IAEA/TC: PROSPECTS FOR REFORM OF THE TECHNICAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000070 SIPDIS DEPT FOR IO/GS AND ISN/MNSA E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2019 TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY EAID SUBJECT: IAEA/TC: PROSPECTS FOR REFORM OF THE TECHNICAL COOPERATION PROGRAM REF: 09 STATE 112473 Classified By: Classified By: Charge Geoffrey Pyatt reasons 1.4 (b) and ¶1. (C) This is an action message for ISN. Please see para. 11. ¶2. (C) SUMMARY: As the UNVIE continues to monitor Technical Cooperation projects, attend regional TC planning meetings, and engage in special briefings on issues such as results-based management (RBM),further management shortcomings in the Department of Technical Cooperation continue to come to light. In an effort to engage the IAEA's new leadership and promote reform, Mission demarched IAEA officials based on reftel outlining GAO recommendations for better management of the TC Programme. In subsequent conversations with the IAEA's External Relations and Policy Coordination Office (EXPO),Missionoffs were thanked for spurring Director General Amano and other senior officials to think about ways to improve the TC Programme. EXPO assured Missionoffs that a response to the GAO recommendations would be forthcoming, possibly during DAS Kang's visit (March 1-4). In a subsequent conversation with Canadian counterparts, with whom Mission shared our nonpaper derived from reftel, Canada voiced its support for TC Reform and offered to work with the U.S. to achieve desired results. A complicating factor for Canada is that due to domestic fiscal considerations and a lack of coherent management in the TC Department, the Canadian Government may withhold its contribution to the Technical Cooperation Fund in 2010 and beyond. Alarmed by the uproar such a move would provoke among G-77 countries, Canadian diplomats suggested that U.S. officials consider raising with Ottawa the importance of paying TCF contributions in full. END SUMMARY -------------- CAN DO ATTITUDE -------------- ¶3. (C) During discussion with EXPO officials in February, Missionoffs found EXPO to be appreciative of reftel demarche based on the GAO review of the management shortcomings in the IAEA TC Department. EXPO officials noted the excellent timing of the demarche given the transition to a new DG and subsequent decisions about bringing on new DDGs. Although DDG Cetto tends to project a "steady as she goes" approach that defers to members state preferences, EXPO expected many of the reftel points could be easily implemented, such as releasing project information in a more timely manner before the November TACC and Board. Additionally, EXPO agreed that bigger TC projects encompassing several member states is a better use of resources than large numbers of overlapping national projects that overlap. EXPO assured Missionoffs that it would coordinate a unified Agency response and present it to the USG quickly, perhaps during DAS Kang's visit (March 1-4). EXPO also stressed that the TC Department would implement any changes as communicated to the U.S. -------------- CAN'T DO ATTITUDE -------------- ¶4. (C) When reftel demarche reached DDG for TC Ana Maria Cetto and her senior staff, it was received coolly. Missionoff spoke with EXPO officials who confirmed that DDG Cetto was alone in her opposition when told by EXPO that the Agency should implement USG suggestions in compliance with GAO recommendations as much as possible. Other senior staff in the TC Department welcomed reftel suggestions and agreed with EXPO's assessment that many of the U.S. proposals are reasonable easily implemented. (Comment: So long as DDG Cetto remains in place we can expect her to try to slow roll reforms she does not agree with. End Comment) -------------- DDG Cetto's Future -------------- ¶5. (C) According to Canadian counterparts Cetto continues to cater to G-77 interests rather than being balanced and apolitical, in the hope that she will garner enough G-77 support to retain her position as DDG. Her contract expires in 2010 and Mission fully expects DG Amano to appointment a new DDG instead of retaining Cetto. The Mexican Mission has indicated to us that they expect Cetto to go but would like to retain a senior IAEA position for another Mexican national. Cetto's senior staff, Donatella Magliani and Oscar Acuna, both program coordinators, are also contemplating their future. Magliani, who was promoted by former DG ElBaradei prior to his departure, has been blamed by many within the Agency for the debacle at the November 2009 Board over a TC project to provide training on results-based management (RBM). Magliani has indicated she will leave her position in late 2011/early ¶2012. Acuna has indicated he will stay on and seek a contract renewal. TC Director for Europe, Peter Salema, continues to maintain he is not seeking the DDG position, but Kenya and other Africa Group members continue to lobby quietly on his behalf. -------------- TC Project Cycle 2012-2013 -------------- ¶6. (C) In the