VZCZCXRO3596
RR RUEHAP RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHGR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMA RUEHMJ RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHQU RUEHRN RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHFR #1452/01 3021455
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 291455Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS FR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
RUCNSCO/UNESCO COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS FR 001452 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR OES/OA BRIAN VAN PAY 
 
E.O. 12598: N/A 
TAGS: SENV TPHY PREL UNESCO
SUBJECT: UNESCO'S 35TH GENERAL CONFERENCE:  NATURAL SCIENCES 
COMMISSION 
 
¶1.  Summary.  A Ministerial Round Table on Oceans and UNESCO's 
Natural Sciences Commission met October 12-16 as part of UNESCO's 
35th General Conference.  The Ministerial focused on ocean 
governance, ocean monitoring and climate change.  The Natural 
Sciences Commission primarily focused on existing programs.  The 
Commission approved all Category 2 centers, including the USA's 
first (a water center).  End Summary. 
 
OCEANS MINISTERIAL 
 
¶2.  Ministerial Summary.  A Ministerial Round Table on Oceans was 
held October 12-13, 2009 as part of the 35th Session of the UNESCO 
General Conference at UNESCO headquarters in Paris.  The Ministerial 
was organized by UNESCO's Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 
(IOC).  Fifty-one states participated with twenty-six represented at 
the Ministerial level.  The U.S. delegation included William Logan 
(U.S. Mission UNESCO), Brian Van Pay (DOS/OES/OPA), and Jody Eimers 
(U.S. Geological Survey).  Neither Australia, Japan, France, Russia, 
nor the United Kingdom sent Ministerial-level representatives.  No 
official statements or resolutions were adopted at this Round Table, 
however an Information Document (INF) of the discussions was 
produced by the Secretariat, and this does contain recommendations. 
The agenda, background documents, and the INF document can be found 
on the IOC website:  http://www.ioc-unesco.org/ 
 
¶3.  The first session covered the role of the United Nations in 
providing governance for the ocean.  Several of the participating 
States argued for a broader mandate and an expanded role for the 
IOC.  Other states, such as Barbados, Cambodia, Colombia, Pakistan 
and Thailand suggested governance flows from the national, to the 
regional, and to the global level.  Iceland and Japan voiced concern 
over the IOC taking on too broad of a mandate, when it should 
concentrate on ocean science.  China and Zimbabwe argued for 
strengthening the Law of the Sea Convention, so it could address the 
demarcation of boundaries and climate change; this intervention met 
with an objection from Argentina. 
 
¶4.  The second session addressed the contribution of UNESCO to the 
monitoring of the state of the oceans, namely through the Global 
Marine Assessment (GMA).  The Assessment of Assessments (AoA) is a 
recently completed report that was commissioned by the UN General 
Assembly to determine the scope and mechanics of the GMA.  It was 
carried out by a number of UN agencies including UNEP and UNESCO. 
The GMA is intended to be a periodic, 5-year study to assess the 
impact of human activities on the world's oceans.  States showed 
overwhelming support for both the AoA and GMA despite concerns that 
were previously voiced when these same topics were discussed at the 
UN General Assembly's Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole meeting, 
August 31-September 4, 2009.  Many of the States, including Ghana, 
India, Indonesia, Namibia, Swaziland, and Tonga, used this session 
to call for greater capacity building and technology transfer.  Sri 
Lanka suggested the establishment of a separate body to collect data 
for the GMA, but this intervention met with limited support. 
 
¶5.  The third session addressed climate change, specifically impacts 
on and from the ocean.  Small island developing states (SIDS), which 
believe global warming to be an existential threat, intervened 
especially vigorously.  The presentations and subsequent 
interventions revealed a common theme that the ocean plays a 
critical role in the Earth's climate and more needs to be done to 
study ocean acidification, ocean warming, and sea level rise, among 
other topics.  The participating States showed almost unanimous 
agreement regarding the need for immediate action and hope for the 
upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen.  Presentations and 
interventions, however, lacked tangible suggestions for prediction, 
mitigation and adaptation.  Russia stated that science has not 
conclusively proven that increases in CO2 levels come predominantly 
from industrial sources.  This statement was met with a number of 
opposing interventions. 
 
