State Department: U.S. Participation in Special-Purpose International
Organizations (Letter Report, 03/06/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-35).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO obtained information on U.S.
government membership in 25 special-purpose international organizations
and 2 inter-American organizations that received funding support of
$10.8 million in 1995 through assessed contributions provided by the
Department of State, focusing on: (1) the Department of State's efforts
to assess whether U.S. government membership in these organizations
continues to serve U.S. interests, including a summary description of
the organizations' missions and issues that have been raised about the
benefits of U.S. membership; and (2) steps that have been taken to keep
the government's contribution costs low.
GAO noted that: (1) in May 1995, State began a comprehensive interagency
assessment of U.S. membership in all of the international organizations
to which it makes assessed contributions; (2) in May 1996, after being
urged by Congress to prioritize its funding requirements for
international organizations, State announced the criteria that it had
used in 1995 in reviewing and evaluating U.S. membership in
international organizations; (3) these criteria included the extent to
which the United States directly benefits from the organizations'
activities, how much of the organizations' budgets are devoted to
activities benefitting the United States, the scope and depth of the
organizations' constituencies, and their responsiveness to management
improvement efforts; (4) in December 1996, State reported to Congress
its decisions concerning the allocation of funds from the Contributions
to International Organizations account for fiscal years 1996 and 1997
based on an assessment and prioritization of U.S. interests in these
organizations; (5) State categorized the organizations according to a
priority ranking based on the importance of their mandates to the U.S.
national interest and their cost-effectiveness; (6) none of the 27
organizations discussed in this report were in State's top priority
category, 4 were in State's second priority category, and 20 were in the
third priority category; (7) GAO's interviews with U.S. agency officials
indicate that all of the 27 organizations appear to have missions that
are broadly consistent with a U.S. interest, but there were mixed views
as to the value of the benefits the United States receives from
membership; (8) the key concerns raised included the cost of membership
in some organizations relative to the benefit received and that some
organizations primarily benefit their related industries; (9) State has
attempted to keep the U.S. government's assessed contributions to the
special-purpose international organizations low; (10) it has sought
actual reductions in their budgets, established a systematic
coordination process with U.S. agencies having lead programming
responsibility, and tried to secure more private sector contributions to
these organizations; and (11) however, according to State officials,
private financing of membership dues for these international
organizations is generally not a viable option under their existing cha*
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-97-35
TITLE: State Department: U.S. Participation in Special-Purpose
International Organizations
DATE: 03/06/97
SUBJECT: International organizations
International cooperation
Budget administration
Cost effectiveness analysis
Prioritizing
International economic relations
Foreign policies
Budget cuts
IDENTIFIER: Thailand
Indonesia
Malaysia
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate
March 1997
STATE DEPARTMENT - U.S.
PARTICIPATION IN SPECIAL-PURPOSE
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
GAO/NSIAD-97-35
State Department
(711166)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
BIE - Bureau of International Expositions
CCC - Customs Cooperation Council
HCOPIL - Hague Conference on Private International Law
IAII - Inter-American Indian Institute
IARC - International Agency for Research on Cancer
IBPCT - International Bureau for the Publication of Customs Tariffs
IBPCA - International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
IBWM - International Bureau of Weights and Measures
ICCROM - International Center for the Study and Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property
ICSG - International Copper Study Group
ICAC - International Cotton Advisory Committee
IGC - International Grains Council
IHO - International Hydrographic Organization
IIUPL - International Institute for the Unification of Private Law
ILZSG - International Lead and Zinc Study Group
INRO - International Natural Rubber Organization
IOLM - International Organization for Legal Metrology
IOE - International Office of Epizootics
IOVW - International Office of the Vine and Wine
IRSG - International Rubber Study Group
ISTA - International Seed Testing Association
ITTO - International Tropical Timber Organization
IUCN - International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IPU - Interparliamentary Union
NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology
OAS - Organization of American States
PARCA - Pan American Railway Congress Association
UNESCO - United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization
WCO - World Customs Organization
WHO - World Health Organization
WRA - World Road Association
WTO - World Tourism Organization
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-270707
March 6, 1997
The Honorable Jesse Helms
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you requested, we obtained information on U.S. government
membership in 25 special-purpose international organizations and
2 inter-American organizations that received funding support of $10.8
million in 1995 through assessed contributions provided by the
Department of State.\1 In your letter and in subsequent discussions,
you expressed concern about the level of U.S. spending to support
international organizations in light of the stringent budgets the
federal government is facing. You noted that funding for U.S.
participation in international organizations had not received the
same scrutiny as funding for domestic programs and questioned whether
State had reassessed the costs and benefits of U.S. participation in
about 20 small, special-purpose international organizations. You
also questioned whether U.S. membership in some organizations is as
critical as it once was, or whether U.S. interests can now be served
by other means.
In response to your concerns, we obtained information on (1) State's
efforts to assess whether U.S. government membership in these
organizations continues to serve U.S. interests, including a summary
description of the organizations' missions and issues that have been
raised about the benefits of U.S. membership and (2) steps that have
been taken to keep the government's contribution costs low.
--------------------
\1 In fiscal year 1995, the United States provided assessed
contributions of about $873 million to 51 international
organizations. Among them are the United Nations and its specialized
agencies; inter-American organizations; regional organizations,
including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development; as well as the 27
organizations discussed in this report, which are independent bodies
and not affiliated with the United Nations.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The U.S. government participates in a number of international
organizations established to serve specialized but limited functions.
Membership in these organizations is generally restricted to national
governments, and they have comparatively small budgets. Although
some of the organizations permit nongovernmental entities to
participate in their activities, only member governments have voting
rights to set policy agendas and budgets (with one exception, the
World Conservation Union). The organizations depend largely on
membership dues to finance their operations, but each uses a
different basis to assess contributions from member governments. In
most instances, the organizations permit memberships to be withdrawn
only after 1 year's prior written notification.
In 1995, State received funding for 26 "other" special-purpose
international organizations through appropriations made to its
Contributions to International Organizations account. Our review
included all of these organizations except the World Trade
Organization, which was in an early formative stage.\2 As your office
requested, we also included in our review two inter-American
organizations (the Inter-American Indian Institute and the Pan
American Railway Congress Association). Table 1 shows 1995 data on
the U.S. government's assessed dues for the 27 organizations we
reviewed, the U.S. assessment rates, and the percentage of
professional staff who are U.S. citizens for each organization.
