IAEA/TC: TECHNICAL COOPERATION REFORM PRIORITIES

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000196

SIPDIS

STATE FOR IO/T, ISN/MNSA, ISN/RA
NA-243-GOOREVICH/OEHLBERT, BRUNNS; NA-241 O'CONNER, SIEMON;
NA21 - CUMMINS, ILIOPULOS; NE - MCGINNIS, PEKO, CLAPPER
NRC FOR OIP - DOANE, SCHWARTZMAN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/30/2019
TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY EAID
SUBJECT: IAEA/TC: TECHNICAL COOPERATION REFORM PRIORITIES
FOR THE U.S.

REF: 08 UNVIE

Classified By: Ambassador Gregory L. Schulte for reasons 1.4 b and d

--------------
SUMMARY:
--------------


1. (C) As the Mission continues to monitor TC projects,
participate in Future of the Agency discussions,
and attend regional TC planning meetings, several
management shortcomings have come to light: a
lack of transparency, lack of sustainable project
planning, a lack of measurable performance indicators,
and a lack of follow-up with IAEA trained fellows
to ensure they are using their newly acquired skills
for peaceful uses. In its day-to-day dealings with
the TC Division, the Mission has found many problems
with the current operating procedures, notwithstanding
DDG Cetto's mantra of "quality over quantity" for the
2009-2011 TC project cycle. Six months into the
current TC project cycle (2009-2011),the USG should
consider and promote TC reforms that will enhance
member states, access to project information, ensure
nonproliferation concerns are addressed at each step,
provide the TC Department tools to measure results, and
allow for sustainable project planning from one cycle
to the next. The USG can assist the TC Department in
this process by providing access to USAID training
resources, pushing partnerships with other UN Agencies
to leverage expertise, and ensure the integrity of the
project management cycle by offering USG expertise in
organizational management. To mitigate potential
G-77/NAM resistance, such reform efforts should be
presented to the extent possible in terms of improving
the efficiency and effectiveness of TC. This can
be achieved by working with a group of like-minded
states that reaches across regional groups.

--------------
TRANSPARENCY
--------------


2. (C) Member States have called for more transparency
of TC projects at every stage of planning and
implementation, in parallel with these projects
becoming more advanced, involving more equipment
purchases, training, and development of nuclear
technology in various countries and regions. The TC
Department has been slow to react to these calls and
sometimes ignores them completely, citing "proprietary
or confidential information" that should be available
only to the IAEA and the recipient state. Looking at
the macro-project planning level, the TC Department could
make a simple change to its standard operating procedure
for regional and inter-regional projects to provide more
transparency. TC Project Planning Meetings for regional
and inter-regional projects should be open to all
interested donors. If potential donors are included in
the planning phases of such projects and can assure some
project integrity through this involvement, they will
be more likely to provide extrabudgetary funds. Taking
this notion one step further, recipient member states
should also be encouraged to present their TC project
requests directly to interested donors. An excellent
recent example of such thinking is China's presentation
of its own national project on Training Centers.
China's new project TCCPR4032: Enhancing the capabilities
of national institutions supporting nuclear power
development, shows China planning for medium and long
term human resources development. The PRC has been
completely transparent in hosting a seminar to discuss
the project and solicit financial participation. The
Chinese project presentation is an example of
beneficiary's responsibility to inform and donor MS
responsibility to participate and ask questions up
front.


3. (SBU) Another vehicle to provide more transparency
during project implementation is the IAEA-created TC
PRIDE database. This database is supposed to provide
Member States up-to-date information on-going, in
the pipeline, and unfunded or canceled projects.
All aspects of the project, whether procurement

related or interim reports, are supposed to be posted
on the database for use by Member States. In recent
months, the database has not been kept up-to-date,
with the IAEA saying many projects are proprietary
in nature and should be kept between the IAEA and
recipient states. This line of argumentation is
unsuitable; Member State are expected to continue
to support TC, but cannot justify annual pledges
or state that there are no proliferation concerns
on specific projects if information is not
forthcoming. In order to gain Member State support,
the IAEA must use TC Pride more systematically.


