

Currently released so far... 12404 / 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 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 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
ASEC
AE
AF
AM
AR
AJ
AU
AORC
AG
AEMR
AMGT
APER
AGMT
AL
AFIN
AO
AMED
ADCO
AS
ABUD
ABLD
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APECO
AID
AND
AMBASSADOR
AN
ARM
AY
AODE
AMG
ASCH
AMCHAMS
ARF
APCS
APEC
ASEAN
AGAO
ANET
ADPM
ACOA
ACABQ
AORL
AFFAIRS
ATRN
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ADANA
ASIG
AA
AX
AUC
AC
AECL
AADP
AGRICULTURE
AMEX
ACAO
ACBAQ
AQ
AORG
ADM
AINF
AIT
ASEX
AGR
AROC
ATFN
AFGHANISTAN
AFU
AER
ALOW
AZ
AVERY
BA
BY
BU
BR
BE
BL
BO
BK
BM
BILAT
BH
BEXP
BF
BTIO
BC
BBSR
BMGT
BTIU
BG
BWC
BB
BD
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BN
BIDEN
BT
CW
CH
CF
CD
CV
CVIS
CM
CE
CA
CJAN
CLINTON
CIA
CU
CASC
CI
CO
CACM
CDB
CN
CMGT
CS
CG
CBW
CIS
CR
CONDOLEEZZA
CPAS
CAN
CWC
CY
COUNTER
CDG
CL
CT
CIC
CIDA
CSW
CHR
CB
CODEL
COUNTERTERRORISM
CTR
COM
CICTE
CFED
CJUS
CKGR
CBSA
CEUDA
CARSON
CONS
CITEL
CLMT
CROS
CITT
CAC
CVR
CDC
CAPC
COPUOS
CBC
CBE
CARICOM
COE
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CTM
CNARC
ECON
EFIN
ETRD
EUN
EFIS
EG
ETTC
EZ
EPET
EAID
EAGR
ENRG
ECUN
EU
ELAB
ECPS
EAIR
EINV
ELTN
EWWT
EIND
EMIN
EI
ECIN
ENVR
ELECTIONS
EINVEFIN
EN
ES
ER
EC
EUC
EINT
EINVETC
ENGR
ET
EK
ENIV
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ECONOMY
EAP
EFTA
EUR
EUMEM
EXIM
ERD
ENERG
EUREM
ESA
ERNG
EXTERNAL
EPA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
ECONOMICS
ELN
EINN
EFINECONCS
ENNP
EEPET
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ENVI
ETRO
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ECONOMIC
EAIDS
EDU
ETRA
ETRN
EFIM
EIAR
ETRC
EAIG
EXBS
EURN
ECIP
EREL
ECA
ENGY
ECONCS
ECONEFIN
ETC
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINDETRD
IR
IZ
IS
IAEA
INRB
IRAJ
IQ
IN
IT
IMO
INTERPOL
ICAO
IO
IC
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
ICTY
ID
IPR
IWC
ILC
INTELSAT
IL
IBRD
IMF
IA
IRC
ICRC
ILO
ITU
ITRA
IV
IDA
IAHRC
ICJ
ISRAELI
IRS
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
IZPREL
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITF
IBET
IEFIN
INR
IACI
INTERNAL
IDP
IGAD
IEA
ICTR
IIP
INRA
INRO
IF
KJUS
KSCA
KNNP
KU
KCOR
KCRM
KDEM
KTFN
KHLS
KPAL
KWBG
KACT
KGHG
KPAO
KTIA
KIRF
KWMN
KS
KG
KZ
KN
KMDR
KISL
KSPR
KHIV
KPRP
KAWK
KR
KUNR
KDRG
KCIP
KGCC
KTIP
KSUM
KPKO
KVIR
KAWC
KPIN
KGIC
KRAD
KIPR
KOLY
KCFE
KMCA
KE
KV
KICC
KNPP
KBCT
KSEP
KFRD
KFLU
KVPR
KOCI
KBIO
KSTH
KMPI
KCRS
KOMC
KTBT
KPLS
KIRC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFLO
KBTS
KSTC
KTDB
KFSC
KX
KFTFN
KNEI
KIDE
KREC
KMRS
KICA
KPAONZ
KCGC
KSAF
KRGY