run-up to the 2012-2013 project cycle, the TC Department has been updating its rules and procedures for project submittals by recipient states. According to Oscar Acuna, TC Program Coordinator, the new guidelines will be issued during the week of March 1. The guidelines do not need member states' approval and therefore will not be taken up during the Board of Governors. While many things will stay the same, significant changes in the number of projects a recipient state can request and in evaluation are foreseen. (Note: Mission will report on new project guidelines when they become available and begin consultations on the new project cycle in August to ensure USG has enough time to conduct reviews of all project and regional strategy proposals. End Note.) -------------- Results Based Management (RBM) -------------- ¶7. (C) Prior to and during the November 2009 Board, a Secretariat-proposed project on RBM drew criticism from many G-77 states that maintained the project was a way for Western states to control the spread of peaceful uses of nuclear technology. The Chair's conclusions for the November 2009 TACC called for a working group on RBM a suggestion promoted by the G-77 and then-Board Chair. The WG as proposed by the Secretariat was to consist of three WEOG and three G-77 member states, with the Secretariat as the Chair. While WEOG forwarded three names (Canada, Belgium, and Denmark),the G-77 did not and continues to refuse to do so. DDG Cetto and Magliani met with G-77 representatives, at their request, on February 9 to speak once again about the utility of RBM. According to Magliani the meeting was dominated by Iran, Egypt and Pakistan, who called on Cetto to create a formal WG on Technical Cooperation, not on RBM. Magliani said the idea "shocked Cetto" and that it would not gain traction with the TC Department or EXPO. In a February 15 conversation with Missionoff, Canada voiced its concern over this notion, suggesting that any formal WG on Technical Cooperation would only allow the G-77 to control the project submission process even further while eroding all oversight and evaluation of TC projects. ¶8. (C) Canada continues to be a proponent of RBM and raised the issue during WEOG consultations with the Board Chair. The new Chairman, Malaysian Ambassador Shahrul Ikram Yaakob, acknowledged that nothing has moved on this issue in three months and pledged to find a way forward. Canada on behalf of WEOG noted that some sort of closure was needed on RBM. In subsequent conversations, Canada said it would reiterate this view at the March Board of Governors in a statement under "Any Other Business". Ambassador Davies, in the U.S. bilat with the Board Chair on February 17, also made a point of the transparently political exploitation of the RBM project by some G-77 states. -------------- Canadian Problems -------------- ¶9. (C) In addition to Canadian concerns about TC project management, Canadian counterparts previewed possible problems concerning their payment of TC Fund contributions in 2010 and future years. Because Canada's TCF contribution comes from its development agency, the Canadian Mission in Vienna must justify the IAEA's role as a development agency. In recent years this has become more difficult, because TC projects are not in-line with recipient states' declared development goals and some TC projects are in no way tied to development (i.e. HEU removal). With domestic fiscal constraints generally and confidence in the TC Programme shrinking specifically, Canadian counterparts in Vienna cites the fact that Canada did not pay its 2009 TCF contribution until the very last day of the year as evidence of Ottawa's fading enthusiasm. (In contrast, Canada regularly pays its assessed contributions to the IAEA on the first day of the year, or, in the sace of its 2010 contribution, weeks before it was due.) Our Canadian counterparts expect Canada would not be in a position to pay its TCF contribution in 2010 and perhaps beyond. They anticipate their failure to meet Canada's "voluntary scale of assessment" would have negative implications for Canada's participation in the Agency and hand the G-77/NAM a talking point on the broader theme that the West disrespects the Agency's balance between peaceful uses and "policing". Both Canadian counterparts requested that the USG consult Ottawa about the political fallout such a decision would cause. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶10. (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 and of project delivery for recipient states. To mitigate potential G-77/NAM resistance, such efforts should be presented to the Secretariat by a group of like-minded states that reaches across regional groups. This necessarily means that all WEOG members must pay their full TCF contributions in a timely manner to avoid drawing G-77 criticism as being unsupportive of one the Agency's pillars. ¶11. (C) Mission suggests Department seek bilateral consultations with counterparts in Ottawa to ascertain Canada's position on its TCF payment for 2010. DAVIES