null
Lucia A Keegan  01/18/2007 07:37:15 PM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 00123

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

APPROVED: AMB: LVOLIVER
DRAFTED: SCI: NCOOPER
CLEARED: DCM: AKOSS, HHS:JHOFF

VZCZCFRI962
RR RUEHC
DE RUEHFR #0123/01 0111529
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 111529Z JAN 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 4146

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 000123 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO 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 AWAITS CONCLUSIONS 
OF ONGOING SCIENCES REVIEW 
 
¶1.  Summary:  On the margins of the January 9-12 meeting of the 
panel established to review UNESCO's Natural Sciences sector and 
Social and Human Sciences sector, there is uncertainty both in the 
delegations and in the secretariat as to what the review exercise 
might yield.  This includes concern that the review may not have any 
impact, given a sense of "fracture" -- both within and between the 
sectors being reviewed, and between the review panel and the 
secretariat.  Nevertheless, there is still hope that the exercise 
 
SIPDIS 
may produce a positive result.  One Secretariat insider regards the 
review as an opportunity to refocus the two sectors' work on 
specific "meta-questions":  that is, on interdisciplinary problems - 
including those going beyond science - as well as on problems 
requiring intergovernmental cooperation (see para 5).  Whatever the 
panel's conclusions, the ongoing preparation of the sectors' 
strategic planning documents highlights the need to provide 
results-based programming training to staffers.  This will be 
necessary to ensure that the review panel's recommendations are 
successfully implemented.  End Summary. 
 
States of Mind:  "Hope and Fear" as Panel Winds Up Work 
 
¶2.  According to an inside source, the ambience within the Natural 
Sciences Sector is somewhat "tricky".  There is hope that the review 
will result in something useful, along with fear of the opposite. 
There is also concern that the review won't result in anything at 
all.  This concern is fueled by a sense of "fracture" - between the 
panel and the sector(s), and within the sectors.  At a recent 
meeting of the Natural Sciences sector, individual reactions to the 
review panel's comments on the 2008-13 Medium-Term Strategy (C-4) 
were basically linked to whether the comments/recommendations would 
have a positive or negative impact on the speaker's own interests 
and position within the sector.  As for relations between the 
Natural Sciences sector and the Social Sciences sector (SHS), the 
Natural Sciences sector has been working with the ethics sector on 
the draft Program and Budget (C-5), although collaboration with the 
rest of SHS has been limited. 
 
¶3.  Regarding the potential impact of the review exercise, another 
secretariat source close to the panel explained that DDG Barbosa, 
 
SIPDIS 
who is chairing the review, is aiming for real reform; (given rumors 
that he aspires to be the next DG), the outcome of the review will 
be a critical test.  But there are structural and procedural 
obstacles.  On one hand, DG Matsuura and DDG Barbosa want increased 
intersectoral cooperation, but their Assistant Directors General 
(sector heads) are not capable of thinking that way.  And, the panel 
has spent so much time reworking the secretariat's draft of the 
medium-term strategy that members may not have been able to focus as 
much on broader issues. 
 
UNESCO Science and the State of the World 
 
¶4.  In the view of one respected Natural Sciences sector source, the 
review panel should focus not only on the planning documents 
(medium-term strategy, program and budget), but should also take a 
broader view.  The panel should make specific recommendations on 
future areas of focus for the sectors, and on work that should be 
discontinued.  It should also make recommendations on any structural 
changes needed to achieve these goals.  There is no point in simply 
saying that marginal activities should be dropped, because there has 
already been "program concentration"; if it is taken further, all 
that will be left is the water sector.  (Comment:  We believe that 
further program concentration is needed, but agree that the review 
panel needs to give the sectors precise guidance on future 
priorities, and on programs to be discontinued.  End Comment.) 
 
¶5.  In the view of this source, UNESCO science should focus on 
interdisciplinary work, and/or work that goes beyond the sciences, 
or that is intergovernmental in nature.  Examples of this might 
include coordinating advice on developing science infrastructure; 
providing guidance on science education; and earth observations (the 
latter now covered in three divisions of the sector).  Biotechnology 
is an example of a discipline that is proceeding apace without 
UNESCO's help, and thus does not require UNESCO's involvement, 
although individual countries may need help in building capacity 
through science education programs. 
 
¶6.  Of course, it is impossible to talk about UNESCO's capacity 
without considering the talents and skills of the individuals 
involved.  The leadership of the science policy division is strong. 
The Basic Sciences and Engineering division needs a careful look in 
terms of human and other resources, given its important future role. 
 The International Hydrology Program (IHP) has some good individual 
programs; HELP, FRIEND, TIGER and G-WADI stand out as strong 
programs.  The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) has 
talented staff that includes a number of Americans. 
 
The State of Play 
 
¶7.  As the Natural Sciences sector prepared for this week's meeting 
of the review panel, they were busily engaged in pulling together 
several sets of documents.  These included a document incorporating 
the sector's response to the panel's comments on the sector's draft 
Medium Term Strategy (2008-13), and a document incorporating the 
Bureau of Strategic Planning's (BSP's) comments on the sector's 
draft Program and Budget (2008-9).  There was concern that the panel 
members might be so focused on these documents that they would have 
no time to focus on the big picture. 
 
¶8.  Regarding the Medium-Term Strategy, the task of responding to 
the review panel's comments has been last minute and lacked 
continuity of leadership, due to the holiday season.  Regarding the 
Draft Program and Budget, the review panel will consider this 
document for the first time at this week's meeting.  One concern is 
that the Bureau of Strategic Planning has inserted activities that 
tend to overstate the Natural Science Sector's resources and place 
in the grand scheme of things, for example, recommending that it 
undertake a survey of biodiversity.   Another challenge is that the 
junior staff members who have provided input on behalf of their 
divisions, while very willing, sometimes do not have a sense of 
where their work fits in a larger context.  This highlights the need 
to provide results-based programming training to staffers if they 
are to effectively implement any recommendations made by the review 
panel. 
Oliver