IAEA PROGRAM SUPPORT COSTS - FORCING THE ISSUE

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000027 SENSITIVE SIPDIS FOR IO, ISN/MNSA; DOE FOR NA-24, NA-25, NA-21 E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: IAEA AORC KNNP TRGY UN PREL CN UK SUBJECT: IAEA PROGRAM SUPPORT COSTS - FORCING THE ISSUE REF: 08 UNVIE 587 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The issue of Program Support Costs (PSCs) at the IAEA has become increasingly irksome. The IAEA's unpublished policy of charging 7 percent PSCs has grown to include even the cost-free experts on loan to the IAEA from Member States, while continuing to exempt donations to the Technical Cooperation Fund (a favorite of the G-77). The U.S. has refused to pay PSCs until the policy is clarified and 3.8 million USD in DOE donations are currently in limbo as a result. Mission is working to build Geneva Group consensus around three conditions for an acceptable PSC policy: 1) Publish a fair, transparent and universal PSC policy that covers all extra budgetary contributions (including the Technical Cooperation Fund); 2) make an explicit, line-item reference to the PSC rate in all extra budgetary, "transfer of funds" documents; and 3) establish a flat fee for cost-free experts. Implementation of these demands would likely arouse G-77 resistance, but may be worth tackling in the interest of budgetary transparency and good governance. Geneva Group members are interested in pressing the issue, and cognizant of the opportunities and complexities presented by the next meeting of the Board of Governors, March 2 - 6. If progress is not made on the issue, Mission recommends a reassessment of the overall USG policy on cost-free experts, possibly reducing their number with a greater focus on high-priority, technical appointments. We also need to consider more closely the possibility of eventually moving programs like nuclear security and technical cooperation into the regular budget. End Summary. A Stealth Policy Expands -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On May 20, 2008 the IAEA Secretariat gave a presentation to Member States on the PSC policy, including details of the 7 percent rate, the exception for contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund (TCF),and the establishment of a PSC "sub-fund" to collect the anticipated annual income of two million Euros. Member States failed to agree on the policy during the June Board of Governors, and the policy was never formally implemented. In reality, however, the IAEA Secretariat has moved forward with the May policy. ¶3. (SBU) On December 24, Deputy Director General David Waller responded to a November 12 letter from the Geneva Group questioning the policy (reftel). Waller's letter reiterates points from the May presentation, and notes that the income generated from PSCs in 2008 amounts to 386,000 Euros. The letter offers another briefing for Member States early in 2009, and assures donors that PSCs will only be charged "as agreed with the contributors of such funds" (a reference to Financial Rule 108.02). PSC Headaches Continue -------------- ¶4. (SBU) As it turns out, the situation has progressed far beyond the May presentation and Waller letter. For example, PSCs are now being applied not only to projects that include the donation of a cost-free expert (CFE) or consultant, but also to the individual CFE agreements themselves. Individuals on their own contract cost the USG anywhere from 50,000 to over 300,000 USD annually and now carry potential PSC charges of 3500 to over 20,000 USD each. (The USG currently provides 25 - 30 CFEs to the IAEA in both technical and non-technical capacities.) ¶5. (SBU) Even more troublesome are rumors that donors no longer need be explicitly informed that PSCs are being charged. Contrary to the Waller letter, one IAEA staff member told us that the IAEA legal office had "scammed" a donor into paying PSCs by employing ambiguous language. If it is true that the IAEA is charging PSCs without permission, the Agency may be in violation of Financial Rule 108.02. ¶6. (SBU) Meanwhile, the PSC policy continues to foster resentment within the IAEA as agile, progressive offices that are highly dependent on voluntary funds (like Nuclear Security and the Program of Action for Cancer Therapy) work hard to attract voluntary funds, only to see 7 percent of their revenue skimmed off the top to subsidize their "parasitic" counterparts in the regular budget. The harshest words from IAEA staff are reserved for the Management Department, which is not only funded out of the regular budget, but also manages the proceeds from PSCs. ¶7. (SBU) The ever-glaring exception in this scenario