Table 1
Organizations, Assessed U.S. Dues for
1995, and Percentages of the U.S.
Assessment and U.S. Professional Staff
to Organizational Totals
(Dollars in thousands)
U.S. staff
in
U.S. U.S. organizati
assessment assessment on
Organization s (percent) (percent)
-------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Bureau of International Expositions (BIE) $33 8.9 0
Customs Cooperation Council (CCC)/World 3,732 25.0 8.6
Customs Organization (WCO)
Hague Conference on Private International 91 7.0 25.0
Law (HCOPIL)
Inter-American Indian Institute (IAII) 120 44.1 0
International Agency for Research on Cancer 1,643 9.2 4.2
(IARC)
International Bureau for the Publication of 120 5.9 0
Customs Tariffs (IBPCT)
International Bureau of the Permanent Court 22 6.7 20.0
of Arbitration (IBPCA)
International Bureau of Weights and Measures 924 9.8 3.3
(IBWM)\a
International Center for the Study and 725 25.0 10.5
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property (ICCROM)
International Copper Study Group (ICSG) 63 9.6 33.3
International Cotton Advisory Committee 127 10.9 28.6
(ICAC)
International Grains Council (IGC)\b 373 17.2 0
International Hydrographic Organization 91 4.5 14.3
(IHO)
International Institute for the Unification 108 6.2 0
of Private Law (IIUPL/UNIDROIT)
International Lead and Zinc Study Group 53 6.9 0
(ILZSG)
International Natural Rubber Organization 297 15.1 12.5
(INRO)
International Organization for Legal 110 8.8 20.0
Metrology (IOLM)
International Office of Epizootics (IOE) 88 2.7 20.0
International Office of the Vine and Wine 55 4.8 0
(IOVW)
International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) 92 11.8 0
International Seed Testing Association 11 3.0 0
(ISTA)
International Tropical Timber Organization 112 2.8 7.1
(ITTO)
International Union for the Conservation of 286 5.6 9.0
Nature (IUCN)/World Conservation Union
Interparliamentary Union (IPU)\c 1,096 14.1 12.5
Pan American Railway Congress Association 25 26.3 0
(PARCA)
World Road Association (WRA) 20 5.6 0
World Tourism Organization (WTO) 410 5.0 7.1
================================================================================
Total $10,827 11.7 7.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The United States was assessed an additional $33,000 in 1995
because South Korea, Cameroon, the Dominican Republic, Iran,
Pakistan, and Uruguay did not pay, making the effective U.S.
assessment rate 10.2 percent.
\b The rate rose to 23.6 percent in 1996 because the new convention
included all grains, not just wheat, and used more recent statistics
to determine the assessed contributions.
\c Authorizing legislation for the IPU conference allowed the United
States to pay up to 13.61 percent. That is what the United States
agreed to pay, not the assessed figure of 14.1 percent.
--------------------
\2 International Trade: Implementation Issues Concerning the World
Trade Organization (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-122, Mar. 13, 1996) and World
Trade Organization: Status of Issues to Be Considered at Singapore
Ministerial Meeting (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-243, Sept. 27, 1996).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
In May 1995, State began a comprehensive interagency assessment of
U.S. membership in all of the international organizations to which
it makes assessed contributions. Following this assessment, State
announced in December 1995 that it intended to withdraw from three
small organizations (the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the
Pan American Railway Congress Association, and the World Tourism
Organization).\3 According to State officials, State decided to
withdraw from these organizations because they were considered to be
the least defensible. State later rescinded the notice to the cotton
group as a result of subsequent legislation.\4
In May 1996, after being urged by the Congress to prioritize its
funding requirements for international organizations, State announced
the criteria that it had used in 1995 in reviewing and evaluating
U.S. membership in international organizations. These criteria
included the extent to which the United States directly benefits from
the organizations' activities, how much of the organizations' budgets
are devoted to activities benefiting the United States, the scope and
depth of the organizations' constituencies, and their responsiveness
to management improvement efforts.
In December 1996, State reported to the Congress its decisions
concerning the allocation of funds from the Contributions to
International Organizations account for fiscal years 1996 and 1997
based on an assessment and prioritization of U.S. interests in these
organizations. According to State, this assessment had been a
continuing process, beginning with the May 1995 review. State
categorized the organizations according to a priority ranking based
on the importance of their mandates to the U.S. national interest
and their cost-effectiveness. The order of priority was (1) peace
and security; (2) health, safety, and economic well-being; and (3)
selective interest. None of the 27 organizations discussed in this
report were in State's top priority category; 4 were in State's
second priority category; and 20 were in the third priority
category.\5
Our interviews with U.S. agency officials indicate that all of the
27 organizations appear to have missions that are broadly consistent
with a U.S. interest, but there were mixed views as to the value of
the benefits the U.S. receives from membership. The key concerns
raised included the cost of membership in some organizations, such as
BIE and IAII, relative to the benefit received and that some
organizations, such as ICAC, ICSG, ILZSG, IRSG, and INRO, primarily
benefit their related industries.
State has attempted to keep the U.S. government's assessed
contributions to the special-purpose international organizations low.
It has sought actual reductions in their budgets, established a
systematic coordination process with U.S. agencies having lead
programming responsibility, and tried to secure more private sector
contributions to these organizations. However, according to State
officials, private financing of membership dues for these
international organizations is generally not a viable option under
their existing charters or State's funding policy.
--------------------
\3 State also announced at that time that the United States would
withdraw from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
\4 Title II, sec. 283, of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act (FAIR) (P.L. 104-127, Apr. 4, 1996) states that "the
President shall ensure that the Government of the United States
participates as a full member of the International Cotton Advisory
Committee."
\5 State had already withdrawn from two organizations and transferred
funding responsibility for membership in the World Road Association
to the Department of Transportation.
STATE EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH U.S.
INTERESTS AND FUNDING PRIORITY
FOR EACH ORGANIZATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
In response to congressional directives, State conducted a
comprehensive review beginning in May 1995 to decide whether each
international organization to which it makes assessed contributions
continued to serve important U.S. interests. However, State did not
report to the Congress on the results of this review until December
1996 (after it was asked to comment on a draft of our report).\6
State officials told us the review consisted of a series of
interagency meetings to discuss raw assessment data provided by the
key U.S. stakeholders in the organizations, but that they did not
prepare a formal record of the review or at that time prioritize
funding by organization. State officials said that assigning a
priority to each organization would have been very difficult, given
the differences in their size, mission, cost, and program
effectiveness.
