

Currently released so far... 12478 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AU
ASEC
AE
AF
AORC
AEMR
AMGT
ABUD
AFFAIRS
APER
AS
AMED
AY
AG
AR
AJ
AL
AID
AM
AODE
ABLD
AMG
AFIN
ATRN
AGAO
AFU
AN
AA
ALOW
APECO
ADM
ARF
ASEAN
APEC
AMBASSADOR
AO
ASUP
AZ
AADP
ACOA
ANET
AMCHAMS
ACABQ
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APCS
AGMT
AINF
AIT
AORL
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ACBAQ
AFGHANISTAN
ADANA
ADPM
AX
ADCO
AECL
AMEX
ACAO
ASCH
AORG
AGR
AROC
ASIG
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
BL
BR
BO
BA
BD
BM
BK
BG
BU
BB
BH
BTIO
BY
BEXP
BP
BE
BRUSSELS
BF
BIDEN
BT
BX
BC
BILAT
BN
BBSR
BTIU
BWC
BMGT
CA
CASC
CVIS
CM
CH
CO
CU
CD
CWC
CI
CS
CY
CMGT
CF
CG
CR
CB
CV
CW
CE
CBW
CT
CPAS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CJAN
CODEL
CIDA
CDG
CDC
CIA
CTR
CNARC
CSW
CN
CONS
CLINTON
COE
CROS
CARICOM
CONDOLEEZZA
COUNTER
CL
COM
CICTE
CIS
CFED
COUNTRY
CJUS
CBSA
CEUDA
CLMT
CAC
COPUOS
CIC
CBE
CHR
CTM
CVR
CITEL
CLEARANCE
CACS
CAN
CITT
CARSON
CACM
CDB
CAPC
CKGR
CBC
EC
EG
EPET
ECON
ETRD
EFIN
EIND
EMIN
ENRG
EAID
EAGR
EUN
ETTC
EAIR
ENIV
ES
EU
EINV
ELAB
ECIN
EFIS
ELTN
EWWT
ECPS
ECONOMIC
ENGR
EN
EINT
EPA
ELN
ESA
EZ
ER
ET
EFTA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
EXTERNAL
EI
EUR
EK
ERNG
ENGY
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENERG
EINVEFIN
ENVR
ECA
ELECTIONS
ETC
EUREM
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EURN
ECINECONCS
EEPET
EXIM
ERD
ENVI
ETRC
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ETRO
EDU
ETRN
EAIG
ECONCS
ECONOMICS
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
EIAR
EXBS
ECUN
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ESENV
ECONEFIN
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINVETC
IZ
IT
IR
IS
IN
IC
IAEA
IO
ICAO
IWC
ID
IV
ISRAEL
IAHRC
IQ
ICTR
IMF
IRS
IDP
IGAD
ICRC
ICTY
IMO
IL
INRA
INRO
ICJ
ITU
IBRD
INMARSAT
IIP
ITALY
IEFIN
IACI
ILO
INTELSAT
ILC
ITRA
IDA
INRB
IRC
INTERPOL
IA
IPR
IRAQI
ISRAELI
INTERNAL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IBET
INR
IEA
IZPREL
IRAJ
ITF
IF
KDEM
KU
KPAL
KNNP
KCRM
KZ
KN
KS
KJUS
KTFN
KSCA
KV
KISL
KPAO
KPKO
KIRF
KTIA
KIPR
KFLO
KFRD
KTIP
KAWC
KSUM
KCOM
KAID
KE
KTDB
KMDR
KOMC
KWBG
KDRG
KVPR
KTEX
KGIC
KWMN
KSCI
KCOR
KACT
KDDG
KHLS
KSAF
KFLU
KSEO
KMRS
KSPR
KOLY
KSEP
KVIR
KGHG
KIRC
KUNR
KIFR
KCIP
KMCA
KMPI
KBCT
KHSA
KICC
KIDE
KCRS
KMFO
KRVC
KRGY
KR
KAWK
KG
KFIN
KHIV
KBIO
KOCI
KBTR
KNEI
KPOA
KCFE
KPLS
KSTC
KHDP
KPRP
KCRCM
KLIG
KCFC
KTER
KREC
KTBT
KPRV
KSTH
KRIM
KRAD
KWAC
KWMM
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KOMS
KX
KMIG
KRCM
KVRP
KBTS
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNAR
KPWR
KNPP
KDEMAF
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KGIT
KPAI
KTLA
KFSC
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KID
KOM
KMOC
KJUST
KGCC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KO
KNSD
KHUM
KSEC
KCMR
KCHG
KICA
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KCGC
KWWMN
KPAK
KWNM
KWMNCS
KRFD
MOPS
MCAP
MPOS
MARR
MO
MNUC
MX
MASS
MG
MY
MU
ML
MR
MILITARY
MTCRE
MT
MEPP
MA
MDC
MP
MAR
MASSMNUC
MARAD
MAPP
MZ
MD
MI
MEETINGS
MK
MCC
MEPN
MRCRE
MAS
MIL
MASC
MC
MV
MTCR
MIK
MUCN
MEDIA
MERCOSUR
MW
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTRE
MEPI
MQADHAFI
MAPS
NO
NATO
NL
NP
NZ
NSF
NI
NH
NG
NAFTA
NU
NASA
NR
NATOPREL
NSSP
NSG
NA
NT
NW
NK
NPT
NPA
NATIONAL
NPG
NSFO
NS
NSC
NE
NGO
NDP
NIPP
NRR
NEW
NZUS
NC
NAR
NV
NORAD
OTRA
OPCW
