Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 06PARIS5110, THE OECD BUDGET: GETTING TO ZERO

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #06PARIS5110.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
06PARIS5110 2006-07-28 06:52 2011-08-24 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Paris
null
Lucia A Keegan  07/31/2006 10:31:46 AM  From  DB/Inbox:  Lucia A Keegan

Cable 
Text:                                                                      
                                                                           
      
UNCLAS    SENSITIVE     PARIS 05110

SIPDIS
cxparis:
    ACTION: AMBO
    INFO:   POL OECD SCIO ECSO ECON TRDO ENGO AID ESCI FCSO
            MGT LABO IPCO DCMO ECNO

DISSEMINATION: OECDALL /1
CHARGE: ICAS

VZCZCFRO042
PP RUEHFR
DE RUEHFR #5110/01 2090652
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 280652Z JUL 06
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9868
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAUSA/DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAUSA/DEPARTMENT OF HHS WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHRC/DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEATRS/DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHFR/OECD COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PARIS 005110 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
FROM USOECD PARIS 
 
STATE PASS TO USTR 
 
E.O. 12958:N/A 
TAGS: AMGT EFIN AORC OECD FR
SUBJECT:  THE OECD BUDGET: GETTING TO ZERO 
 
REF: A)State 15194  B)OECD Olisnet document C(2006)106 
 
C) State (July 13 Council instructions) 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary: The ambitious budget proposals by the new OECD 
Secretary General for the 2007-2008 biennium exceed the guidelines 
 
SIPDIS 
of the United States and other major contributors, resulting in a 
proposed increase in member contributions of 4.35 percent for 2007 
that is simply unrealistic.  In order to bring the current draft 
proposal into line with budget realities, we recommend a series of 
measures for Washington agencies' consideration, including (1) 
cutbacks in the "base" budget carried over from 2006 for several 
output areas, (2) reducing funding for the Secretary General's new 
health proposal, (3) disapproving the proposal for doubling the 
SYG's "allocation fund," (4) careful scrutiny of the salary increase 
of 4.9% that may be recommended for 2007, and (5) encouraging the 
Secretariat to find more savings in the budget of the Executive 
 
SIPDIS 
Directorate, which now takes 40% of all OECD spending. 
 
2. (SBU) At the same time, we recommend continued support, including 
slight increases in funding, for output areas of high priority to 
the United States, for including export credits, consumption tax, 
statistics, structural indicators, a new EU desk and the Committee 
for Business and Entrepreneurship.   End summary 
 
A BUDGET TOO FAR 
 
3.  (SBU) New Secretary General Gurria's assumptions for the next 
OECD budget biennium (Ref. B) call for a 4.35 % increase in Members' 
contributions for 2007 and an additional 2.22% increase for 2008. 
The current USG position is to support zero nominal growth (ZNG) in 
the budget - which, given inflation of about 2.1 % this year, means 
negative real growth - a shrinking of the Program of Work at the 
outset of the biennium.  Even if the United States decided to go a 
step further and approve zero real growth (ZRG), to account for 
inflation, the Secretary General's proposal would still leave a gap 
of over 2% for the first year of the biennium, with the difference 
widening slightly (about a tenth of a percent) above ZRG for 2008. 
Japan, Germany, and the UK (the leading budget contributors after 
the United States) share our view that 4.35 percent is off the 
table, though only Germany joins us in advocating ZNG; the other 
major contributors could accept zero real growth (ZRG). 
 
4.  (SBU) Whether we support zero nominal growth or zero real 
growth, we need to consider carefully what we should recommend to 
the OECD in order to whittle down the ambitious proposals of a 
Secretary General whose election the United States strongly 
 
SIPDIS 
supported.  To achieve a ZNG target, nearly 7 million euros (ME) in 
proposed expenditures would need to be eliminated to keep Members' 
contributions at the 2006 level of some 157 ME.  The Mission sets 
out below for Washington agencies' consideration possible ways to 
deal with the budget proposal. 
 
CUTS IN THE BASE BUDGETS FOR LOWER PRIORITIES 
 
5. (SBU)  Getting agreement on cuts will not be an easy task, even 
with the use of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) -- budget debates 
were long and sometimes acrimonious in the run-up to the current 
biennium, despite the availability even then of QMV.  In any case, 
the entire 2007-2008 budget must ultimately be approved by 
consensus.  We can propose either across-the-board cuts in some or 
all output areas, or differentiated cuts, taking into consideration 
the importance of the area and the concerns of other member 
countries.  The most obvious candidates for cuts would be those 
output areas which the United States and other member countries 
low-ranked in the latest Medium Term Orientations survey (Refs A and 
C). across-the-board.  On this basis, here are possible cuts from 
the Part I budget (funded through mandatory contributions from all 
Members) that the United States could propose.  The numbers (e.g., 
1.2.4) indicate the specific Output Area of the PWB. 
 
