UNESCO: ROLLS OUT EDUCATION SECTOR REFORM TO

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