OVIP
OAS
OREP
OPIC
OIIP
OPRC
ODIP
OEXC
OPDC
OSCE
OIC
OSCI
OECD
OFDP
OFDA
OMIG
OPAD
OFFICIALS
OVP
OIE
OHUM
OCS
OBSP
OTR
OSAC
ON
OCII
OES
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PTER
PINS
PINR
PREF
PK
PROP
PA
PARM
PBTS
PMAR
PM
PGIV
PE
PRAM
PHUH
PHSA
PL
PNAT
PO
PLN
PAO
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PF
PEL
PBIO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PAS
POL
PREO
PAHO
PMIL
POGOV
POV
PAK
PNR
PRL
PG
PREFA
PSI
PINL
PU
PARMS
PRGOV
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POSTS
PROG
PORG
PTBS
PUNE
POLICY
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PP
PS
PY
PTERE
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PRELP
PSEPC
PGOVE
PINF
PNG
PGOC
PFOR
PCUL
POLINT
PGGV
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PGOVLO
PHUS
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
RS
RU
RELATIONS
RW
RO
RM
RP
ROOD
RICE
RUPREL
RSO
RCMP
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RIGHTS
RF
RFE
RSP
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
SU
SCUL
SNAR
SOCI
SF
SA
SHUM
SENV
SP
SR
SY
SANC
SC
SMIG
SZ
SARS
SW
SEVN
SO
SEN
SL
SNARCS
SNARN
SI
SG
SN
SH
SYR
SAARC
SPCE
SHI
SCRS
SENVKGHG
SYRIA
SWE
STEINBERG
SIPRS
ST
SNARIZ
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SIPDIS
SAN
TC
TI
TBIO
TH
TSPL
TRGY
TSPA
TPHY
TU
TW
TS
TAGS
TK
TX
TNGD
TZ
TF
TL
TV
TN
TD
TIP
TR
TP
TO
TT
TFIN
THPY
TERRORISM
TINT
TRSY
TURKEY
TBID
US
UK
UNGA
UP
UZ
UNMIK
USTR
UNO
UNSC
UN
UNESCO
UNAUS
UNHRC
UY
UG
UNHCR
UNCND
USOAS
USEU
UNICEF
UNEP
UV
UNPUOS
UNCSD
USUN
UNCHR
UNDC
USNC
UE
UNDP
UNC
USPS
USAID
UNVIE
UAE
UNFICYP
UNODC
UNCHS
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNCHC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 08UNVIEVIENNA587, IAEA PROGRAM SUPPORT COSTS - A BUDGET ISSUE THAT
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #08UNVIEVIENNA587.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
08UNVIEVIENNA587 | 2008-11-06 15:23 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | UNVIE |
Usha E Pitts 11/26/2008 11:26:08 AM From DB/Inbox: Usha
Cable
Text:
UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 00587
CXUNVIE:
ACTION: IAEA_UN
INFO: AMB_UN DCM_UN CTBT_UN
DISSEMINATION: IAEAUN
CHARGE: UNVI
APPROVED: AMB:GSCHULTE
DRAFTED: IAEA:UPITTS
CLEARED: GPYATT, LHILLIARD, HASTWOOD, BHOFFHEINS, MSCHELAND
VZCZCUNV643
OO RUEHC RUEHXX RUEHII RUEHRO RHEBAAA RHEGGTN
RUEHFR RUCNDT
DE RUEHUNV #0587/01 3111523
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 061523Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8639
INFO RUEHXX/GENEVA IO MISSIONS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0363
RHEBAAA/DOE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEGGTN/DEPT OF ENERGY GERMANTOWN MD PRIORITY
RUEHFR/USMISSION UNESCO PARIS PRIORITY
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 1385
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UNVIE VIENNA 000587
SENSITIVE
FOR ISN/MNSA, IO/T; DOE FOR NA-24, NA-25, NA-21
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: IAEA OTRA KNNP TRGY AORC UN PREL AS CA
SUBJECT: IAEA PROGRAM SUPPORT COSTS - A BUDGET ISSUE THAT
FESTERS
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The IAEA has no clear policy on the
application of Program Support Costs (PSCs) to extrabudgetary
contributions. In recent months, however, the Secretariat
has dabbled with implementing a universal fee of 7 percent.
