VZCZCXYZ0007
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #8677 1380603
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 131308Z MAY 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA IMMEDIATE 4914-4915
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 6085-6086

UNCLAS STATE 048677 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
C O R R E C T E D   C O P Y  (ADDED SENSITIVE CAPTION) 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC ENRG IAEA KNNP PREL
SUBJECT: IAEA: GUIDANCE FOR THE SECRETARIAT-PROPOSED 
2010-2011 BUDGET 
 
REF: UNVIE 201 
 
¶1.  (U) This cable provides guidance regarding the 
IAEA-proposed budget for 2010-2011 in response to reftel. 
¶2.  (SBU) Mission should seek a regular budget increase of no 
more than 9.5 percent in 2010 to strengthen IAEA capabilities 
in core areas of importance to the United States -- nuclear 
security, safety, and safeguards.  Within this 9.5 percent 
envelope, Mission should draw from the points in paras 3-11 
below in negotiating the details of the 2010 budget. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Mission's top priority for this budget cycle should 
be securing funding to strengthen safeguards and mainstream 
nuclear security activities (i.e., staff costs currently 
funded from extra budgetary funds) into the regular budget. 
Mission should seek to obtain as large an increase as 
possible for these activities within the 9.5 percent ceiling. 
 We believe this will help to stabilize funding by increasing 
cost-sharing with other member states, advance the 
President's nonproliferation agenda, and signal that the 
fight against nuclear terrorism is part of the Agency's core 
mission of nonproliferation. 
 
¶4. (SBU) On safeguards, UNVIE should seek an increase in 
regular budget resources with a view towards ensuring 
sufficient resources are available to meet the Agency's 
expanding responsibilities in this program area. 
 
¶5. (SBU) USG notes there has been a 10-fold increase in the 
amount of nuclear material under IAEA safeguards in the last 
25 years; and an increase of 15-fold in the last decade of 
the number of countries with an Additional Protocol (AP) in 
force.  For the future, new labor-intensive projects such as 
safeguarding the reprocessing and JMOX plants in Japan and 
the 14 civil power reactors in India are close at hand.  In 
addition, the IAEA,s mission has evolved and expanded to 
include the detection of undeclared nuclear activities, which 
pose a proliferation threat to international peace and 
security.  With the information-driven State Level Approach 
(SLA), the Agency now collects, stores, analyzes, and 
archives exponentially more data than in the past. For these 
reasons, it is Washington's view that the Secretariat needs 
more funding for strengthening international safeguards, 
particularly in the areas of human resources (e.g., 
inspectors, information analysts, experts who can service 
equipment in the field, and people to train the foregoing) 
and information management, to perform its routine operations. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) We also believe voluntary contributions should be 
sought from India and Japan to cover some of the equipment 
costs associated with inspections of facilities in those 
countries. The USG may seek additional voluntary resources in 
the future to support the expanding safeguards mission. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Also, with regard to safeguards, another priority 
is upgrading the Safeguards Analytical Laboratory (SAL).  We 
support a modest amount of additional regular budget funding 
for these upgrades, but not/not the full request made by the 
Agency.  We believe only a portion of the request should be 
agreed at this time, as there are still outstanding questions 
regarding the project and the current cost estimate.  The 
U.S. objective is for the Agency to develop a project plan 
for a replacement Nuclear Materials Laboratory, solicit bids, 
and be in a position to let a contract in January 2012. 
Mission should seek sufficient funding to achieve that goal, 
preferably within the regular budget, but not at the expense 
of increases to the operational safeguards account given the 
available option of using extra budgetary funds or other 
financing mechanisms for this purpose. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Mission also should seek additional regular budget 
funding for the Agency-wide Information System for Program 
Support (AIPS) and for Safety.  However, we recognize that 
trade-offs will need to be made within these areas to 
accommodate other member states, priorities.  UNVIE should 
try to achieve the best outcome possible for these program 
areas.  Mission can agree to modest increases in the Regular 
Budget for other Major Programs as necessary to gain support 
for the objectives in para 2, but should limit these 
increases to the greatest extent possible, while maintaining 
the overall increase within the 9.5% ceiling.  Washington 
believes that U.S. goals in supporting activities in Major 
Programmes 1 and 2 can best be met by enhancing voluntary 
contribution funding for specific projects, e.g., 
infrastructure development and tsetse fly eradication.  The 
Department intends to seek increased funding for voluntary 
contributions, in addition to maintaining the strong U.S. 
commitment to &pledging its share and paying its pledge8 
for TCF.  Mission may convey this plan as appropriate. 
 
¶9. (SBU) UNVIE should try to get funds included in the 2010 
budget for implementation of the next plateau of AIPS (6.0m 
Euro).  We believe that implementation should continue in 
order to avoid additional costs associated with further 
delays. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Nuclear safety continues to be a high priority for 
the U.S. as well.  For Safety, UNVIE should seek a funding 
increase to develop new and update aging safety standards, 
expand training in safety infrastructure development, and 
increase the number of peer reviews for nuclear facilities 
and nuclear safety regulators in countries developing nuclear 
power programs (1.3m Euro).  UNVIE should not/not support the 
proposed increase for the Incident and Emergency Center (IEC). 
 
¶11. (SBU) Mission should press the Agency to absorb some of 
the projected price increases in order to accommodate high 
priority program needs.  Mission can agree to phase in the 
budget increase (within 9.5 percent) over both years of the 
biennium if advantageous in terms of reaching a good outcome. 
 However, in doing so Mission should press to ensure member 
states agree that the budget debate will not be re-opened in 
the second year beyond the normal discussions (i.e., price 
adjustments). 
 
¶12.  (U) Washington requests Mission keep us fully apprised 
of developments as discussions progress. Washington 
understands the outcome of the 2010-2011 budget deliberations 
will ultimately set the stage for consideration of subsequent 
IAEA budgets and potential strategic assessments that may be 
required to rationalize the budget in the future. 
CLINTON