4. (SBU) Moving beyond projectQlanning and
implementation, tracking of persons who have
received IAEA training in nuclear techniques
via TC projects needs to be improved. One of
the major deficiencies of the TC Program is
its inability to track TC fellows who have
been trained in a variety of areas using
nuclear techniques. The TC Fellowship program
trained more than 1000 fellows between 2004
and 2006, accounting for 14 percent of TC
disbursements. However, there is currently
no mechanism in place for tracking graduates
from the program to gauge what they do with
their knowledge, where they are working, or
how the training is benefiting the IAEA's
mission or science or increasing the safety
or security of recipient-country nuclear
programs. In order for Member States to
accurately assess project proposals requiring
specific knowledge it would be helpful if
the TC Department would create a Fellowship
tracking system and/or network. A database
that tracks where fellows are working within
their country's nuclear complex would also
help mitigate the risk that transfers of
expertise could lead to proliferation.
(COMMENT: The USG could offer its expertise
in creating alumni networks using State's
Fulbright network system, USAIDs tracking
systems, or systems at the Moscow- or
Kiev-based Science and Technology
Centers as examples. END COMMENT)

--------------
MEASURABLE RESULTS
--------------


5. (SBU) Along with calls for transparency come repeated
requests from Member States for results that show TC
projects are managed in a responsible and sustainable
manner leading to measurable outcomes. To date the TC
Department does not have a consistent set of measurable
performance indicators for its TC projects across
geographic divisions. The department could resolve this
issue by instituting a simple framework for all projects
so they can be compared and contrasted and best practices
can emerge. The TC Division should consider instituting
a system that breaks projects into tasks, ties the tasks
to project outcomes which define the project objectives
and goals. A simple framework would allow the Agency,
beneficiaries and donors to buy in to the projects in
order to achieve maximum value. The current Programme
Cycle Management Framework (PCMF) does have a tracking
function, however, the TC Department does not appear to
use it to track successes and failures. Without
measurable performance indicators, more data on TC Pride
and inclusion in planning phases, Member States will not
be able to assess proliferation risks, whether to fund or
approve a project, or share the results with national
governments.


6. (U) In response to increased pressure to explain how
PCMF is implemented, TC Program Support and Coordination
Division Director Magliani and the IAEA's Office of
Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) Director Erikson
briefed Member States on the current direction of
TC project planning on April 15. Member State
representatives agreed with Magliani that undertaking
fewer but larger projects with a regional focus
constituted a more efficient and effective approach
to the IAEA's development role. Member States

also stressed that project closure must be timely,
and complete projects must reflect a real need
and socio-economic impact set out in the
beneficiaries' Country Program Frameworks
(CPF). OIOS suggested that internal evaluations
by project teams themselves could include more
cooperation with Member States, while the independent
evaluations from OIOS will continue to maintain
independence from any project-related staff.
(NOTE: Mission anticipates these issues will be
raised by some Member States during the upcoming
Future of the Agency discussion on TC June 18-19.
END NOTE)


--------------
RESOURCE MOBILIZATION
--------------


7. (SBU) A consistent criticism of the TC Program
is that there is always a funding shortfall
because of the many TC projects requested by
Member States. In order to relieve this situation,
the U.S. and other Member States have asked
the TC Department to look for funding sources
beyond governments. The department has been
slow to embrace this concept and continues to
work exclusively with intergovernmental
organizations; the most recent "partnership"
is with the EU Commission. The TC Department
has not gone to other organizations, NGOs, think
tanks, etc. to fundraise for specific
project/themes or created partnerships with
other UN family organizations. The department
has also shunned the example of the IAEA Program
of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT (reftel),
situated in the IAEA's Nuclear Applications
Department, which has raised USG 22 million
over the past several years and just signed a
partnership agreement with the WHO on cancer
therapy. The TC Department should be
encouraged to seek partnerships that
are complementary to its work in order to
gain financial support for some its projects
that are unfunded. (NOTE: Mission will report
on the TC Department's resource mobilization
strategy and methodology septel.
END NOTE)

--------------
COMMENT AND ACTION REQUEST
--------------


8. (C) TC is broken, but not beyond repair. Taking
advantage of the Administration's renewed
multilateral approach, the U.S. can assist in
creating a more transparent environment in which
Member States can ensure recipient states get what
they need while minimizing proliferation risk. To
leave behind the acrimony that characterizes the
North/South divide about TC, any efforts to
promote better planning, management, and
transparency should be presented to the extent
possible in terms of improving the efficiency
and effectiveness of TC. To mitigate potential
G-77/NAM resistance, such efforts should be
presented by a group of like-minded states that
reaches across regional groups.


9. (U) Mission requests feedback on TC reform
suggestions above and guidance on how to
present to like-minded states for possible
roll-out at the Future of the Agency discussion
in June or later in the (September) General
Conference resolution on TC or year at the
November 23-25 Technical Assistance and
Cooperation Committee (TACC).
SCHULTE