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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000537 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
E.O. 12958:     N/A 
TAGS: SCUL KPAO UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO: ROLLS OUT EDUCATION SECTOR REFORM TO 
MIXED REVIEWS 
 
 
¶1.  Summary.  UNESCO Assistant Director-General for 
Education, Peter Smith, held an information meeting 
regarding Education Sector reform on January 13, 2006. 
The purpose of the meeting was to get buy-in for 
proposed Education Sector reforms from Member State 
Delegations.  Unfortunately, the meeting muddied the 
waters and left several Delegations frustrated by the 
duration of the proposed implementation time frame.  An 
Executive Board agenda item insisting that the reforms 
be implemented more rapidly than the proposed eighteen 
months is likely.  Further, the Executive Board will 
demand intense cooperation from the non-Education 
Sectors of the Secretariat (e.g., Bureau of Strategic 
Planning, Bureau of the Budget, etc.) in the Education 
Sector reforms.  End summary. 
 
With the best of intentions 
 
¶2.  In an attempt to get buy-in from Member State 
Delegations for proposed Education Sector planning, 
budget and management reforms, Assistant Director- 
General Peter Smith held an information meeting on 
January 13, 2006.  His attempt at inclusiveness, 
transparency and openness,  -- exactly what the Member 
States have demanded from the UNESCO Secretariat -- was 
not successful.  The meeting muddied the waters and 
split Delegations into two camps. 
 
Preaching to the choir 
 
¶4.  Last summer, Peter Smith hired a U.S. firm, 
Navigant Consulting, to assist him in his efforts to 
transform the Education Sector following scathing 
assessments of the sector by the Member States at every 
Executive Board since the U.S. reentry.  Because a 
clear roadmap for the next steps was not presented, the 
proposed 18-month implementation plan was met with 
skepticism.  The delegate from Norway put it best when 
he pointed out to Smith that the situation is too 
urgent to wait another 18 months.  He urged Smith to 
reconsider the projected timeline with an eye for 
speedier action. 
 
What about my needs? 
 
¶6.  Delegations from less-developed countries were 
confused about the nature of the proposed reforms. 
Some of the Delegations reacted with suspicion to the 
Navigant report. They seemed concerned that Smith might 
overstep his mandate and that Executive Board and 
General Conference approved programs might be scrapped. 
ADG Smith fumbled the ball and did not make a 
convincing case that he is not making programmatic 
changes or decisions, but rather management and 
administrative ones that the Executive Board 
specifically requested. 
 
¶7. Resistance to the reform is already building.  The 
issue came up in a question and answer session on 
January 19th with the Director General who suggested 
bilateral consultations with the Education Sector. 
 
¶8.  The UK Ambassador told Ambassador Oliver that he 
has spoken to a number of developing states' ambassador 
who are upset about the reform.  Among the most vocal 
opponents is the Indian ambassador (comment:  this may 
be driven by a desire to protect the position of an 
Indian national in the sector).  Norway has also 
expressed concern about maintaining the momentum of the 
reform process.  Ambassador Oliver will meet on January 
30 with the UK and Norway to discuss damage control. 
 
Common concerns 
 
¶9.  Comment.   It was not surprising that Delegations 
responded negatively when the long-awaited report from 
Navigant simply restated what the Delegations already 
knew long before Smith came on board.  As a result, the 
Education Sector will have some fence mending to do. 
While the need for reform in the Education Sector is 
accepted by Member States, there is a fair amount of 
skepticism.  This is clearly not the first attempt to 
reform the Sector.  There are doubts that the Sector 
can be reformed in isolation from the rest of UNESCO 
and concerns that the reform process may consume 
resources, financial and managerial, at the expense of 
programs.  Delegations want the process to be quick and 
effective. 
 
Risks to the U.S. 
 
¶10.  Comment continued. With an American ADG for 
Education and an American consulting firm in charge, 
the reputation risk is clear.  The Mission will work 
through other Delegations on an Executive Board 
resolution concerning Secretariat cooperation and a 
shorter implementation time frame.  Further, this 
"reform American style" already seems to have its 
detractors among the Delegations and Secretariat. 
While USAID has committed $50,000 it is still unclear 
as to exactly how those funds will be used.  Five 
countries, including Norway and the UK, have either 
paid or pledged funds to pay for Navigant Consulting. 
 
OLIVER