is the Technical Cooperation Fund (TCF),which draws some 100 million dollars a year in extra budgetary funds, but pays no PSCs. (In one recent case, Spain was able to avoid paying PSCs on a project by relabeling it "TCF.") The Canadians are quick to point out another exception, the nuclear fuel bank, which met its goal of 150 million USD (primarily with funds from the non-governmental Nuclear Threat Initiative and the USG) but pays nothing to the IAEA for the hundreds of staff hours that Canada alleges go toward its support. Three "Conditions" for an Acceptable Policy -------------- ¶8. (SBU) During a January 13 meeting, Geneva Group Members worked to develop three basic conditions toward the establishment of an acceptable policy on PSCs. While the Group has not determined how to put forward these conditions, some Members may determine to raise them in advance of - or during - the March Board of Governors: - PUBLISH AN OFFICIAL PSC POLICY THAT IS FAIR, TRANSPARENT AND UNIVERSAL. The policy should include a "rates scale" that charges lower rates for large sums of money, cash transfers, rote procurement (including appropriate Government Cost-Sharing projects) and gifts. The policy includes TCF, though many procurement projects will be covered by the lower rate. (A similar sliding scale is in place at the WHO, allowing the organization to differentiate between real extra budgetary projects and money that is just passing through.) - REFER TO PSCs AS A SEPARATE LINE ITEM IN ALL EXTRA BUDGETARY, "TRANSFER OF FUNDS" DOCUMENTS. This would allow Member States to view what is being charged, the justification, and the rate. If there is any deviation from the regular, 7 percent rate, a reference to the "rates scale" must be included. This would also bring the IAEA into compliance with Financial Rule 108.02. - CHARGE A FLAT RATE FOR COST-FREE EXPERTS. The IAEA should produce an estimate of the institutional support required to support donated staff, whether consultants, CFEs, or JPOs. Potential Pitfalls -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Despite the wide adoption of PSCs across UN agencies, diplomatic missions in Vienna tend not to appreciate this standard of good governance. Even worse, progressive members of the G-77 who might otherwise support good governance initiatives turn atavistic under any perceived threat to technical cooperation. (A similar scenario plays out at UNESCO in Paris.) In the end, any attempt to reopen the PSC discussion would raise the ire of the G-77, possibly unleash a cantankerous exchange at the March Board, and even stall future TCF negotiations. ¶10. (SBU) Another factor to consider is that the principle of transparency is not necessarily worth championing if it breeds G-77 resentment. Other donors recognize this point, and, like the Japanese, have already admitted privately that they will eventually pay PSCs whether or not the policy is clear and fair. The IAEA Secretariat is similarly aware of this reality, and may simply lay low until donor states drop the debate and continue contributing as before. Canada, for example, is holding up a four million dollar donation, but will have to relinquish any hold on the donation by March 15 or risk losing the funds altogether. ¶11. (SBU) Finally, IAEA Management regularly argues that if Member States do not like PSCs, they should fund priority programs out of the regular budget and stop draining the institution of its resources. This is a difficult argument to counter, and it is one of the reasons - despite the prospect of increased assessments - to move programs like Nuclear Security and TCF into the regular budget. Potential Gains in Good Governance -------------- ¶12. (SBU) Despite the specter of a (possibly) losing battle, a real effort to clarify the PSC policy would make a long term contribution to good governance at the IAEA. Publishing a fair policy would also fulfill a universally-recognized and important pillar of budgetary transparency, as recognized by Goal 8 of the Department's UN Transparency and Accountability Initiative (UNTAI). The UK, Canada and Japan (after the conclusion of the Director General's election) are likely to be strong partners in pushing for the fulfillment of the three conditions. ¶13. (SBU) Comment: Past PSC battles have led to practices that are neither transparent nor fair, and vulnerable to Secretariat manipulation. Mission recommends continued Geneva Group cooperation to gain consensus on the three conditions above, as well as bilateral approaches to remind the IAEA that U.S. resources are vast but not unconditional, and that transparency is one way to ensure goodwill and the uninterrupted flow of resources. SCHULTE