Nonetheless, as a result of its review, in December 1995 State
informed three entities--the International Cotton Advisory Committee
(ICAC),\7 the Pan American Railway Congress Association, and the
World Tourism Organization--that the United States intended to
withdraw from them. State acknowledged that the withdrawals were
budget driven, but it also justified the withdrawals on the basis
that the private industries that were the focus of these
organizations were already adequately served. A State official said
that while there may be other organizations that the United States
could withdraw from in the future, decisions on withdrawal would
likely continue to be hindered by a lack of quantitative performance
indicators for each organization and by objections raised by the
organizations' political supporters and constituency groups.
In testifying on the administration's fiscal year 1997 budget request
before a House Subcommittee on May 2, 1996,\8 the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the United Nations said the criteria that are
applied in determining whether to retain membership in international
organizations are (1) the level of direct U.S. benefit in political,
strategic, or economic terms determined on the basis of consultations
with end users; (2) the percentage of the organization's budget that
is devoted to activities that benefit the United States; (3) the
scope and depth of the U.S. constituency; (4) the relevancy of the
organization's mandate to contemporary global issues; (5) the
organization's program effectiveness and quality of management; (6)
the organization's budgetary restraint and transparency; and (7) the
organization's responsiveness to the U.S. government's overall
reform efforts.
State's December 1996 report to the Congress assembled the 50
organizations, including the 27 discussed in this report, into 3
broad cluster groups according to a priority ranking based on the
importance of their mandates to the U.S. national interest and their
cost-effectiveness. These cluster groups, in order of priority, were
(1) peace and security; (2) health, safety, and economic well-being;
and (3) selective interest. Our analysis indicated that none of the
27 organizations discussed in this report were included in State's
top priority category (peace and security); 4 were in State's second
priority category (health, safety, and economic well-being); 20 were
in State's third priority category (selective interest); and 3 were
no longer being funded by State. As a further delineation of
priority, State's report showed that, of the four organizations
discussed in our report that fell within the second priority
category, contributions to one would be reduced by 18 percent and
contributions to three would be reduced 19 percent from the full
requirement for fiscal year 1997. Similarly, of the 20 organizations
discussed in this report that were in State's third priority
category, contributions to 11 would be reduced by 19 percent; 1 would
be reduced by 21 percent; 7 would be reduced by 23 percent; and 1
would receive no funding for fiscal year 1997. (See tables 2 and 3.)
Table 2
Organizations in State's Second Priority
Category--Health, Safety, and Economic
Well-being
State's
funding
reduction for
fiscal year
1997
Organization Mission (percent)
------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------
International Union for the Leader in global conservation; 18
Conservation of Nature/World forum for coordinating
Conservation Union conservation efforts
Customs Cooperation Council/ Unifies world customs laws and 19
World Customs Organization ensures uniform interpretation
of Council conventions
International Agency for Provides global research on 19
Research on Cancer environmental cancer causes
International Office of Global animal health forum; 19
Epizootics provides disease alert/
research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3
Organizations in State's Third Priority
Category--Selective Interest
State's
funding
reduction for
fiscal year
1997
Organization Mission (percent)
------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------
Hague Conference on Private Facilitates private legal 19
International Law transactions/relationships,
such as intercountry adoption
and process serving abroad
International Bureau of the Facilitates settlement of 19
Permanent Court of Arbitration international legal disputes
International Bureau of Weights Ensures standardization of basic 19
and Measures units of measure; an important
issue in promoting free trade
International Center for the Provides unique expertise, 19
Study and Preservation and research center, and training
Restoration of Cultural facility for conserving and
Property restoring cultural property
International Grains Council Collects and publishes product 19
market data; conducts research;
coordinates food aid programs
International Hydrographic Sets standards for chart making; 19
Organization promotes safe sea navigation
International Institute for the Unifies and harmonizes laws in 19
Unification of Private Law different countries to
facilitate trade and remove
unnecessary conflicts
International Organization for Unifies standards/instruments 19
Legal Metrology for commerce and industry
International Seed Testing Sets and tests seed quality 19
Association standards; promotes research
International Tropical Timber Tropical timber trade/forest 19
Organization management and conservation;
provides market information for
wood products
International Copper Study Provides policy forum and access 19
Group to copper market data
International Office of the Helps protect public health by 21
Vine and Wine ensuring product integrity and
resolve problems such as
marketing fraud
International Bureau for the Translates and publishes customs 23
Publication of Customs Tariffs tariffs of members
International Cotton Advisory Provides policy forum and access 23
Committee to cotton market data
International Lead and Zinc Collects and publishes product 23
Study Group market data; conducts research
International Rubber Study Collects and publishes product 23
Group market data; conducts research
International Natural Rubber Provides market intervention to 23
Organization stabilize product supplies/
prices
Bureau of International Provides for orderly planning of 23
Expositions international expositions
Interparliamentary Union Fosters international peace and 23
cooperation using personal
contact and dialogue by elected
parliamentarians
Inter-American Indian Institute Policy forum and information 100
resource on Native Americans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\6 On December 10, 1996, State submitted a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations as required by Conference Report
104-863 that accompanied the Fiscal Year 1997 Omnibus Appropriations
Act (P.L. 104-208). The Conference Report identified certain
organizations for full funding, others for zero funding, and the
remainder to be allocated according to the "importance of the
international organizations to the national interests of the United
States." According to State, its December 1996 report, which included
all 50 of the international organizations covered by the
Contributions to International Organizations account, was based on a
continuous assessment, beginning with its May 1995 review.
\7 In a letter to ICAC on June 28, 1996, State rescinded a prior
letter notifying ICAC of the U.S. intent to withdraw from the
organization, consistent with provisions of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.
\8 Statement by Ambassador Madeleine K. Albright before the
Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies; House Committee on Appropriations,
May 2, 1996.
