

Currently released so far... 12689 / 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
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
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
AF
ASEC
AR
AEMR
AMGT
AE
AU
AID
AORC
APER
AS
AM
AFIN
AMED
AJ
AGR
ACOA
ANET
ASIG
ABLD
AL
AA
APECO
AGAO
AY
AGMT
APEC
AINF
AG
ACS
AECL
AFFAIRS
ABUD
ASUP
ADANA
AADP
AMCHAMS
ARF
ASEAN
ADPM
ATRN
ALOW
APCS
ADCO
ACAO
AORG
AROC
AO
AODE
ACABQ
AX
AMEX
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
ASCH
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORL
ADM
AN
AIT
BU
BR
BL
BO
BA
BB
BG
BM
BBSR
BH
BEXP
BK
BD
BTIO
BT
BE
BY
BF
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BILAT
BIDEN
BC
BMGT
BWC
BN
BTIU
CH
CG
CF
CU
CE
CVIS
CASC
CO
CS
CA
CIDA
CBW
CW
CMGT
CI
CODEL
CY
CPAS
CJAN
CD
CWC
CDG
CIA
CL
CROS
CAPC
CTR
CT
CR
CBSA
CEUDA
COM
CFED
CV
CACS
CARSON
CLINTON
CN
CONS
CM
CAC
CIC
COPUOS
CDC
CONDOLEEZZA
CICTE
COUNTER
COUNTRY
CBE
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CLEARANCE
COE
CARICOM
CB
CSW
CITT
CACM
CDB
CJUS
CTM
CAN
CLMT
CBC
CNARC
CIS
EG
EZ
EUN
ECON
ETRD
ECPS
EFIN
ENRG
ETTC
EPET
EINV
EAID
EAIR
EWWT
EU
EAGR
EC
ELAB
EIND
EN
EMIN
ESENV
ENNP
EFIS
ELTN
ET
ECIN
EFTA
ES
EINT
EI
ENGR
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENVI
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECINECONCS
ELN
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EXTERNAL
EXIM
ETRO
ENIV
ESA
ER
EK
EUR
EFINECONCS
EUMEM
EUREM
EPA
ERNG
ENERG
ECA
ETRC
EINVEFIN
ETC
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
ECONOMIC
EXBS
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
EREL
EINVETC
ECONCS
ETRA
EAIG
EUC
ERD
ETRN
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
IS
IZ
IR
IC
IO
IN
ID
IGAD
IT
ILC
IAEA
ITU
ICAO
IMO
IBRD
IMF
ICJ
IAHRC
ITF
INRA
INRO
IWC
IQ
IV
ICRC
ICTY
INRB
IEFIN
ILO
ITRA
ITALY
IBET
ISRAELI
IL
INTELSAT
IRC
IDP
ICTR
IRAQI
IPR
IIP
INMARSAT
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
INTERNAL
IRS
IA
INTERPOL
IEA
INR
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
ISRAEL
IACI
INDO
IDA
ISLAMISTS
KSPR
KNNP
KWBG
KAWK
KISL
KPAO
KN
KS
KIPR
KCRM
KDEM
KIRF
KJUS
KHLS
KSCA
KOMC
KAWC
KV
KFRD
KWMN
KTIP
KPWR
KSUM
KGHG
KTIA
KTFN
KIRC
KCOR
KACT
KMDR
KGIC
KOLY
KUNR
KIDE
KMPI
KPKO
KCFE
KVPR
KRAD
KPAL
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KTEX
KTDB
KFSC
KZ
KSEP
KFLU
KE
KU
KPLS
KRVC
KRIM
KSTH
KG
KFLO
KPOA
KICC
KDDG
KPRV
KTBT
KBCT
KSAF
KMOC
KDRG
KBIO
KREC
KSTC
KVRP
KBTR
KMIG
KENV
