null
Lucia A Keegan  02/21/2007 09:25:09 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS        PARIS 00634

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

DISSEMINATION: UNESCOX
CHARGE: PROG

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

VZCZCFRI486
RR RUEHC
DE RUEHFR #0634/01 0471645
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 161645Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 5005

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PARIS 000634 
 
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: SECRETARIAT AND EXPERTS SPLIT ON WAY FORWARD 
FOR ONGOING SCIENCES REVIEW 
 
¶1.  Summary:  In recent weeks, there have been a number of meetings 
relating to the ongoing review of the Natural Sciences and Social 
and Human Sciences sectors.  The panel itself met January 9-12. 
During that week, the Indian Ambassador held a January 10 dinner 
where guests included some panel experts and members of the 
Secretariat.  In addition, Ambassador Oliver organized a January 11 
 
SIPDIS 
evening meeting to which she invited like-minded ambassadors and 
panel experts to discuss the review process.  Following the panel's 
meeting, on January 18, the Geneva Group of donor countries met with 
the ADGs for both the Natural Sciences and Social and Human Sciences 
sectors; the sciences review was a topic of discussion.  And, at the 
January 19 Executive Board question and answer session, Director 
General Matsuura and Deputy Director General Barbosa responded to 
queries on this subject. 
 
¶2.  At the January 18 meeting of the Geneva Group, ADG for Social 
Sciences Sane said that the panel was on a consensual track that 
would enable it to conclude its report soon.  (ADG Sane's remarks to 
the Geneva Group were part of his campaign to maintain the status 
quo and with it, his own position, an effort buttressed by the 
January 10 dinner hosted by the Indian Ambassador.)  At his January 
19 question and answer session with the Executive Board, the 
Director General and Deputy Director General Matsuura said that the 
review panel is on its way to concluding a draft report; DDG Barbosa 
outlined a number of recommendations that he said the panel had 
endorsed.  But in fact, this version of the state of play differs 
from that described by four expert panel members at the January 11 
meeting the Ambassador hosted.  At this meeting, the experts said 
that they need more time to consider recommendations to reform the 
two sectors; they reported considerable pressure from the "internal" 
(secretariat) members of the panel to complete their work in time 
for findings to be integrated into the new Medium-Term Strategy, to 
be adopted at the October 2007 General Conference.  The experts 
received needed encouragement to take an independent stance in favor 
of reform from the ambassadors present.  To allow the panel time to 
finish its work, the ambassadors expressed a willingness to consider 
the possibility of not adopting a new Medium-Term Strategy at the 
2007 General Conference. 
 
¶3.  On January 12, the last day of the meeting of the experts' 
panel, Deputy Director General Barbosa pressed the panel to work to 
the deadline: a final report due in advance of the April Executive 
Board, with conclusions to be folded into the new Medium Term 
Strategy to be adopted at the October General Conference.  However, 
the outside experts expressed continuing frustration with the lack 
of serious discussion of recommendations that had been proposed, and 
at the lack of consensus. While the committee had come to agreement 
on a vision for UNESCO science and on an overall strategic planning 
approach, several members, except France and the UK, felt that the 
draft C-4 and C-5 documents were not central to the charge of the 
Committee and that too much time had been spent discussing them, and 
not enough time discussing and debating the recommendations. Not 
until 1400 on Friday (when only the external experts from France, 
UK, Norway, Morocco, Panama, India, and the US remained), were 
recommendations put on the table. The external experts also 
expressed frustration at the overall process, and concern that they 
lacked independence and were being pressed to endorse an agenda 
developed by the Secretariat. The panel members decided to set up a 
separate drafting team, led by the expert from Morocco and including 
the experts from France and Norway, to develop their report. Only 
after much discussion did the Committee agree to include Barbosa on 
the writing team. However, they felt that a consensus report would 
require additional deliberation, even recommending that there be at 
least one more meeting of the full review panel.   End Summary. 
 
 
ADGs Say that the Review Process is on Track... 
 
¶4.  At the January 18 Geneva Group meeting, the ADGs for the Natural 
Sciences and Social and Human Sciences sectors were the special 
guests.  (Note:  Both of them are "internal" members of the review 
panel, as are DDG Barbosa and IOC Executive Secretary Bernal.  End 
Note) On the sciences review, ADG Erdelen claimed that the panel had 
reached tentative conclusions.  Their report, still a work in 
progress, will be ready in mid-February, Erdelen said.  One of its 
important elements will be a "vision going beyond the Medium-Term 
Strategy time frame."  This report will also address the issue of 
the intergovernmental programs, and sunset clauses.  According to 
ADG Sane, the panel's most recent meeting finished on a note of 
consensus; he said that DDG Barbosa would draft the panel's report, 
with "certain recommendations going to the DG."  Sane stressed that 
as the Executive Board had already agreed on certain proposals for 
the C4/C5, the DG will have to "balance" the recommendations of the 
committee in order to present something "acceptable" to the April 
2007 Executive Board.  Sane reported that the panel had agreed on a 
vision for the sciences, derived from UNESCO's constitution, that 
promotes peace and poverty reduction, and as lesser priorities, 
sustainable development and the dialogue among civilizations. 
Future programs will be evaluated against these criteria.  According 
to Sane, panelists also stressed the role of scientists in capacity 
building in developing countries to help emerging economies; they 
also advocated that all sciences programs should aim at developing 
educational materials for universities. 
 