BENEFIT OF U.S. MEMBERSHIP IN
THE ORGANIZATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
For most of the organizations that we examined, U.S. government
officials we contacted believe either that the benefits derived from
them clearly exceeded the cost of membership or that it was very
worthwhile for the United States to be represented and have an active
voice in their activities, but there were mixed views on the value of
continuing membership in some organizations. U.S. government
officials also stated that in many cases the organizations serve
specific U.S. government or commercial interests that cannot be
served as efficiently by other means. Further, they considered most
of the organizations' program focus to be generally clear, valid, and
in conformity with U.S. interests, but some primarily benefited
their related industries. U.S. officials in many instances were
active and influential participants in the organizations--often
serving on their governing boards and with some Americans serving in
top management posts.
In general, U.S. government participation in these organizations is
designed to help ensure that U.S. interests are fairly and equitably
considered in international commercial activities and disputes, and
that the United States has access to vital public health,
transportation safety, and other information. U.S. participation
also allows active engagement in exchanging and promoting ideas for
reducing trade barriers, unifying common standards of business
trading practice (such as weights, measurements, and quality
control), influencing environmental policy and providing voluntary
support for conservation programs and sustaining endangered natural
resources, and deliberating other issues of broad public interest.
These are matters that officials from the relevant agencies told us
the U.S. government either cannot do alone or cannot address as
effectively through other bilateral or multilateral means.
Nonetheless, there may be opportunities for cost savings in some of
the organizations. For example, the assessed U.S. rates for two
organizations (the Customs Cooperation Council and the International
Center for the Study, Preservation, and Restoration of Cultural
Property), both based on U.N. formulas at 25 percent, are
significantly higher than most of the other special-purpose
international organizations. Although U.S. officials see no viable
alternative at this time to membership in the customs organization to
support the broad trade interests it serves, its work is closely tied
to that of the World Trade Organization to which the United States
pays a much lower (15 percent) assessment rate. The cultural
property organization by contrast has a narrow and important national
historic (but not foreign policy-related) constituency and, though
U.S. officials generally consider it to be well managed, the
benefits are difficult to quantify and some officials believe that
they do not appear to be proportionate to the cost.
Our review also found that State has addressed to some extent the
issue of whether functions or organizations could be combined or
whether similar services were available from other sources that could
eliminate possible areas of overlap and duplication. For example, a
possible merger of some functions between organizations (including
the IBWM/IOLM and IARC/World Health Organization) had been identified
and was being examined by the respective organizations as a way to
achieve cost savings. Also, rapid technological change may soon
permit private sector sources to translate customs tariff schedules
at less cost than IBPCT, and we found some areas of possible overlap
between certain organizations, such as those involving the tropical
timber (ITTO) and vine and wine (IOVW) groups and the Food and
Agriculture Organization that U.S. officials had not fully addressed
or resolved.
We noted that five commodity organizations--four that produce and
disseminate market data and one that helps stabilize raw material
supplies and prices through a stock fund--were all designed to
primarily benefit their related industries; and officials we
interviewed indicated that three others in which the U.S. government
participated had minimal benefits. However, as discussed below,
there are also reasons for retaining membership in them.
COMMODITY ORGANIZATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
The primary functions of ICAC, ICSG, ILZSG, and IRSG are to produce
information on worldwide production and consumption of individual
commodities, information that primarily benefits the related
industries but provides less direct or essential benefit to the U.S.
government. Nonetheless, there are benefits to U.S. membership.
According to government officials we interviewed, the information the
organizations develop on worldwide production and consumption of the
respective commodity is objective and current, and generally not
available elsewhere. In addition, the organizations provide a useful
forum for encouraging or promoting intergovernmental and business
cooperation and exchanging views on matters of joint interest without
violating antitrust laws. However, based on the criteria adopted by
State, the question appears to be whether government or public
interests are sufficiently served by membership in these
organizations to justify continued financing of activities that
primarily benefit specific U.S. industries.
U.S. membership in the organizations seems to be especially
important to specific industry groups, which participate actively in
them at their own expense. They send representatives to
parliamentary meetings and working group sessions (their experts have
been selected to serve on technical study groups), and they finance
cooperative projects, and generate subscriptions and other fees that
reduce the cost to member countries.
THE INTERNATIONAL NATURAL
RUBBER ORGANIZATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
The International Natural Rubber Organization administers an
international natural rubber agreement, which the United States has
participated in since it took effect in 1979. The agreement was
designed to reduce price volatility and ensure an adequate supply of
natural rubber by managing a buffer stock. In September 1996, the
U.S. Senate ratified the agreement to participate for an additional
4 years. As the world's largest consumer of natural rubber and with
just three countries--Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia--producing 75
percent of the world's rubber supply, the United States has a
significant interest in assuring an adequate long-term supply of this
commodity at reasonable and stable prices. The executive branch
supported the agreement's extension, but expressed a preference for
free market forces to operate in the belief that they better serve
the interest of consumers and producers. However, it believed that
the rubber industry needed more time to develop alternative
institutions to manage market risk. Nevertheless, several unresolved
issues emerged during the debate, including whether the agreement
resulted in lower prices for U.S. consumers and whether the level of
cash reserves used to support it--the current U.S. share of which is
about $80 million--is needed and adequately safeguarded. The
executive branch has made clear its intention that this will be the
last agreement extension the United States will join.
THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3
U.S. participation in the Interparliamentary Union (IPU) is within
the provenance of the Congress and not a matter for the executive
branch to decide. IPU was the first worldwide political organization
to promote the concept of international peace and cooperation. While
its goals are similar to those of the United Nations, IPU differs
from it in that it seeks to improve personal contact between
delegates of member nations' parliamentary groups by restricting
membership to elected participants of these legislative bodies. The
United States participated in its first meeting and has been a member
since its establishment in 1889. Membership gives congressional
delegates the opportunity to discuss with foreign
colleagues--especially those from emerging democracies--U.S.
principles of multiparty democracy and rule of law. IPU also enables
them to share their experiences relating to the legislative process
and executive-legislative-judiciary relations.
However, Members of Congress have not been active IPU participants in
recent years. We found that no Senator has attended any IPU meeting
since 1989, and no Representative has attended any IPU meeting since
March 1994. State officials and congressional staff attributed the
inactive U.S. participation in the organization in recent years to
changes in the Congress and inconvenient scheduling of IPU meetings
(its meetings are normally held in April and September when the
Congress is in session, making it inconvenient for members to
attend). IPU also sought to raise the U.S. assessment rate from
12.58 percent ($1.1 million in 1995) to 15 percent, or above a
statutory limitation of 13.61 percent.
