a 
joint product."  He expressed the hope that the review would produce 
positive results "in terms of the stature of the sector and 
programmatic support and budget." Erdelen noted somewhat 
philosophically "every scientist needs a peer review process," 
although he rejected "change for the sake of change." 
 
¶4.  Erdelen posited that the panel's work had been "quite a bit 
delayed" due to its members' need to familiarize 
themselves with the organization, and to their own divergent 
backgrounds.  Looking forward, he said he hoped the panel would 
present a vision of the "future niche" of UNESCO's sciences programs 
"within the UN family, and how these programs relate to the 
development discussion." Currently, Erdelen noted, his sector plays 
a lead role in coordinating UN agencies in the field of S/T only in 
the context of the African Union, where as lead agency in the S and 
T cluster, UNESCO is organizing a ministerial summit.  Queried on 
the possibility of merging the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences 
sectors, Erdelen said the focus of the review should be programs, 
not structures. 
 
¶5.  Queried by Connaughton on how the U.S. National Commission could 
help his sector, Erdelen responded "marketing, marketing, 
marketing."  He said he hoped that the review panel would address 
the issue of the visibility of the Natural Sciences sector: "When 
most people think of UNESCO, they think culture."  He observed  that 
partnerships, such as those UNESCO currently has with L'Oreal and 
Daimler-Chrysler, are important in this regard.  Erdelen reported 
plans to visit Washington in mid-February 2007 for meetings at the 
World Bank.  He and Connaughton agreed that this would also be an 
excellent opportunity for him to meet with interested members of the 
U.S. National Commission for UNESCO. 
 
WATER SECTOR:  WE ARE ALREADY INTERDISCIPLINARY 
 
¶6.  In his meeting with Connaughton, IHP Executive Director Andras 
Szollosi-Nagy took an upbeat attitude towards the ongoing review of 
the two sciences sectors.  Noting that the panel advocates 
interdisciplinary approaches, he claimed "we are very 
interdisciplinary" citing three activities:  IHP conflict resolution 
programs in water resources that involve psychological and social 
sciences techniques, game theory and math modelling; a 
comprehensive, cross-sector history of water and civilization; and a 
comprehensive water education program.  One the latter, he noted a 
task force designated to design the program would meet at the end of 
January 2007; current plans involve the U.S. NGO WET.  Overall, 
Szollosi-Nagy professed lack of concern about the review, asserting 
that the IHP "flies" in developing countries.  (Note:  the IHP's 
insufficient presence at the country level in Africa is a recurring 
theme at the meetings of the programs' governing council. End Note.) 
 Szollosi-Nagy said that he hoped that panel members would resist 
the temptation to "micro-manage", and focus instead on ways of 
improving UNESCO's interdisciplinary science work.  Queried on the 
possibility of combining the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences 
sectors, Szollosi-Nagy declared himself in favor, noting that UNESCO 
has a tendency "to artificially build up walls." 
 
¶7.  Regarding U.S. engagement with the IHP, Szollosi-Nagy spoke very 
positively about his recent trip to Washington to participate in the 
meeting of the U.S. National Committee for the IHP, although he 
cited as a challenge the fact that the committee has no means of 
funding the travel of its members to meetings.  He also stressed the 
importance of the U.S. running for a seat on the Intergovernmental 
Council of the IHP, saying that U.S. professional expertise is 
needed if the program is to be "a serious, global program." 
 
OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION:  Peer Review, Please 
 
¶8.  Queried by Connaughton on how the IOC measures success, 
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Executive Secretary 
Patricio Bernal evoked the sciences review panel.  He noted, "What 
is lacking is clear direction from UNESCO member states on our goals 
- what is UNESCO asking us to do?"  Bernal mused that scientists are 
by nature very independent.  They are used to responding to "the 
internal needs of science itself, and are driven by holes in 
knowledge" rather than to "outside, social needs."   In this 
context, the role of the IOC is "to translate the latest scientific 
data to governments, so that they can take this into account, as 
well as to translate the priorities of government to the science 
community."  But UNESCO's intergovernmental programs are not 
validated by peer review to see how well they respond to the 
high-level requests of governments.  This is needed, but it is 
difficult to know who would provide peer review, given the fact that 
these  scientific organizations are comprised of governments, rather 
than of individual scientists. 
 
¶9.  Bernal described the IOC's work as divided into  three streams. 
These include: ocean sciences (support to world climate research 
program, harmful algae blooms); earth observations (global ocean 
observation system); and capacity building, including via a small 
network of UNESCO chairs.  Regarding the first two, the IOC chiefly 
works via the concerted action of its member states; the USG plays a 
vital leading role.  On capacity building,  the IOC assumes a role 
in developing African institutional capacity by providing "coaching" 
to leaders of oceanographic institutions. 
 
¶10.  On U.S. involvement with the IOC, Bernal highlighted the fact 
that he and NSF counterparts are considering  the possibility of 
negotiating a direct agreement; he noted that the NSF is currently 
seconding staff to the IOC.  He said that the recent visit by NOAA 
staff focussing on results-based management had already resulted in 
several recommendations. 
 
Basic Sciences:  A UNESCO Role in Policy Best Practices 
 
¶11.  Connaughton used her meeting with Basic Sciences and 
Engineering Division Director Maciej Nalecz to query him on how he 
measures the impact of his programs.  Rather than responding 
directly, he evoked three ongoing exercises within the context of 
the International Basic Sciences Program (IBSP) that he said he 
hoped would yield results in the future.  These included: assistance 
to Egypt in assessing the research and technology achievements 
resulting from its higher education curriculum, to serve as the 
basis of a 
planned reform, an effort led by former Ministers of Pakistan and 
Chile; advice to Trinidad and Tobago and other Caribbean countries 
on using their oil/gas wealth to "reconstitute" regional science and 
technology at the university level, an effort that will be led by a 
former South African minister; and finally, discussions planned for 
February 2007 with Nigeria on constructing a center for 
nanotechnology.  Nalecz acknowledged that the Science Policy 
division of the Natural Sciences Sector is engaged in similar work 
in a number of developing countries, most notably in helping Nigeria 
set up an international expert panel to advise on a major investment 
in science infrastructure.  Nalecz said that coordination takes 
place as required.  (Note:  Although developed independently, these 
efforts also seem to dovetail with the work of the IOC in "coaching" 
leaders of science institutions in Africa.  End Note.) 
 
¶12.  Regarding U.S. engagement with programs in his division, Nalecz 
pointed to the SESAME program (a program to promote Mid-East 
cooperation in particle physics), as well as to the participation of 
OSTP Director Marburger and NSF Director Bement in the October 2005 
UNESCO Ministerial Roundtable on the Basic Sciences, which he warmly 
praised.  Nalecz confided that due to the success of this 
conference, UNESCO plans to host a similar conference at the 2007 
General Conference; two themes currently under consideration: the 
role of science and technology in achieving the MDGs, and means of 
combating "brain drain." Nalecz hoped for high-level U.S. 
participation in this conference. 
Oliver