KNSD
KCGC
KWAC
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KWMM
KPRP
KNEI
KPAI
KO
KVIR
KX
KMCA
KCRS
KMFO
KID
KCIP
KNAR
KR
KCRCM
KBTS
KSEO
KHDP
KFIN
KOCI
KGIT
KNUP
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KSCI
KTLA
KHIV
KCSY
KTRD
KMRS
KNPP
KJUST
KCMR
KTER
KRCM
KCFC
KSAC
KCHG
KREL
KFTFN
KCOM
KLIG
KDEMAF
KAID
KGCC
KICA
KHUM
KSEC
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KWWMN
KOM
KWNM
KRFD
KRGY
KIFR
KWMNCS
KPAK
KOMS
KHSA
MPOS
MOPS
MARR
MTCR
MNUC
MASS
MX
MCAP
MAR
MTRE
MASC
MK
MG
MTCRE
MI
MD
MA
MO
MY
MU
ML
MRCRE
MAS
MEDIA
MC
MR
MIL
MW
MARAD
MAPP
MZ
MP
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MEPN
MEPI
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MT
MCC
MIK
MAPS
MV
MILITARY
MDC
MEPP
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
NATO
NG
NL
NZ
NT
NW
NO
NU
NS
NPT
NASA
NI
NK
NSG
NE
NORAD
NAFTA
NP
NATIONAL
NSSP
NSF
NA
NGO
NV
NR
NDP
NIPP
NZUS
NH
NC
NEW
NRR
NAR
NATOPREL
NPG
NSC
NPA
NSFO
OPDC
OPRC
OEXC
OTRA
ODIP
OIIP
OVIP
OPIC
OPCW
OAS
OREP
OSCE
OSCI
OES
OFDP
OECD
OCS
OIC
OPAD
OVP
OHUM
OFFICIALS
OIE
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OBSP
OFDA
ON
OCII
PREL
PGOV
PARM
PINR
PTER
PHUM
PK
PREF
PM
PHSA
PA
PINS
PE
PBTS
PCI
PO
PL
POGOV
PAK
PEL
PGIV
PROP
PP
PBIO
POL
POLITICS
POLICY
PINL
PBT
PMIL
POV
PTBS
PG
POSTS
PALESTINIAN
PROV
PNAT
PINF
PRL
PAS
PDOV
PRAM
PREO
PAHO
PHUMPGOV
PAO
PREFA
PSI
POLITICAL
PAIGH
PARMS
PROG
PTERE
PRGOV
PORG
PS
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PNG
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PGOC
PY
PLN
PHUH
PF
PHUS
PU
PARTIES
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PHUMPREL
RS
RU
RW
REACTION
RCMP
RSO
RO
RP
ROOD
RM
ROBERT
RICE
REGION
RSP
RF
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
RUPREL
RELATIONS
RFE
REPORT
SY
SP
SOCI
SMIG
SNAR
SCUL
SC
SU
SO
SI
SENV
SZ
SW
SA
SR
SF
SEVN
SN
STEINBERG
SEN
SG
SYR
SWE
SK
SH
SNARCS
SAARC
SNARIZ
SPCE
SARS
SNARN
SCRS
SYRIA
SL
SENVKGHG
SAN
ST
SIPDIS
SSA
SPCVIS
SOFA
SANC
SHI
SHUM
SIPRS
TSPA
TSPL
TU
TBIO
TRGY
TPHY
TS
TP
TW
TBID
TI
TF
TZ
TD
TT
TN
TNGD
TC
TX
TH
TL
TIP
THPY
TV
TK
TERRORISM
TO
TRSY
TURKEY
TINT
TFIN
TAGS
TR
US
UNSC
UNGA
UK
UP
UNCHC
UN
UNMIK
UNCSD
UY
USTR
USOAS
UNHRC
UNFCYP
UG
UNAUS
UNESCO
UNIDROIT
UNO
UV
UNHCR
USUN
UZ
USNC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNEP
USEU
USPS
USAID
UE
UNVIE
UAE
UNDP
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNDESCO
UNC
UNPUOS
UNDC
UNICEF
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