The administrative responsibility for IPU shifts with each Congress
and, for the 104th Congress, it rested with the House of
Representatives (administered by the Clerk's Office). Fiscal year
1996 appropriations legislation initially held up IPU funding until
IPU agreed to reverse the proposed assessment increase and adjust its
schedule to better accommodate U.S. participation. The House
leadership subsequently agreed to continue U.S. participation in IPU
and maintain the assessment at the prevailing rate.
THE BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL
EXPOSITIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4
The Bureau of International Expositions provides for orderly
scheduling and planning of international expositions. As such, it
primarily serves those member governments whose cities are vying to
hold such events. The United States joined BIE in 1968, 40 years
after its creation, with the aim of ending a then-existing
proliferation of officially sanctioned expositions and assisting U.S.
cities that were bidding to host them. Since then, the frequency of
expositions has been drastically reduced and no U.S. city is
currently seeking to host any scheduled international exposition.
Moreover, recent funding for U.S. pavilions at expositions has been
provided entirely from the private sector. The U.S.-assessed
contribution for BIE is modest ($33,000 in 1995), but it pays the
highest assessment rate (8.9 percent) of any member nation. The
assessment rate is based in part on the U.N. scale of assessments
and on the member states' size and economic production. State and
other agency officials said that there was strong sentiment both in
favor of and in opposition to U.S. membership in BIE. Proponents
argue that the membership could be justified if the federal
government seeks to continue to officially support and maintain an
active role in determining where and how future world's fairs are to
be held. They further contend that it might be in the public
interest to assist potential sponsors in attaining the rights to hold
future events since memberships are limited to national governments
and BIE members are in more advantageous policy decision-making
positions. However, those who oppose continued U.S. membership in
BIE say that such official sponsorship is unnecessary and that the
chief U.S. goal of more orderly scheduling of worlds' fairs has been
met.
THE INTER-AMERICAN INDIAN
INSTITUTE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5
IAII, a specialized organization of the Organization of American
States (OAS), serves as a research center and forum for member states
to plan for the economic, social, and cultural advancement of Native
Americans. Although U.S. budget support has demonstrated solidarity
with Central and South American countries that have large Indian
populations, U.S. officials have been dissatisfied with IAII
management and its activities in recent years and have shown little
interest or involvement in the organization. In response to reform
efforts encouraged and led by Mexico and the United States, IAII
installed a new director in 1996 who is reported to be making
positive structural changes in the organization. In the meantime,
State has adopted a "wait-and-see" approach regarding future U.S.
funding and participation. The United States does not recognize
IAII's assessment rates, which are based on outdated Indian
population figures. Instead, it has capped its annual assessment
contribution at
$120,000 annually, which in 1995 represented 44 percent of IAII's
budget. Although the rate is high relative to other participants
(Mexico paid 30 percent in 1995, with no other country paying more
than 4 percent; Canada is not a member), it is less than what the
United States would have to pay if the assessment rate were based on
the current OAS scale (59 percent) or on gross national product data
(estimated at 80 percent). No funding was provided to IAII in fiscal
year 1996 and congressional conferees have agreed that none should be
given in fiscal year 1997.
EFFORTS TO KEEP U.S.
GOVERNMENT COSTS LOW
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
State officials said they recognize that stringent government budgets
make it imperative that costs be kept low in all areas, including the
cost of membership in international organizations. Thus, they have
attempted to link funding decisions for the small special-purpose
international organizations to performance indicators, established a
more systematic budget review and coordination process, and tried to
secure increased private sector funding for the organizations in an
effort to keep assessed contributions low. State's Bureau for
International Organization Affairs is responsible for these efforts
and is assisted by the designated State contact point and interagency
group that have the lead or significant program responsibility for
U.S. interests in the international organization's work. Travel and
accreditation to conferences are handled by State's Office of
International Conferences.
In June 1995, State's Bureau for International Organization Affairs
revised its budget policy from one of having zero real growth for
U.S. participation in international organizations (which had been in
effect since 1986) to one of seeking actual reductions in the
organizations' budgets through a combination of improved program
management, structural reform, and indicators that can be used to
measure management performance. Exceptions to this policy were to be
dealt with on a case-by-case basis. According to Bureau officials,
the budget review process has been facilitated by requiring the
organizations to submit audited financial statements and closely
coordinating U.S. budget positions with officials from the U.S.
agencies having lead programming responsibility. Bureau officials
make the final determination concerning the U.S. position on an
organization's budget and provide instructions to U.S. delegates in
advance of the organizations' budget conferences.
U.S. delegates to these budget conferences are encouraged to seek
out and build coalitions for consensus on cost-cutting and
reinvention measures with other like-minded member nations for
improved leverage. They are instructed to vote against or abstain
from voting on program budgets if the U.S. budget targets are not
met--and they have done so. Over the past year, in consonance with
State's new and more restrictive budget policy, U.S. delegates were
obliged to cast negative votes on several organizational
budgets--including the International Agency for Research on Cancer,
the International Copper Study Group, the International Seed Testing
Association, and the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration--although other than signaling a U.S. determination to
oppose unwarranted budget increases, it is not clear what impact
these votes may have had. Nonetheless, U.S. delegates succeeded in
rolling back some other proposed budget increases through consensus
actions with other member states.
Although not specifically related to assessments, State officials
said they are also employing a more restrictive policy on sending
delegates to the organizations' meetings. This should enable them to
reduce travel costs for U.S. government delegates attending the
organizations' meetings. Usually, State seeks to cover such meetings
with staff that are assigned to local embassy posts or funds a single
designated representative from the department or lead agency (which
may fund travel for additional representatives out of its own
budget). According to data provided by State's Office of
International Conferences, as of March 1996, it had spent about
$166,000 for staff travel to 15 of the 27 small organizations'
functions during the preceding 18 months; it did not fund any travel
to 10 of the organizations' conferences during this period. State
also accredits but does not provide any funding for private sector
participants.