¶5.  Queried by Ambassador Oliver on whether there is consensus 
within the panel, Assistant Director General for Social Sciences 
Sane portrayed the review process as on track.  Pressed by 
Ambassador Oliver on his comment that DDG Barbosa would draft the 
report, Sane said that in fact the Secretariat would provide a draft 
to panel members, reporting that the experts had formed a drafting 
group. The report must be ready by mid-February, in time for the 
Executive Board.  Then there will be a "back and forth between the 
Executive Board and the review committee to get it right before the 
General Conference." 
 
¶6.  One Geneva Group member noted that Erdelen seemed much more 
forward leaning than Sane with regard to the review process. 
Erdelen stressed that he had already taken steps to address some of 
the panel's concerns, for example those regarding the lack of 
visibility of UNESCO's natural sciences programs.  Sane, on the 
other hand, indicated that he could not be responsible for reporting 
the actual impact of his sector's programs, saying that this lay 
beyond his control.  And, Sane - evoking an absurdly long list of 
new programs that he claimed the panelists had endorsed -- took care 
to lay down a marker that the member states would have the last say 
on the panel's report. 
 
...While Building Support for the Status Quo 
 
¶7.  Sane's presentation to the Geneva Group was part of a campaign 
that he has launched to preserve his position within UNESCO.  This 
was apparent at a dinner organized by the Indian Ambassador, 
ostensibly in honor of the Indian member of the sciences review 
panel.  In fact, it was a chance for the influential ambassador to 
stress her support for Sane - and for the continued independence of 
his sector -- to the other guests, who included DDG Barbosa, and the 
UK, U.S., and French experts on the review panel. Ambassador Oliver 
was the only other Ambassador included in the event. 
 
¶8.  In a disturbing aside, the Indian Ambassador remarked that the 
experts would submit their report to delegations, and amend it based 
on their comments.  Ambassador Oliver stressed that the role of the 
experts was to give member states their best ideas; although member 
states would of course react to these ideas, the experts should not 
change them in response to the opinions of the delegations. 
 
DG Matsuura and DDG Barbosa Also Say Review On Track 
 
¶9.  Queried by member states at the January 19 question and answer 
session, DG Matsuura said that the sciences review panel had 
endorsed key elements of the draft Medium-Term Strategy for the 
sectors, notably the need for more intersectoral work.  In his 
response, DDG Barbosa indicated that the panel had finished Phase 2, 
where it had "provided the DG with recommendations to be taken into 
consideration for the C4 and C5 (Medium Term Strategy and Draft 
Program and Budget)."  He said that the panel would prepare a report 
that would be submitted to the April Executive Board.  But he said 
that the panel's work may need to be extended to include a third 
phase, lasting from the April Executive Board to the October General 
Conference, in order to "prepare the organization to implement the 
new C4 and C5."  Barbosa highlighted new ideas that he said had been 
endorsed by the experts.  In addition to intersectorality, these 
"new avenues" included: increased focus on the interfaces between 
science and culture and between science and education; dialogue 
between knowledge systems; more focus on higher education; and 
energy.  The goal is to ensure that all programs contribute to the 
fight against poverty.  The panel's other recommendations include 
reorientation of the intergovernmental programs, and the adoption of 
a road map for the next 20 years in science.  Barbosa declared that 
adopting the panel's recommendations would enable UNESCO to assume 
its role as "the leading organization for science within the UN 
system."  Barbosa said that he did not want to go into more detail 
so as to preserve some suspense for the April Executive Board. 
 
U.S. Mission Rallies Support for Reform 
 
¶10.  But in fact, this account of the panel's work differs from 
information revealed by expert panel members at the January 11 
meeting the Ambassador hosted.  This meeting was attended by the 
ambassadors of the UK, Canada, and Japan and by the deputy permanent 
delegate of Norway, as well as by the review panel experts from the 
UK, Norway, the U.S. and Morocco (US Mission science officer, note 
taker).  Ambassador Oliver began by briefing the ambassadors, the UK 
and Canadian ambassadors having only recently arrived at UNESCO. 
She highlighted a series of questions:  What is the role of this 
expert panel, and how can its independence be guaranteed?  Is the 
October 2007 deadline for adoption of the Medium-Term strategy still 
feasible, given that the panel had reportedly not completed its 
task, and there is an ongoing current of other UNESCO reform 
initiatives?  Given the growing continuum between the social 
sciences and the natural sciences, does it make sense to maintain 
two separate sectors at UNESCO?  The Norwegian permanent delegate 
suggested that the General Conference could simply adopt a concise 
road map to guide the work of the secretariat as it continued its 
work on the Medium-Term Strategy until 2009.  He said he thought 
that a merger of the two sectors would make sense, given increased 
synergies between the two disciplines.  The Canadian ambassador 
posited that a weak report supporting the status quo would be worse 
than no report.  And, if the panel could not present a strong set of 
recommendations in time for integration into the Medium-Term 
Strategy, the General Conference would not be an appropriate 
last-minute negotiating venue.  He opined that, based on his past UN 
experience, the General Conference was not in fact obliged to adopt 
a new medium-term strategy at its next meeting. 
 
