This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 005862 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
STATE FOR IO/T JANE COWLEY, OES BARRIE RIPIN, OES/STAS 
ANDREW W. REYNOLDS 
STATE FOR NSC GENE WHITNEY 
STATE FOR NSF INTERNATIONAL OFFICE 
 
E.O. 12958:     N/A 
TAGS: AORC TSPL EAID SENV SOCI UNESCO KSCI
SUBJECT:  USUNESCO: NORDIC STATES AND UK CHAMPION 
RESOLUTION TO FORMALLY "REVIEW" NATURAL SCIENCE AND 
SOCIAL SCIENCE SECTORS -- WITH AN EYE TO MERGER? 
 
¶1. Guidance Request in Para 3. 
 
¶2. Summary: In Advance of UNESCO's October General 
Conference, the Nordic States and the UK are circulating 
a draft resolution calling for an "overall review" of 
Programs II and III (the Natural Sciences Sector and the 
Social and Human Sciences Sector (SHS)).  The review 
would be undertaken by a regionally representative panel 
of scientific experts from member states, including 
appropriate intergovernmental and international NGOS, 
working in partnership with the Secretariat.  Its goal 
would be to ensure that "UNESCO takes a more forward- 
looking perspective" in setting priorities particularly 
with regard "to the international goals set.(in) the 
Millennium Declaration." It would also help define 
UNESCO's role in the sciences within the UN System. (Text 
of Draft Resolution in Para 8). 
 
¶3.  Representatives of the UK and Swedish Delegations 
stress that the goal of the review is not to provide 
justification for a merger of the Natural Sciences Sector 
and the Social and Human Sciences (SHS) Sector.  They 
both say, though, that they would support such a merger, 
and that this issue merits debate.  Comment:   An 
"overall review" of the Natural Sciences Sector could in 
fact represent a great opportunity for the sector. 
However, the idea of a joint audit with the Social 
Sciences Sector gives us pause.  Focus on the Natural 
Sciences and SHS  sectors alone would limit the 
examination of potential cross-sector synergies to those 
between the two sectors, in effect prejudicing the 
outcome of the assessment.  A merger of the two sectors 
would result in a muddying of the goals of the Natural 
Sciences Sector, rather than a sharpening of its focus. 
This is particularly true given the current stress of the 
Social and Human Sciences Sector on issues including 
Human Rights.  In light of these concerns, Post Requests 
Department Guidance regarding amendments to the proposed 
resolution.  Department should also consider U.S. 
participation in the assessment.  End summary and 
comment. 
 
Swedish Delegation:  Nordics Press for An "Open" Audit to 
Help Sectors Assume "Comparative Advantage" 
 --------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶4.  Science Officer spoke with Mr. Falk, the deputy at 
the Swedish Delegation (protect), who confided that the 
draft resolution, sponsored by the Nordic states and the 
UK, was the brainchild of the National Commissions of 
these countries.  Queried on whether the aim of the 
resolution is to merge the natural sciences and social 
sciences sectors, Falk replied that the assessment is 
meant to be "open."  That said, Falk himself believes 
that the two sectors should be merged; he was not sure 
whether the Swedish National Commission shared this view. 
Science Officer asked why the Natural Sciences and Social 
Sciences Sector were chosen as the targets, rather than 
education and/or culture.  Quoting from the DR, Falk said 
the proposal was meant to enable the Natural Sciences 
Sector and the Social Sciences Sector to profit from 
their comparative advantage, stressing that the study 
could inform the next budget exercise.  At any rate, the 
performance of the Education Sector is already the 
subject of debate at the Executive Board; UNESCO's role 
in culture is clearly defined.  Natural Sciences and 
Social Sciences were chosen together in order to foster 
cross-sector approaches.  For example, water is the 
principal priority in UNESCO; but there are many social 
factors that need to be considered in this area. 
 
¶5.  Science Officer explored similar issues with the UK 
DCM Christine Atkinson (protect), probing her on the 
ultimate goals of the resolution.  She said that the 
National Committees of the co-sponsoring states had been 
studying for nearly a year means of "rationalizing" 
UNESCO's sectors.  She expressed the personal belief that 
the two sectors should be merged, but stressed that the 
goal of the evaluation is not to provide justification 
for a merger.  The study would address this question, 
among others. 
 
¶6.  Science officer expressed the concern that the 
resolution seems to have two goals:  the first to ensure 
that UNESCO science assumes a lead role in helping 
countries address development challenges; the second to 
explore the interface between the Natural Sciences Sector 
and the Social Science Sector.  Might these two disparate 
goals produce a muddy result, for example in giving short 
shrift to potential synergies with other sectors? 
Atkinson pointed out that the issue of merger of the two 
sectors is worthy of study:  it would allow UNESCO to 
eliminate an ADG position.  Science ethics, currently a 
division of the SHS sector, would be easily integrated 
into the work of the current Natural Sciences sector. 
Human rights issues currently covered in the Social and 
Human Sciences Sector are not a natural fit, she 
conceded.  But the important thing is that the individual 
program officers work towards clear objectives set for 
them by member states.  Atkinson concluded by again 
stressing that member states should debate these issues, 
and that the assessment would be a basis for this 
discussion. 
 