SECURING PRIVATE FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
While State has authority to accept gifts under certain
circumstances, it does not accept contributions from private sources
to pay for assessed dues to international organizations. The Foreign
Affairs Manual prohibits it from accepting gifts from any outside
source that could create an appearance of conflict of interest
between the donor and the performance of State's responsibilities or
might otherwise cause people to believe that accepting officials
would lose objectivity or be influenced in their decision-making
because of the donation. State has interpreted this guidance as
precluding it from accepting contributions for assessed dues to
international organizations from private sources. A State official
said that while State serves industry interests to some extent,
especially in its efforts to increase U.S. exports, it must do so in
an objective manner--regardless of whether or not the donor has a
stake in the outcome of any State action. Another State official
told us that the use of gift contributions to fund such ongoing
operational activities puts at risk State's long-range ability to
plan and carry out promised actions. Officials from other U.S.
government agencies dealing with these international organizations
agreed with State's position.
Nevertheless, State and other lead U.S. agencies have made some
efforts to get private and nongovernmental organizations to
contribute directly to these organizations with mixed results. For
example, they have attempted to open or expand membership, on a
nonvoting basis, to private sector participants. Some organizations
(notably those engaged in conservation efforts such as the World
Conservation Union and the International Center for the Study,
Preservation, and Restoration of Cultural Property) currently receive
a significant portion of their budgetary funds from associate
memberships, revenue-producing activities, donations, and various
sources other than assessed member state contributions. IGC, ICAC,
and ISTA are all considering allowing industry organizations to be
nonvoting members in an effort to raise additional revenue. However,
there is opposition to these proposals in all three organizations.
Most government members of ICAC oppose this idea, according to
Department of Agriculture officials, because they fear industry
representatives will then want to have a say in how the organization
is run. Also, some IGC members have expressed concern over how the
integrity of the organization would be maintained. They fear that
IGC's work would no longer be unbiased if industry representatives
were included in all meetings.
Another way in which State and the other agencies have sought to
increase the organizations' budgetary resources through private
participation is to encourage interested private groups to contribute
to voluntary programs or subscribe to publications or events that are
run by some of the organizations. For example, U.S. industry and
environmental groups have occasionally made small donations toward
ITTO voluntary projects in which they were interested. However,
there does not seem to be much organizational interest in expanding
their contributions. Nonetheless, agency officials said that some
organizations have had good success in raising revenue from projects
or services, securing free office space and logistic support, and
generating other extra-budgetary resources that have had the effect
of reducing dues assessments to member countries. Other
organizations, including ICSG, also do studies with private sector
participation. Private participation also comes in nonfinancial
forms. Representatives from industry and academia belong to the
working groups and technical committees that do much of the work of
ISTA and WRA, as well as providing advice and assistance in a number
of other organizations.
Private sector participation in these international organizations is
usually conducted in uncompensated ways through the national
delegation; the industry or trade associations bear the salaries and
travel costs of its representatives. For some organizations,
including IOE and WRA, non-U.S. government officials serve on the
U.S. delegation as official members. For other organizations,
industry officials attend as delegation observers, as in IOE, ICSG,
and ILZSG, or can present their own positions as industry
representatives, as in IOVW and ISTA. Private sector representatives
also help formulate the U.S. delegation positions for international
organizations. Industry representatives belong to interagency
coordinating groups for many organizations. Industry and
nongovernmental organizations also provide experts that serve other
organizations where no formal coordinating group exists, such as CCC,
ISTA, and ITTO. Department of Agriculture officials stated that
there is room for more industry participation in IOE at the national
level, but not in the IOE itself.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
State generally agreed with our report and our observations about the
value of continued membership in certain organizations, but said that
it had evaluated the need for continued U.S. participation in all of
the international organizations as part of a continuous review
process that began in May 1995. State added that it was on the basis
of this review process that prioritization was achieved in the sense
that some organizations were identified for withdrawal while others
were not.
Our draft report acknowledged the review process that State initiated
in May 1995, and fully recognized State's efforts in setting and
refining its priorities for these international organizations.
However, at the time of our review, State had not formally documented
the results of its review process, and its first report was not
submitted to the Congress until after our draft report had been
provided to the Department. Moreover, neither the documentation that
State provided to us during the course of our review nor its December
1996 report to the Congress fully explained the rationale for the
judgments that were made.
Our draft report took no position on either the level of resources
that State needs to make contributions to the organizations discussed
in this report or which organizations the United States may wish to
withdraw from. However, given the likely decline in discretionary
spending in the federal budget and the various proposals for
reductions in State's budget, our draft report contained proposed
recommendations that the Secretary of State (1) specifically and
systematically apply the criteria announced in May 1996 for retaining
membership in international organizations to the organizations
discussed in this report; (2) from this process, establish priority
groupings or a priority ranking for retaining membership; and (3)
report this information to the Congress along with State's annual
budget justifications. While we believe that our proposed
recommendations continued to have merit, we also believe that State's
December 1996 report to the Congress began to respond to our concerns
about the need to prioritize the funding of international
organizations. Because State's report indicated that "a rigorous
assessment of U.S. participation in international organizations must
be an ongoing process," we are not making any recommendations at this
time. Nonetheless, we believe that the process State began in May
1995 that culminated in the December 1996 report should continue.
State's comments are reprinted in appendix II. It also suggested
some technical corrections and we have incorporated them into the
report as appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., primarily at the
Department of State, in the Bureaus of International Organization
Affairs and Economic and Business Affairs, and other State bureaus
and offices. We interviewed State officials responsible for budget
and program administration and reviewed policy documents, manuals,
budget and financial documents, correspondence, assessment data, and
background data on the organizations. We also held discussions with
and obtained pertinent information from officials of other affected
government agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, the Interior, Transportation,
and the Treasury (including the U.S. Customs Service); the Office of
Management and Budget; the National Institutes of Health (including
the Cancer and Environmental Health Sciences Institutes); the
Smithsonian Institution; the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative; the President's Council of Economic Advisers and
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; the Congressional Budget
Office; Congressional Research Service; the Secretary of the Senate;
the Clerk of the House; and U.S. embassies in London, England;
Brussels, Belgium; and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to discuss
organizations headquartered in those capitals.
To determine how State assesses whether government membership in the
27 organizations continues to serve U.S. interests, we requested
documentation that would identify and compare the specific objectives
that the government sought to achieve in each of the organizations
with the results or benefits derived. State provided us with copies
of its budget justifications and supporting data, but these documents
did not provide clear statements of U.S. goals or program strategies
for each of the individual organizations. State officials said that
although State had coordinated an interagency review of all
international organizations in 1995, it did not formally document the
results of this effort. Therefore, they said they could not show us
how they made the determinations that continued government membership
in the small international organizations served U.S. interests.