¶6.  Wendy Watson-Wright (Canada) officially took over as Executive 
Secretary of the IOC replacing Patricio Bernal (Chile), who had held 
the job for the last ten years.  Javier Valladares, Chair of the IOC 
Executive Board, confirmed his intent to participate at the Global 
Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) in the Americas Forum on 
Coastal Zone Management, a special Group on Earth Observations (GEO) 
event to be held November 20 at the Canadian Embassy in Washington 
DC.  Portugal made an offer during an intervention to host the IOC 
Secretariat in Lisbon and offered $1.5 million Euros and "all the 
necessary resources and equipment." 
 
¶7.  An information document (35 C/INF. 29) was created as a report 
of the meeting by the Secretariat.  While a number of paragraphs 
cite recommendations couched as being supported by "several" or 
"many" participants, several statements could be interpreted as 
consensus recommendations.  Most notably, Paragraph 33 states that 
"IOC, because of its knowledge on coastal inundations, and the tools 
developed to forecast the impact of tsunamis (a very fast 
inundation), can assist with the risk assessment of sea-level rise 
and jump-start a process of adaptation in the countries most exposed 
 
PARIS 00001452  002 OF 003 
 
 
to sea-level change. IOC should organize and develop a major 
programme to do this." 
 
¶8.  Comment: Aside from budgetary and programmatic implications of 
the recommendations (para 7), USDEL does not believe that there was 
any consensus expressed for a "major programme" and that this 
proposal represents Secretariat thinking.  When asked, the 
Secretariat noted that the report of the Natural Sciences Commission 
to the Plenary states only that the Commission "took note of the 
report," rather than endorsing the conclusions.  Therefore the 
recommendations should have no special weight.  However, the U.S. 
delegation should keep an eye on this issue at the next IOC meeting. 
End Comment. 
 
REGULAR SESSIONS OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES COMMISSION 
 
GENERAL DEBATE 
 
¶9.  In the Natural Sciences Commission meeting itself following the 
Ministerial Round Table, over 50 states commented on the Draft 
Program and Budget for 2010-2011 for Major Program 2, Natural 
Sciences.  They expressed support for UNESCO science themes and 
programs in the following general order: 
 
-- IHP/fresh water - 23 plus (Brazil, New Zealand, Canada, France, 
Germany, Portugal, Iran, Korea, Hungary, Pakistan, Malaysia, 
Columbia, China, Libya, Morocco, Czech, Nigeria, others) 
 
-- Man and the Biosphere, or biodiversity - 17 plus (Canada, 
Germany, Iran, Korea, North Korea, Hungary, Malaysia, China, Costa 
Rica, Czech Republic, many others) 
 
-- Teaching science to teachers - 11 (Madagascar, Canada, France, 
Korea, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Uganda, Malawi, Malaysia, Libya, 
Ethiopia) 
 
-- IOC or Oceans - 10 (Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica Portugal, Sri 
Lanka, North Korea, China, France, Dominican Republic, Canada) 
 
-- Capacity building - 10 (Malaysia, Cote d'Ivoire, Dominican 
Republic, Germany, Denmark, Malaysia, Mexico, Libya, Morocco, 
Ethiopia) 
 
Other issues raised by fewer nations included basic sciences, gender 
equality, S&T policy development, tsunami early warning, Emphasis on 
Africa, inter-sectoral or multidisciplinary approaches, climate 
change, etc. 
 
RESPONSE OF THE SECRETARIAT 
 
¶10.  Assistant Director-General (ADG)for Natural Sciences, Walter 
Erdelen, noted that Member States have asked the Secretariat to 
strengthen Science Policy, but the lack of additional funding has 
resulted in flat-lining the budgets of most science programs.  He 
and Patricio Bernal (ADG/Oceans) both noted that they are trying to 
get the different Natural Sciences programs to work together to 
achieve synergies and efficiencies.  Bernal cited the areas of 
climate change (which IOC coordinates), ecohydrology, small island 
developing states, as well as the use of bioreserves and natural 
heritage sites as research sites.  Several people noted that 
Category 2 centers have potential to increase the breadth of 
programming with little additional cost to UNESCO's regular budget. 
Nonetheless, several member states said that UNESCO needs to do 
"fewer things better" and one suggested that UNESCO should have 
"sunset clauses" on programs.  Finally, there was discussion of the 
creation of a traveling exhibit for the International Year of 
Biodiversity, and how the International Year of Chemistry may serve 
as a catalyst for the science education activities. 
 