-- 1.2.4 Tourism:  The Secretary General has already proposed moving 
Tourism from Part I to Part II (Part II is funded by interested 
members only).  Tourism received only a modest 35,000 euros in Part 
I funding in 2006, but the SYG's proposal has been strongly opposed 
by Portugal (in the lead) and several other countries. 
Realistically, shunting Tourism to Part II gains little in euro 
terms, and the symbolic benefit from streamlining could be offset by 
the political cost of trying to make this happen.  This would be a 
very hard sell, even with the use of QMV (where at least 65% of 
Members would need to support the proposal, and three or more 
Members representing at least 25% of the budget can block).  US 
agency: Department of Commerce. 
 
-- 2.1.3 Educational system policies and practices: In the MTO, we 
recommended decreased funding, with the comment that little of the 
work done in this area is of interest to the USG.  By Member votes, 
it ranked #19; on a share-of- contributions basis it was near the 
bottom.  There was a Part I base budget of 454,000 euros in 2006. 
It may not be easy to convince other members to reduce the base 
unless it is part of a package of across-the-board cuts.  US agency: 
Department of Education. 
 
-- 2.2.3 Welfare and Social Inclusion: The United States and one 
other country recommended in the MTO reduced funding for this area, 
which had a 2006 base of 1.5 ME.  Five countries advocated increased 
funding; the rest wanted no change.  This might be a hard sell but 
could be a target if we advocated an across-the-board cut. US 
Agency: HHS/Department of Labor. 
 
-- 2.3.4 Decoupling Environmental Pressures from Economic Growth: 
Low-ranked by the United States and by other countries in the MTO; 
the United States recommended reduced funding.  The 2006 base is 1.3 
ME.  We recommend proposing a reduction in the base. US agency: 
EPA. 
 
-- 3.1.2 Stakeholder Bridge Building: Here, in his only proposal for 
a reduction aside from that related to Tourism, the Secretary 
General calls for slashing the 2006 base budget (1.4 ME) by nearly 
half, by 600,000 euros.  We applaud the principle of reallocating 
funding from lower to higher-priority areas, but believe the pain 
should be shared by other low-ranked output areas  -- such as those 
set out above and below.   The United States supported in the MTO 
cutting funding for Stakeholder Bridge Building, but in order that 
the funds could be allocated to other Trade output areas.  The Trade 
Directorate currently receives a very small share of Part I funding 
-- 3% -- and is last among the Directorates in terms of number of 
staff, making it relatively less able to take a substantial cut 
without serious repercussions for all its work.  The Doha 
negotiations may be on hold, but the OECD still has important work 
to do in advocating for trade liberalization.  Lead US agency: 
USTR. 
 
-- 4.3.3 Tax Administration: In the MTO, the United States 
recommended reduced funding for this Output Area.  In terms of 
number of Members responding, it was mid-ranked; by share of budget 
contribution, it ranked near the bottom.  The Secretary General is 
proposing upping funding by 113 KE annually, with the additional 
money to come from the Central Priorities Fund.  (The total CPF has 
been set at 2.3 ME per year for 2007-08.)  We recommend not 
supporting the CPF bid plus a cut from the 2006 base of 515,000 
euros.  US agency: Department of Treasury. 
 
-- 4.2.2 Finance, Insurance and Pensions:  The United States voted 
in the MTO to reduce funding for this Output Area.  It was 
mid-ranked by Members.  Last year's base budget was large: 1.9 ME. 
This should be a prime area for a reduction in the base.  The 
Secretary General, however, has proposed a reallocation of 113 KE 
 
SIPDIS 
annually, an increase, for this area as a reallocation for an 
increase in staff.  (Separately, he has also proposed the CPF 260 K 
(2007) and 291 (2008) short term funding for development of 
"financial literacy guidelines.")  We can support cuts in that large 
2006 base and still endorse the separate, short-term CPF proposal. 
Lead US agency: Department of Treasury 
 
CUTS IN THE SECRETARY GENERAL'S PROPOSED INCREASES 
 
6. (SBU) The Secretary General has proposed doubling his current 
"allocation fund" from 600,000 euros annually to 1.2 ME.  How these 
funds are spent is completely at the SYG's discretion: no approval 
from or consultation with Council is needed (though in practice, he 
takes into account Council views).  The Secretary General's 
Allocation Fund is intended allow the Secretary General to respond 
quickly to emerging issues.  In a very tight budget biennium, we 
believe doubling the fund sends the wrong signal, and recommend 
opposing any increase in the fund, whether as a reallocation or as 
new funding. 
 