Nonetheless, when State provided a copy of its December 1996 report
to the Congress to us along with its comments on a draft of this
report, we evaluated the report to determine whether it clearly
stated the U.S. goals and program strategies for each of the
organizations. We took State's prioritization into account in
finalizing this report.
To examine State's efforts to keep the government's assessed
contribution costs low, we studied the roles and responsibilities of
key officials at State and other affected federal agencies, State's
budget policies and instructions to delegates, reports of meetings,
and interviewed cognizant agency officials. In seeking to determine
which organizations executive branch officials believe are more
justified than others for continued government membership and
participation, we relied primarily on the views of those government
officials who had principal program responsibility for or contact
with the organizations. While these officials were generally
supportive of the organizations, we also solicited the views or
opinions of independent experts and some who may have opposed
continued participation.
We discussed these issues with policy-oriented institutions in
Washington, D.C., including the Cato Institute, the Heritage
Foundation, and the National Policy Forum, and the U.N. Association
of the United States of America in New York and Washington. We also
reviewed congressional documents and spoke with staff members of
House and Senate committees and offices to determine the
congressional interest, concern, and provisions that apply to U.S.
participation in these organizations. Since the review was aimed at
executive branch management of U.S. membership interests, we
generally did not contact the organizations directly--except in a few
instances to obtain clarifying information. They included the Bureau
of International Expositions, the International Natural Rubber
Organization, the International Rubber Study Group, the World
Conservation Union, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, the
International Copper Study Group, and the International Lead and Zinc
Study Group. For the same reason, we did not interview officials of
other participating member states or interested private sector
groups.
We performed our review between January and December 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We
did not independently verify or review the organizations' budgets.
Appendix I provides supplemental background and assessment data on
each of the individual organizations. The State Department's
comments on this report are shown in appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking
Minority Members of the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations, the Senate and House Budget Committees, the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight; the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, the Interior, State, and the
Treasury; the Permanent Representative of the United States of
America to the United Nations; the Administrator of the U.S. Agency
for International Development; the Directors of the U.S. Information
Agency and the Office of Management and Budget; the U.S. Trade
Representative; the Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and the Secretary of
the Smithsonian Institution. Copies will be made available to others
upon request.
Please contact me on (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report
were LeRoy W. Richardson, Rolf A. Nilsson, and Edward D. Kennedy.
Sincerely yours,
Harold J. Johnson, Associate Director
International Relations and Trade Issues
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON 25
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I
This appendix provides supplemental data on the 25 international
organizations covered in this study that received funds from the
Department of State in 1995. The data was compiled from various
sources, including State budget documents, reports submitted by the
individual organizations, and interviews conducted with cognizant
agency officials, and gives a brief discussion of significant issues
that we observed in the course of our study. We did not prepare
summary data sheets on the Pan American Railway Congress Association
(PARCA) and the World Tourism Organization (WTO) because State had
notified them as of December 1995 that the United States would not
continue its membership in them.
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL
EXPOSITIONS, PARIS, FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1
To provide for orderly planning of international expositions by
establishing intervals between different types of expositions,
reviewing themes, and setting rules and requirements; and gives U.S.
cities priority consideration when bidding for Bureau of
International Expositions (BIE)-sanctioned events.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $369 0 2
U.S. contribution $33 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 8.9 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2
Convention of International Expositions, ratified by the Senate on
April 30, 1968. The United States began participation in 1968.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State;
U.S. Information Agency; Department of Commerce; Host U.S. cities
and chambers of commerce/major industrial exhibitors.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.4
Helps to ensure that there will be no conflicts with and promotes
increased foreign participation in U.S.-held expositions. Also, BIE
membership provides access to deciding where events will be held and
reductions in tariffs and various price concessions that defray the
cost of membership.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.5
One year after date of receipt of withdrawal notification.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.6
While the U.S. contribution is modest, it pays the highest rate (8.9
percent) of any member nation (followed by Japan and Germany at 8.1
percent and four others at 4.5 percent). The assessment rate is
based in part on the U.N. scale of assessments and economic
production. U.S. membership in BIE lacks strong support in some
quarters, but can be justified if the United States officially
supports and participates in world fairs. A joint resolution passed
by the Congress in December 1995 urged the United States to fully
participate in Expo '98 in Lisbon, Portugal, and encouraged private
sector support for this undertaking.
CUSTOMS COOPERATION COUNCIL
(KNOWN ALSO AS THE WORLD
CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION),
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1
To obtain the highest possible degree of uniformity and harmony in
and between the customs systems of its members; to prepare draft
conventions and amendments; and to ensure uniform interpretation and
application of the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC) convention,
settle disputes, circulate information, and provide advice to
governments.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $14,92 $6,793 58
9
U.S. contribution $3,732 $428\a 5
U.S. share (percent) 25 6.3 8.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Extra budgetary contribution includes $20,000 in tax reimbursement
to CCC.
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2
The United States acceded to the convention creating CCC on November
5, 1970, which was also the initial date of U.S. participation
(treaty).
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.3
Bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State; Customs Bureau, Department of
the Treasury; Department of Commerce; and the U.S. Trade
Representative.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.4
Harmonization and simplification of customs procedures serve U.S.
business interests by contributing to the creation of a stable and
predictable international trading environment for U.S exporters and
importers. This facilitates commerce while enhancing customs
enforcement, particularly in intellectual property rights, textile
transshipment, and drug smuggling.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.5
Withdrawal shall take effect 1 year after the receipt by the Belgian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the notification of withdrawal. The
member shall pay its full annual contribution for the financial year
during which its notice of withdrawal becomes effective.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.6
CCC is responsible for technical work related to several World Trade
Organization agreements. It harmonizes member states' customs
systems and provides training and assistance on a variety of customs
enforcement issues. If the United States did not participate, it
would lose these benefits--adversely affecting U.S importers and
exporters. Customs sees no viable alternative to membership in CCC.
HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL LAW, THE HAGUE,
THE NETHERLANDS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1
To facilitate private international legal transactions and
relationships, especially in the areas of family law, trusts and
estates, and sales, through law unification by multilateral treaties.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $1,309 $66 4
U.S. contribution $91 $10\a 1
U.S. share (percent) 7.0 15.2 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Tax reimbursement.