The U.S. and Australia have so far refused to pay the 7
percent, and one Australian contribution is in limbo as a
result. Australia has proposed a paper, repeated below,
which Geneva Group states are considering for presentation to
the IAEA to advance the dialogue on this issue. The letter
conforms to U.S. policy, supports the goals of the UN
Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI), and has
broad support from the Geneva Group. There is a risk,
however, that forcing the issue into the public realm will
lead to a messy repeat of past battles with the G-77. There
are also concerns among some USG agencies and IAEA technical
staff that PSCs are a thinly-veiled &money grab8 by IAEA
administrators that will divert money away from valuable
technical programs. Despite these concerns, Post supports
the broader goal of budgetary transparency and requests
authority to convey the paper, together with the UK as Geneva
Group co-chair, to Deputy Director General Waller by the
Geneva Group,s November 11 target (para 7). Text attached.
End Summary.
¶2. (SBU) Program Support Costs (PSCs) are loosely defined as
charges to cover the direct and indirect costs of
implementing extrabudgetary programs. A growing consensus
has emerged that PSCs should be harmonized across the UN
system, and the topic has become a focus of the UN High-Level
Committee on Management. In general, the UN and its
technical agencies charge PSCs of 13 percent, while the UN
humanitarian agencies charge 7 percent. The IAEA, on the
other hand, has no clearly-defined policy on the application
of PSCs, but began levying such expenses on a
&case-by-case8 basis beginning approximately one year ago
(the charge ranges between 0, 3, 7 and 12 percent, depending
on the donor and program). The U.S. has thus far declined to
pay PSCs to the IAEA, partly in recognition of our
significant extrabudgetary contributions, many of which
include a cost-free expert (CFE). The U.S. also objects to
the lack of any clearly-defined policy outlining how PSC
rates are determined and levied.
¶3. (SBU) Emerging best practice, including UNTAI, stipulates
that international organizations apply PSCs in a fair and
transparent manner in order to accurately reflect the real
costs of running programs. Attempts by Member States to
implement such a policy at the IAEA have failed in the face
of G-77 resistance (G-77 countries usually pay only 3 percent
and do not wish to see any changes to the arrangement). A
policy battle at the time of the June 2008 Board of Governors
meeting ended with the Secretariat,s agreement to conform to
the status quo and continue applying PSC on a
&case-by-case8 basis.
Turbid Policy
-------------
¶4. (SBU) Following the June dust up, the IAEA Secretariat
took steps to circumvent the deadlock among Member States by
apparently &universalizing8 PSCs at 7 percent. The 7
percent is charged retroactively to all projects submitted
since July 1, 2008. In partial confirmation of these rumors,
a high-ranking IAEA official told DCM that two middle income
countries (Pakistan and one of the Baltic States) had been
initially charged only 3 percent in PSCs, but that DG
ElBaradei had turned down the projects &until they agreed to
the full 7 percent.8 The official (who spoke in confidence)
did not indicate whether the policy would apply to the U.S.,
nor did he mention the U.S. refusal to pay PSCs on a recent,
USD 1.5 million DOE donation to the Nuclear Security Fund.
(Note: The Australians have also refused to pay PSCs. As a
result, funds for an Australian project have been in limbo )
sitting in an IAEA bank account ) since early this summer.
The Japanese, on the other hand, are resigned to paying PSCs,
and the European Union recently accepted that 7 percent of
its planned 5 million Euro contribution to the Nuclear
Security Fund would go to PSCs. End Note.)
¶5. (SBU) Contrary to what we have heard from the Secretariat,
other rumors indicate that a tiered structure remains in
place whereby G-77 Members pay 3 percent for government
cost-sharing projects, OECD countries pay 7 percent, and
contributions for junior professional officers (JPOs) are
charged 12 percent. For example, a Mexican diplomat (and new
participant in Geneva Group meetings) questioned the high
rate charged on a Mexican JPO, given it amounted to &free
labor8 for the IAEA. Canada and the U.S. are in a similar
position.
¶6. (SBU) In addition to the confusion over PSC rates, rumors
allude to internal dissension at the IAEA, with some
high-level officials pushing for universal PSCs, and others
adhering to tiered structures. Even the DG,s supposed
support for universal PSCs has not been put to the test
publicly. A number of Member States, notably Japan and
Australia, are irritated by the obfuscation and have
encouraged other Members to support them in pressuring for a
policy that is fair, universal and transparent.
