VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0004/01 0041539
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 041539Z JAN 10
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0480
INFO RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DOE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000004 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR IO/GS, IO/MPR, ISN/MNSA, S/SANAC-GOODMAN 
NSC FOR SCHEINMAN 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC PREL KNNP IAEA UN
SUBJECT: IAEA MEMBER STATES REV UP FOR 2011 BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS 
 
REF: A) 09 STATE 119320, B) 09 UNVIE 541 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY:  With Member States preparing to tackle the open 
question of the IAEA's 2011 regular budget during the first meeting 
of the open Working Groug January 13-18, the U.S. will need to 
clarify soon our goals for the 2011 budget.  The Budget Working 
Group (BWG), open to all Member States, will spend four days 
identifying priorities within all six IAEA Major Programs as well as 
programs that should be retired.  Major resource issues to be 
explored include safeguards financing (shielding) and capital 
investments.  In preparation for the BWG, UNVIE engineered a Geneva 
Group agreement to develop an informal matrix of IAEA activities, 
with Geneva Group members invited to share their "questions, 
concerns, priorities" on the IAEA's many programs and subprograms by 
January 8.  Mission continues to highlight the importance of capital 
investment in 2011, but invites detailed Washington views on 
programmatic increases and reductions for 2011.  For example, the 
BWG presents a good opportunity to highlight USG priorities in 
nuclear applications for development (or any other IAEA program). 
Washington contributions to the Geneva Group matrix are particularly 
welcome (matrix available from Usha Pitts at pittsue@state.gov). 
END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (SBU) The Geneva Group met December 30 in preparation for an 
intense round of budget negotiations January 13 - 18 to identify a 
hierarchy of priorities for the 2011 program of work.  In addition 
to the six Major Programs, the Budget Working Group (BWG) will also 
delve into broader financing issues, per the following: 
 
January 13 - Major Programs 1, 2, 3 
 
January 14 - Major Programs 4, 5, 6; Capital investment 
 
January 15 - Safeguards financing (shielding); Balance between 
assessed and voluntary contributions; Financing the activities of 
the Agency, Incentive scheme for on-time payments 
 
January 18 - Methodology for price adjustments; Opportunities for 
efficiency gains through management reform; Outcome of the BWG to be 
passed to the Secretariat 
 
¶3. (SBU) The BWG will not/not discuss the specific level of increase 
for the 2011 budget at this time.  Instead, the Secretariat will 
propose 2011 budget levels in accordance with the results of the BWG 
exercise.  Nonetheless, some Geneva Group members (particularly 
Canada) are already expressing a zero growth position while others 
(like the Netherlands) support the full, 11 percent real increase 
already laid out in the Agency's budget document for the 2010-2011 
biennium.  Per guidance in ref A, Msnoff noted to Geneva Group 
counterparts that the U.S. will not seek ZRG for 2011 and emphasized 
that capital investment remains a priority (among others). 
 
¶4. (SBU) In sensitivity to these differences of opinion, Geneva 
Group Members skirted the issue of the 2011 increase and instead 
focused on strategy and programmatic priorities within each Major 
Program.  France in particular shared detailed views on programs, 
subprograms and projects within Major Program 1 (Nuclear Energy). 
Canada expressed strong views on Major Program 5 (Management).  The 
Netherlands was interested in tackling Major Program 4 (Safeguards) 
and encouraged all members to agree, "verification should not be 
based on quantity of holdings."  Members similarly agreed to counter 
any G-77 move to delay the process of "de-shielding," which would 
continue the practice of obligating large contributors to shoulder a 
larger burden of assessed contributions to "pay for" safeguards. 
Members observed that discussions regarding Major Programs 4 and 6 
(Safeguards, Management of Technical Cooperation) would have little 
impact unless Member States were willing to delve as deep as the 
project level. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Geneva Group Members agreed that a matrix of "questions, 
concerns and priorities" should be distributed as an informal aid to 
the discussion.  While recognizing that differences would come to 
the light in the matrix, members agreed there were likely many areas 
where benefits could be derived from sharing views.  Members 
predicted that the G-77 would continue to highlight Major Programs 
1, 2 and 6 (Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Applications for Development, 
Technical Cooperation), and that the Geneva Group should instead 
attempt to provide as much nuance as possible.  Looking ahead, 
Members agreed to supply the U.S. Mission (co-chair of the Geneva 
Group) with contributions to the matrix by January 8.  The Geneva 
Group would then meet formally on January 11 to go over the matrix 
and identify broad areas of agreement in advance of the first 
meeting of the BWG on January 13. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Comment: Mission will continue to draw on budget guidance 
laid out in ref A but notes that the BWG will spend the majority of 
its time on more detailed examination that goes deeper than each 
Major Program's top line.  This Working Group meeting is an 
opportunity to signal as concretely as we can (but short of binding 
numbers) U.S. support for reinforced effort in specific operational 
areas, for example in Nuclear Sciences and Applications (sterile 
insect techniques, isotope hydrology or cancer therapy).  Washington 
views on 2011 resourcing of any other Major Programs would be 
helpful in advance of the BWG. 
 
PYATT