Science Sector Concerned about "True Aim" of Resolution: 
A Merger with Social Sciences? 
 --------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶7.  Science Officer met with a Natural Sciences Sector 
Director who expressed concern about the draft 
resolution, although he had not seen the text; the 
Natural Sciences sector is understandably abuzz.  Issues 
of concern to them are:  What sparked this proposal?: do 
member states "disapprove" of the science sector?  Is the 
goal of the audit in fact to build a case to merge the 
two divisions?  Nalecz noted that under current 
leadership, the focus of SHS is on human rights, although 
the office that deals with ethics that cooperates well 
with the science sector.  3.  How will the assessment be 
paid for?  (NOTE:  The figure in the proposed current DR 
is 400,000 USD, to be paid from funds that would have 
gone to finance SHS's "UNESCO World Report."  End Note. 
 
¶8.  Begin text of proposed Draft Amendment to Programme 
and Budget:  Para 3120 delete "and through the 
dissemination of the UNESCO World Report": to be replaced 
by the following addition:  "and through a thorough 
review of Major Programmes II and III by a team of expert 
representatives of the scientific community from Member 
States, inclusive of all regions, and appropriate 
intergovernmental and international non-governmental 
organizations, working in close partnership with the 
Secretariat." 
 
SIPDIS 
 
The General Conference decides to launch an overall 
review of Major Programmes II and III against the 
background of UNESCO's mandate and today's global needs. 
 
There is increasing realization in developed and 
developing countries alike that the Sciences - including 
engineering and technology - have an essential role for 
UNESCO in the fight against poverty and improving the 
human condition. 
 
The Natural Sciences are at the heart of knowledge-based 
capacity building for sustainable development, of 
understanding key issues of the environment for risk 
preparedness and disaster mitigation, of conflict 
resolution and prevention, and of the fight against 
disease, with the Social and Human Sciences inseparably 
providing the underlying ethical, social, and cultural 
context. 
 
But science is fundamentally progressive.  The strategic 
direction of science for pursuit of these goals may come 
to acquire so much complexity that the resolution of 
problems will imply the production of new forms of 
knowledge and action. 
 
With its unique mandate for science in the framework of 
the United Nations System, it is critical therefore that 
UNESCO take a more forward-looking perspective on 
prioritization and promote a progressive agenda giving 
proper emphasis to emerging priorities. 
 
Furthermore, UNESCO should better exploit its comparative 
advantage, seeking complementarity, harmonization and 
coordination with its sister organizations of the United 
Nations system, other scientific bodies and national 
governments.  A real demarcation must be agreed between 
different organizations. 
 
The review shall assess the relevance and strengths of 
the Sciences programmes in relation to current priorities 
as expressed and with regard to the international goals 
set, in particular the Millennium Declaration and the 
Related Millennium Development Goals.  Building on this 
review, the need for reform and adjustments of the Major 
Programmes II and III should be examined with the purpose 
of ensuring that UNESCO's role as custodian of knowledge 
is well defined and reaffirmed at the present time. 
The review should include an assessment of UNESCO's role 
in the global science community and a consideration of 
division of labor and tasks in relation to other relevant 
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations as 
well as reflect on the interface between Social and Human 
Sciences and Natural Sciences. 
 
The General Conference: 
 
Instructs the Director General to initiate a review with 
mandate on the lines indicated above by setting up a team 
of expert representatives of the scientific community 
from member states, inclusive of all regions, and 
appropriate intergovernmental and international non- 
governmental organizations, working in close partnership 
with the Secretariat.  The team shall start its work by 1 
December 2005 at the latest; and 
 
Further instructs the Director General to present the 
review, with the recommendations of the Executive Board, 
to the 34th Session of the General Conference with a view 
to integrating the agreed conclusions in the Program and 
Budget (34 C/5) and the Medium-Term Strategy (34 C/4). 
 
Budgetary implications:  400 000 USD 
 
Source of Funding 03123 Main Line of Action 3: UNESCO 
World Report 
 
Explanatory Note:  The review should bear in kind that 
the United Nations Millennium Declaration and the 
Millennium Development Goals and the rising demands for 
United Nations system-wide coordination including the 
United Nations' agenda of simplification, harmonization 
and quality enhancement.  There is an obvious need to 
clarify roles, tasks and programme delivery 
responsibilities as well as the need to prioritize 
between and among them. 
 
The essential role of science as a foundation for 
sustainable development and for the fight against poverty 
has been acknowledged at many recent international fora, 
not least at the World Summit on Sustainable Development 
(WSSD, Johannesburg).  At the same time, with the ever- 
increasing intergovernmental and non-governmental 
organizations, funds and programs involved in providing 
assistance in the pursuit of goals, it is crucial to look 
into the role of UNESCO as the UN organization with an 
overriding mandate in the fields of science. 
 
An overall impact evaluation of UNESCO's Sciences 
Programme will be helpful in clarifying roles and 
responsibilities, and specifically that of UNESCO, with a 
view to achieving the goals set.  A review addressing the 
division of labor will ultimately strengthen UNESCO's 
mandate in the fields concerned.   End text of proposed 
Draft Amendment to Programme and Budget. 
 
OLIVER