Request for Guidance
--------------------
¶7. (SBU) Australia has recently drafted a paper requesting
clarity on the PSC policy (sections of the document are
lifted from a previous U.S. statement on the issue). In an
UNVIE-hosted meeting of Geneva Group members November 5,
there was near-consensus that the paper should go from the
Geneva Group as a whole to Director General David Waller.
Post requests authority to convey the paper, together with
the UK as Geneva Group co-chair, to DDG Waller by the Geneva
Group,s November 11 target.
¶8. (SBU) Comment: Two issues affect the decision to co-sign:
1) If donor countries force the Secretariat to &admit8
publicly to a universal PSC policy, it could lead to G-77
pushback and a potential showdown at the Board of Governors
that merely repeats past struggles. In other words, we could
win the battle of transparency, but lose the war of
establishing a fair PSC policy if the DG ultimately caves in
to G-77 pressure for a lower rate for some projects. 2) U.S.
support for universal PSCs could increase the proportion of
resources going to IAEA administration (PSCs on top of CFEs)
and decrease the remainder available for priority programs in
the areas of safety and non-proliferation. (Canada is in the
same position and has stated off the record that universal
PSCs would likely end their CFE program.) Skeptical
observers within the USG and even the IAEA go so far as to
suggest that the move to levy PSCs amounts to little more
than a &money grab8 by IAEA administrators that will siphon
money away from the real work of the Agency. Recognizing
these risks, post recommends signing the letter as a means to
advancing our long term goal of transparency in international
organizations. End Comment.
¶9. (U) Australian Draft Letter to DDG Waller
The Geneva Group supports in principle the application of
Programme Support Costs (PSCs) to extrabudgetary
contributions.
In June 2008, the Board debated a Secretariat document
setting out a specific policy on the application of common
PSCs to extrabudgetary contributions.
Several Geneva Group countries (as well as the EU as a group)
indicated they still had some concerns about the precise
modalities of how the charge would be applied, and requested
the Secretariat to delay broader implementation.
Several members also emphasised that any such mechanism could
only be applied in an equitable and non-discriminatory
manner. In The Geneva Group's view, if a program support cost
policy is to be implemented, it should be transparent and as
consistent as possible.
We are concerned at indications the Secretariat has been
moving to make acceptance of extrabudgetary contributions
received after 1 July 2008 contingent on the levying of a 7
per cent PSC, despite its statement at the June Board that
"it would continue to apply Programme Support Costs on
extrabudgetary contributions on a case-by-case basis, as is
currently the practice."
We note that there are a number of issues to be clarified
regarding how the Agency intends to implement the policy,
including:
- effects on extrabudgetary activities for which funding
for management and administration is already available;
- confirmation that the introduction of a common PSC
policy will be cost-neutral, e.g. that it would not lead to
an augmentation of MTBF (budget and finance) staff levels
simply to administer the PSC mechanism itself;
- advice of the quantity of funds already raised through
the levying of PSCs, the purpose to which these funds have
been put (or will be put), and the point at which such funds
may begin effectively subsidising - or creating savings in -
the Regular Budget.
We also note that some Member States continue to suggest a
discriminatory approach whereby certain lines of
extrabudgetary funding should be exempted from the common PSC
policy.
Our understanding of the Secretariat's reference at the June
Board to "a case-by-case basis, as is currently the practice"
was based on paragraph 3 of its "Policy on the Application of
Programme Support Costs", according to which PSCs have been
applied in the case of a few voluntary contributions in
agreement with donors, or otherwise arranged through the
provision of cost-free experts."
Based on discussion at the June Board, it was our expectation
that streams of extrabudgetary funding previously subject to
PSCs would continue to have PSCs applied, and that PSCs could
be charged on new streams of extrabudgetary funding subject
to the agreement of the donor (n.b. Rule 108.02 of the
Agency's Financial Rules provides that the Agency may charge
PSCs only with the agreement of the contributor).
We also understood that the Secretariat "could even find
itself in the position of having to decline extrabudgetary
funding" if administrative resources were not available in
specific cases.
However, until such time as Member States can see an
official, transparent and equitable PSC policy applicable
across the Agency, the Secretariat should not make its
acceptance of new extrabudgetary contributions contingent on
donor agreement to PSCs.
In this context, we note that several donor agencies have
already approved certain extrabudgetary contributions on the
understanding that the entirety of the contribution would be
used for direct project costs such that the retrospective
application of PSCs would require administratively burdensome
re-approval of the contribution.
The Geneva Group is prepared to continue working with the
Secretariat toward a fair, equitable and transparent common
PSC policy.
SCHULTE