¶11.  The Norwegian expert arrived first, and expressed concerns that 
he said had led him to attempt to withdraw twice from the panel; the 
other experts echoed these concerns as they joined the conversation. 
 The panel had only recently began to consider possible 
recommendations, having devoted much time in the first months on 
"hearings" meant to familiarize the experts with UNESCO.  This 
exercise precluded real interchange among the experts, who had only 
recently learned to work together. All of the experts expressed 
surprise at the inclusion of members of the secretariat on the 
review panel, saying that this contradicted established principles 
of independence. In practice, these "internal" members, with the 
exception of IOC Executive Secretary Patricio Bernal, tended to be 
resistant to change.  The experts from Norway and Morocco stressed 
that they believed that the experts should not have devoted so much 
time to reviewing the draft C-4 and C-5 (medium-term strategies and 
program and budgets) documents, with the UK expert demurring, 
seconded by the UK ambassador; they and the Japanese ambassador 
stressed the need for specific recommendations from the panel. 
Despite these concerns, the experts present agreed that they had 
made a breakthrough at that day's meeting, when Norway and Morocco 
had commandeered the chair to outline a "matrix" of criteria to 
evaluate programs.  But more time was needed to complete the task. 
 
 
¶12.  In light of the concerns voiced by the experts, the Japanese 
ambassador expressed the view that the panel needed to continue its 
work, perhaps with reconfigured leadership.  When queried, he said 
that he would need to seek guidance on whether he could support 
postponing adoption of a new Medium-Term Strategy.  But he also 
stressed the importance of reaching out to other member states in 
support of these ideas.  The Moroccan expert struck an upbeat note, 
saying that with more time and sharpened working methods, the panel 
could make substantial progress. 
 
¶13.  Heartened by the support expressed by the ambassadors, the 
experts concluded the evening by strategizing for the final day of 
the review panel's meeting.  The Norwegian deputy permanent delegate 
stressed that the ambassador's meeting had been "crucial" in 
plotting the way forward for the review process.  (Comment:  Still, 
one question raised earlier by the Norwegian expert remained 
pertinent -- would other experts on the panel be willing to take a 
stand in favor of a serious effort at reform, or might they succumb 
to pressure from their delegations favoring the status quo? End 
Comment.) 
 
Experts Panel Asserts Need for Consensus on Recommendations 
 
¶14.  Although initially hopeful to complete their review in the 
schedule outlined by the Secretariat, by this meeting the outside 
experts had only recently begun to work well together and make real 
progress. Although not all the outside experts continue to be 
actively engaged in the process (some have not participated, even 
via email, for several months), those that are expressed hope that 
they are on-track to make a significant and lasting contribution to 
UNESCO science, if allowed adequate time to complete their work. 
They cited detailed findings, an agreed upon vision, and well 
thought out framework for strategic planning, but no detailed 
discussion of the recommendations.  The US representative put back 
on the table several recommendations that had not been discussed at 
all.  Other recommendations had been discussed, but no consensus had 
been reached. The committee established a separate and independent 
(consisting of external experts, and led by the Moroccan member) 
drafting group to begin work on a consensus report, but after much 
discussion agreed that Barbosa should also work with the writing 
group. Allowing for time to discuss the issues and reach consensus, 
this report should be completed in the April/May timeframe - any 
less time would not be adequate to deliver a substantive report. 
 
¶15. Comment:  The expert panelists were clearly frustrated by the 
timetable imposed by the secretariat, and by the secretariat's role 
in the review.  Of course, in pressing for closure, the secretariat 
is implementing the timetable endorsed by the 2005 General 
Conference; participation of the secretariat in the panel's work 
might also be viewed as a means of getting "buy-in" from the sectors 
under review.  But it is clear now that the timetable for the 
panel's work is not realistic.  We are pleased that the experts 
refused to be rushed along, and that we gained agreement from some 
like-minded ambassadors that the experts should be given time to 
complete the job, including possibly by reconsidering the deadline 
for adoption of the medium-term strategy.  This was just a start. 
The question of postponing adoption of the new Medium-Term Strategy 
was pressed further at the DG's question and answer session, 
reported septel.  End Comment. 
Koss