NEW DRAFT RESOLUTIONS 
 
¶11.  There were 13 draft resolutions submitted for consideration by 
the Commission.  Many were minor tweaks of the program strategy and 
were passed with minor changes.  Several had budgetary implications, 
however.  Iran would like a new International Drought Initiative, 
but agreed to discuss it first by the International Hydrologic 
Program (IHP) or the Intergovernmental Council.  Egypt sought to 
insert money for swine flu education, but withdrew in the face of 
resistance that this would be more appropriate for WHO.  Egypt also 
wanted more emphasis on water reuse and artificial recharge and 
agreed to accept new metrics in this area by the Secretariat. 
Azerbaijan's wish to have UNESCO more involved in building 
technoparks was not supported.  Finally, Russia's proposal to build 
a UNESCO satellite was postponed to a plenary session later in the 
General Conference. 
 
¶12.  CATEGORY 2 CENTERS.  There were nine new Category 2 Centers in 
the natural sciences up for approval.  Of these, six were for 
water-related topics, including the USA's proposed "International 
Center for Integrated Water Resources Management" to be housed at 
 
PARIS 00001452  003 OF 003 
 
 
the US Army Corps of Engineers' Institute for Water Resources. 
There was no serious discussion of the merits of individual centers 
nor of the merits of centers in general, but rather a very long list 
of congratulatory statements.  All the centers were approved 
unanimously. Pakistan asked if there were any way to benefit from 
the Israeli center when it does not have diplomatic relations with 
Israel; the answer from the Secretariat was that yes, there are 
ways, and in fact the two countries are already cooperating with 
UNESCO's SESAME project. 
 
¶13.  MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE (MAB).  The USA does not formally 
participate in MAB, but it is a major program with broad support. 
Thirty-three member states intervened, almost all in support. 
Discussions centered around a draft resolution submitted by Germany 
with many cosponsors, which encourages states to work together on 
bioreserves, to do various kinds of research (e.g., climate change, 
hydrology) utilizing them as field sites, to implement the Madrid 
Action Plan (essentially MAB's 2008-2013 strategic plan), and to 
work harder to find extrabudgetary money.  With minor changes to the 
text, the draft resolution passed by consensus. 
 
¶14.  ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMME.  South 
Africa, on behalf of many African states, submitted a Draft 
Resolution calling upon UNESCO to "Conduct a feasibility study for 
the establishment of an international engineering programme".  The 
discussion here, as in the 182nd Executive Board before it, followed 
the donor-recipient divide.  African States were almost unanimously 
for it (although they had said very little about it in the "general 
debate" at the opening of the conference).  Donors focused on the 
cost of the study itself, on the impact of a new program given 
flat-lined budgets, and on the dilution of UNESCO's efforts when 
many Member States are asking them to do "fewer things better." 
Earlier discussions with the Basic Sciences Secretariat at UNESCO 
suggested lukewarm support for the initiative in the Secretariat. 
The draft resolution was slightly modified, with a compromise text 
allowing the feasibility study to go forward, if extrabudgetary 
funds can be found.  The study is mandated to consider not only the 
establishment of an international engineering program, but also 
alternatives to it that might be more feasible. 
 
JOINT SESSION WITH THE SOCIAL AND HUMAN SCIENCES COMMISSION (SHS) ON 
STRENGTHENING CLIMATE CHANGE AT UNESCO 
 
¶15.  The topic was introduced by Denmark, which had drafted the 
resolution, and Patricio Bernal of the IOC-Secretariat briefly 
introduced ongoing potential new activities in climate change at 
UNESCO.  There was no organized opposition to the draft resolution, 
which requested the Director General to "strengthen" UNESCO's 
interdisciplinary climate programs by ensuring its "legitimacy" as 
an internal coordinator of UNESCO's climate strategy, and to propose 
ways that UNESCO could contribute to the implementation of the 
outcomes of the COP-15.  The purpose of the resolution was hazy, but 
appeared to be an effort by Member States to instruct UNESCO's 
administration to organize itself to act effectively.  UNESCO was 
urged to continue focusing on its strengths and comparative 
advantage, and to use biosphere reserves and world heritage sites 
for adaptation (and to a lesser extent mitigation) experiments.  A 
spontaneous round of applause burst out when the resolution went 
through unedited.  A second, related draft resolution, introduced by 
island states, asked UNESCO to continue incorporating the Mauritius 
Strategy into its programs and "reinforce" its intersectoral 
strategy for small island developing states (without requesting any 
additional funding).  This resolution also passed without any 
changes in the text. 
KILLION