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 002774 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 
 
STATE FOR USUNESCO KEVIN PILZ, OES BARRIE RIPIN, OES/STAS ANDREW W. 
REYNOLDS 
STATE FOR NSC GENE WHITNEY 
STATE FOR NSF ROSE GOMBAY 
STATE FOR USGS VERNE SCHNEIDER 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: UNESCO AORC TSPL EAID SENV KSCI
SUBJECT:  UNESCO: 174th EXECUTIVE BOARD HIGHLIGHTS CHALLENGES FOR 
SCIENCES REVIEW PANEL 
 
Ref:  05 Paris 3024 
 
¶1.  Summary:  The 174th Executive Board highlighted two major 
challenges that UNESCO faces in the Natural Sciences Sector. 
Firstly, the Secretariat needs to define a strategy for UNESCO's 
category two centers.  Secondly, the Secretariat must respond to the 
demand from member states for cross-sector activities that help 
developing countries build capacity, particularly in the field of 
water resources; the secretariat has not made progress on a program 
proposed by the U.S. in this area (Reftel).  These are issues that 
could be addressed by the panel set up to conduct the "overall 
review" of Programs II and III (the Natural Sciences Sector and the 
Social and Human Sciences Sector) mandated by the September 2005 
General Conference.   Although the review of the Sciences sector was 
not on the agenda of this Executive Board, Norway signaled its 
intent to request a progress report at the Fall 2006 Executive 
Board.  End Summary. 
 
Category II Centers - In Search of a Strategy 
 
¶2.  As has been the case at its past several sessions, the 174th 
Executive Board considered items related to the establishment of 
category II centers.  (Note:  Category II centers are those defined 
as "operating under the auspices of UNESCO"; category I centers are 
"an integral part of the organization".  There are currently 14 
category II centers with a scientific focus.  End Note.)  On the 
agenda for this Executive Board was a feasibility study for an urban 
water center in Cali, Colombia (item 10).  Also on the agenda (Item 
11) was "a memorandum of understanding between UNESCO and the 
intergovernmental organization Itaipu Binational" (Brazil, Paraguay) 
on water resources technical cooperation. (Note: Itaipu manages a 
large dam.  The Brazilian Ambassador intervened at a Bureau meeting 
that addressed this topic to say it is not in fact an 
intergovernmental organization, but rather a company with shares 
owned by Brazil and Paraguay.  End Note.)  According to the 
documentation provided, Itaipu may evolve into a category II center. 
   As has become typical, the two agenda items were adopted with 
minimal debate, as the Secretariat assured member states that 
establishing the centers would entail no financial obligations for 
UNESCO; the Itaipu item was listed among items not requiring debate. 
 
 
¶3.  During the brief debate on the Bogota Center, Japan noted that 
the Fall 2005 General Conference had approved category II water 
centers in La Serena Chile (Cazalac, specializing in arid and 
semi-arid zones) and Panama City (Cathalac, humid tropics):  "Does 
this then fill our quota for Latin American water centers?"  He 
stressed the need for a more strategic approach to creating centers. 
 
 
¶4.  In fact, a document prepared for the 2005 meeting of the Bureau 
of the International Hydrological Program (IHP) notes that "the 
situation has reached the point where some thought needs to be given 
as to how to make the best use of the centers and to changing their 
relationships with the main pillars of UNESCO's actions in water: 
the IHP, the UNESCO Institute for Water Education in Delft (IHE) and 
the UNESCO-based World Water Assessment Program."  New guidelines 
for establishing category II centers were adopted by the Fall 2005 
General Conference, but these were administrative, rather than 
strategic, in scope.  The General Conference also asked the 
Secretariat to report to the Spring 2006 Executive Board  "on the 
 
SIPDIS 
creation of category 2 institutes and centers and their contribution 
to strategic program objectives," but this is likely to be a 
catalogue of existing centers, rather than a strategic plan. 
 
Member States Thirst for Technical Capacity Building 
 
¶5.   The most important science issue on this Executive Board agenda 
for the U.S. was "The Development of a Cross-Sector Capacity 
Building Program" (item 14). At the Spring 2005 Executive Board, the 
U.S. successfully tabled  a draft decision with 20 co-sponsors 
asking the Secretariat to "develop a cross-sector program on 
technical capacity building, and to submit a progress report at its 
174th session" (Reftel). The report submitted by the Secretariat to 
this Executive Board in fact merely catalogued the full range of 
current UNESCO activities that could contribute in some way to 
capacity building, defined in its most broad terms. 
 
¶6.  The U.S. intervened first, taking the opportunity to remind the 
Board that the decision had in fact called for the creation of a 
program focusing on water resources, basic science and math 
education, engineering, and technology.  Fifteen other states 
intervened, all favorable to the concept underlying the program; 
France echoed U.S. disappointment in the lack of vision/strategy. 
Norway successfully proposed language requesting that the 
cross-sector program be developed within the context of the new C4/5 
Program and Budget (2008-9) and Medium-Term Strategy (2008-13).  The 
U.S. was successful in amending the draft decision to require the DG 
to report back to the 176th (Spring 2006), vice 177th, Executive 
Board.  The U.S. attempt to insert language saying that the Capacity 
Building Program should be informed by the ongoing review of the 
Natural Sciences and Social and Human Sciences Sectors was countered 
by Brazil, who pointed out that the review panel is not meant to 
make recommendations before the Fall 2007 General Conference.  A 
U.S. request for clarification on this point was met by silence on 
the part of the Secretariat.  (Note:  We have been assured by the 
Director General and by Deputy Director General Barbosa that the 
work of the science review panel will feed into the Medium-Term 
Strategy. End Note.) 
 
¶7.  Member states accorded a similarly favorable response to an 
education program for the sustainable management of freshwater 
resources (item 48); in fact, Morocco and other Arab and African 
states simply re-tabled an item that had been approved by the spring 
2003 Executive Board.  This program had some elements in common with 
the U.S.-sponsored capacity building program adopted in 2005 -- 
focus on water resources, cross-sector work, and education.  Another 
element in common:  the secretariat has made no progress to date on 
implementing that program, either.  Agenda item 49, asking member 
states to accord emergency assistance to drought-stricken Djibouti, 
served as an inadvertent counterpoint, highlighting the need for 
UNESCO to invest in long-term sustainable efforts, rather than to 
simply bewail crises after the fact. 
Oliver