KCMR
KRVC
KVRP
KSEO
KCOM
KAID
KTEX
KNUC
KNAR
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KLIG
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCRCM
KHDP
KGIT
KNSD
KOMS
KWMM
KPAI
KHSA
KTLA
KO
KMFO
KRCM
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KPWR
KID
KWNM
KRIM
KPOA
KCHG
KOM
KSCI
KFIN
KMOC
KESS
KWAC
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KPRV
KBTR
KERG
KTER
KDDG
KPAK
KRFD
KHUM
KDEV
KCFC
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KJUST
MARR
MOPS
MU
MTCRE
MNUC
MY
MASS
MCAP
MOPPS
MAR
MPOS
MO
ML
MR
MASC
MX
MD
MP
MA
MTRE
MIL
MCC
MZ
MK
MDC
MRCRE
MAPS
MV
MI
MEPN
MAPP
MEETINGS
MAS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTCR
MG
MC
MARAD
MIK
MILITARY
MEDIA
MEPI
MUCN
MEPP
MT
MERCOSUR
MW
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
NZ
NATO
NG
NI
NO
NATIONAL
NU
NPT
NIPP
NL
NPG
NS
NA
NGO
NP
NSG
NDP
NAFTA
NR
NC
NH
NE
NSF
NPA
NK
NSSP
NRR
NATOPREL
NSC
NT
NW
NORAD
NEW
NV
NSFO
NAR
NASA
NZUS
OTRA
OVIP
OPRC
OPDC
OSCE
OAS
ODIP
OIIP
OFDP
OVP
OREP
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OIC
OFDA
OSCI
OPIC
OBSP
OECD
ON
OCII
OHUM
OES
OCS
OMIG
OPAD
OTR
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PSOE
PINS
PARM
PK
PBTS
PEPR
PM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PREF
PBIO
PROP
PA
PSI
PINT
PO
PKFK
PL
PAK
PE
POLITICS
PINL
POL
PHSA
PU
PF
POV
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PARMS
PRGOV
PNAT
POLINT
PRAM
PMAR
PG
PAO
PROG
PRELP
PPA
PCUL
PSEPC
PSA
PREO
PAHO
PGIV
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POSTS
PTBS
PGOVLO
PORG
PGOVE
PLN
PINF
PAS
PUNE
POLICY
PDEM
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PHUMPGOV
PMIL
PNG
PP
PS
PHUH
PECON
POGOV
PY
PHUMPREL
PHUS
PRL
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
PEL
RS
RU
RW
REGION
RP
RICE
ROBERT
RSP
RUPREL
RM
RO
RCMP
RSO
RELATIONS
REACTION
REPORT
RIGHTS
ROOD
RF
RFE
RIGHTSPOLMIL
SP
SA
SY
SF
SYR
SENV
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SO
SU
SG
STEINBERG
SHUM
SW
SMIG
SR
SZ
SIPRS
SI
SAARC
SPCE
SARS
SN
SYRIA
SANC
SL
SCRS
SC
SENVKGHG
SAN
SNARCS
SHI
SWE
SNARIZ
SIPDIS
SEN
SNARN
SPCVIS
SEVN
SSA
SH
SOFA
SK
ST
TPHY
TU
TRGY
TI
TX
TS
TW
TC
TFIN
TD
TSPA
TH
TT
TIP
TBIO
TSPL
TZ
TERRORISM
TRSY
TN
THPY
TINT
TF
TL
TV
TK
TO
TP
TURKEY
TNGD
TBID
TAGS
TR
UP
US
UNSC
UK
UZ
UE
UNESCO
UV
UNGA
UN
UNMIK
UNO
UY
UAE
UNEP
UG
UNHCR
UNHRC
USUN
UNAUS
USTR
USNC
USOAS
UNCHR
UNCSD
UNDP
USEU
USPS
UNDC
UNDESCO
UNCHC
UNFICYP
UNC
UNODC
UNPUOS
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCHS
UNVIE
USAID
UNIDROIT
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 15:03 | 2011-04-28 00:12 | 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