UNESCO REFORM: NATURAL SCIENCES SECTOR AWAITS CONCLUSIONS

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