7.  (SBU) The Secretary General's proposed long-term re-allocations 
are all increases since they do not specify any Output Area from 
which funds are being reallocated.  Long-term allocations, once 
approved, become part of future base budgets. 
 
-- In particular, the Health proposal of 791,000 euros annually (to 
be shared by 2.4.1 Monitoring Health System Performance and 2.4.2 
Achieving High Performance Health Systems) needs careful 
examination.  It is the largest single proposed "reallocation," and 
one of the Secretary General's announced personal priorities. We 
have given qualified support to the proposal, pointing out that the 
United States believes that, in health, OECD's core strengths lie in 
collecting valid, comparable, and relevant data, and in developing 
useful quality indicators that permit comparisons of health care 
across countries -- rather than in comparing policies among 
countries.   In light of the tight budget, we should consider 
whether to support it for a lesser amount.  US agency: HHS 
 
SALARY CUTS AND POST SUPPRESSIONS 
 
8. (SBU) Salaries account for 80 % of the OECD's budget.  The 
Secretariat estimates that the Coordinating Committee on 
 
SIPDIS 
Remuneration (CCR), the international organization tasked to 
recommend salary adjustments for the OECD, will recommend an 
across-the-board increase of 4.9 percent for 2007, including (within 
the CCR methodology) a purchasing power parity adjustment of 2.0%. 
The OECD legal counsel has given his view that the OECD would be 
legally obligated to pay the CCR recommendation.  Nevertheless, we 
recommend careful scrutiny of the recommendation and its methodology 
when it is made later this year.  In addition, the CCR does not 
purport to instruct the OECD on how many employees it must hire; it 
only recommends what the pay increase should be for the employees on 
the rolls.  As needed, the OECD can simply increase the vacancy 
rate, hold off hiring new employees, or, ultimately, suppress 
positions.  (It should be borne in mind that all three options would 
negatively affect the work of the Organization and that any savings 
from the last would be reduced by the need to pay indemnities to 
employees dismissed, so-called "LOEs.")  The OECD might also find 
savings outside the personnel area. 
 
SAVINGS IN THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORATE 
 
9.  (SBU) The Secretary General's proposal notes that his strategy 
is to finance reallocations "from savings from the corporate 
services area, " adding that "I have asked that all operational 
service budget pressures arising for 2007-2008 should be met, to the 
extent possible, within the currently available resources of the 
Executive Directorate  (output group 6.3).   We should endorse this 
principle and ask for more details than are now presented in the 
budget document.   The largest single savings presented, however, is 
significant: 2.07 ME as a result of the end of a "Special Departure 
and Renewal Programme" (repayments to reserves for funds used in the 
late 1990s to finance staff departures).  There are no cuts in staff 
or procurement proposed; given the Executive Directorate's large 
share of the Part I budget (39%) and the large number of staff 
(29%), we should consider whether to propose reducing its base 
budget. 
 
US PRIORITIES: FULL STEAM AHEAD 
 
10. (SBU) The US should continue to press for its priority work at 
the OECD (reftel C, para. 11). This includes increased or new 
resources for export credits (3.1.4), consumption tax (3.3.1) 
statistics (6.2.1), an EU desk in the Economics Department (1.1.2), 
support for the Committee on Business and Entrepreneurship (1.2.1) 
and for the Board of Auditors.  We have already requested in 
addition consideration for a long-term reallocation to support aid 
effectiveness.  Regarding Central Priority Fund and other short-term 
funding proposals, we have supported the proposal to strengthen the 
OECD website.  We also support the Secretary General's initiatives 
on Global Relations, including an increase in staff for the Center 
for Cooperation for Nonmembers, and specified investment and 
regulatory reviews for major nonmembers, Russia, China, and India. 
 
11.  (U) Action requested:  We ask that affected agencies carefully 
consider the draft PWB and provide reactions to EUR/ERA and post in 
August.  The next Budget Committee meeting at the OECD is scheduled 
for September 14.  The current OECD budget expires on December 31, 
2006, so the entire PWB process is aimed at producing a consensus 
budget by that deadline.  MORELLA