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2
Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law
(HCOPIL--1951), entered into force for (and participated in since by)
the United States, 1964.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs and Office of the Legal
Adviser, Department of State; Office of Foreign Litigation,
Department of Justice; the American Bar Association; the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; the American Law
Institute; and other national legal organizations.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.4
More predictable application of law to legal transactions and
relationships that span international borders, resulting in fewer and
easier resolutions of disputes, and an improved business climate.
HCOPIL facilitates service of process abroad, eases intercountry
adoption procedures, and lowers insurance rates, among other things.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.5
At the expiration of the budget year ending June 30, provided that
notification of intent to withdraw has been received at least 6
months before the end of that budget year.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.6
None.
INTER-AMERICAN INDIAN
INSTITUTE, MEXICO CITY, MEXICO
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1
To serve as a forum for developing information for member states to
use in planning for the economic, social, and cultural advancement of
Indians.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $272 0 2
U.S. contribution $120 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 44.1 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.2
November 1940 convention providing for creation of the Inter-American
Institute. The United States has been a member since 1941.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.3
Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Department of State; Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior; and tribal councils.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.4
Provides a policy forum and access to informational resources to
address priority issues of concern for Native Americans and their
governments. It has a substantial research library that is dedicated
to indigenous issues.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.5
One year notification required for withdrawal.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.6
The Institute has experienced management problems in the past,
prompting the State Department to acknowledge that it was poorly
managed. However, it is currently undergoing a major reform effort
that has been sought and encouraged by the United States.
Consequently, the State Department is taking a "watch-and-wait"
approach toward continued U.S. funding and participation. The U.S.
assessment share (44.1 percent) outpaces that of Mexico (30.3
percent) and all other participants by a factor of at least 10 to 1.
Canada is not a member of the Institute.
INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR
RESEARCH ON CANCER, LYON,
FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.1
To provide a scientific basis for adoption of effective measures to
prevent human cancer by identifying cancer-causing agents, assembling
data on cancer cases and environmental factors from around the world,
analyzing them, and disseminating data.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $17,90 N/A\a 48
2
U.S. contribution $1,643 $755 2
U.S. share (percent) 9.2 N/A 4.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a N/A = not available.
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.2
Public Law 92-484, approved October 14, 1972. The United States was
one of the five original participating members and has remained a
member since 1965.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State;
the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health,
Department of Health and Human Services; the American Cancer Society;
numerous cancer research agencies; and the general public.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.4
Provides ability to draw upon cancer research materials and resources
from all over the globe, including areas usually inaccessible to U.S.
officials. Brings together global experience on specific cancers and
relation to causes. The United States separately has provided
long-standing support for the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) research in evaluating potentially carcinogenic
substances in society and the workplace.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.5
Withdrawal effective 6 months after receipt of notification by the
Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.6
Enjoys strong U.S. agency and congressional support. Narrow
functional area (public affairs/literature dissemination) of possible
overlap with WHO is currently being addressed for possible
consolidation. It has a relatively small membership (16) that exerts
budget pressure on organization but seeks to encourage increased
membership through lower introductory charges. The United States,
along with the United Kingdom, opposed 6.7 percent biennial budget
increase adopted in April 1995.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU FOR THE
PUBLICATION OF CUSTOMS TARIFFS,
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.1
To translate and publish the customs tariffs of member governments
and to disseminate this information to the members.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $2,047 0 17
U.S. contribution $120 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 5.9 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.2
Authority is convention dated July 5, 1890 (26 Stat. 1518, TS 384).
The U.S.-assessed share shall not exceed 6 percent per Public Law
90-569.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.3
Tariff translations are provided to the Department of Commerce; the
Customs Bureau, Department of the Treasury, and the U.S. Trade
Representative; as well as to private importers and exporters
(administered by the bureaus of International Organization Affairs
and Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State).
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.4
The U.S. government and U.S. businesses benefit in having full
information on foreign customs rates, regulations, and concessions
obtained in negotiations available in English. The International
Bureau's translations provide a ready source of basic information
needed for responding to questions from businessmen, in particular,
in connection with U.S. export promotion programs, and for verifying
foreign concessions obtained in negotiations.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.5
Per the convention, article 15, notice shall be given to the Belgian
government.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.6
This is the only international organization that translates the
individual country tariff schedules into English. It is therefore
important, primarily to U.S. importers and exporters, that the U.S.
government remain in this international organization (membership is
available only to governments). WTO may at some time in the future
provide this information, but the International Bureau is the only
organization that does so at the present time.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE
PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION,
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.1
To provide the administrative framework to facilitate the arbitration
of international disputes and maintain a worldwide registry of
jurists and lawyers for selection to serve as needed on arbitration
tribunals.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $328 0 5
U.S. contribution $22 0 1
U.S. share (percent) 6.7 0 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.2
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes,
ratified by the Senate, April 2, 1908. The United States has been a
member of the Permanent Court since 1899.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs and the Office of the
Legal Adviser, Department of State.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.4
Provides expert and cost-effective means to settle international
disputes. The United States uses its facilities, as it did to
organize the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal and in recent years to
arbitrate a Heathrow Airport user fee dispute with Great Britain.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.5
One year following receipt of notification to withdraw.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.6
None.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF WEIGHTS
AND MEASURES, SEVRES, FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.1
To cooperate with national scientific laboratories to ensure the
international standardization of basic metric and nonmetric units of
measure throughout the world. These standards have important
bearings upon the exchange of goods and knowledge between countries.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $9,054 0 61
U.S. contribution $924 0 2
U.S. share (percent) 9.8 0 3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.2
The United States has been a participant since a convention creating
an International Office of Weights and Measures was signed in May
1875.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State;
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of
Commerce; and Physics and engineering academicians.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.4
Provides access to a stable, accurate, and universally accepted
system of measurement; promotes free trade; maintains and coordinates
the world's time scale; and plays an influential role in the
development of industrial technology and international comparisons.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.5
One year after receipt of notification of intent to withdraw.
Forfeits right of any joint ownership in international prototypes.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.6
The Bureau has a strong scientific orientation. It has tried
unsuccessfully over the years to branch into commercial
applications--which is what gave rise to the International
Organization for Legal Metrology's establishment. Effort to merge
areas of common effort are being explored at the instigation of the
French government. NIST, the designated U.S. national laboratory
and a prime user of the Bureau's services, provides calibration
services for industry users on a cost-recoverable basis.
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND
RESTORATION OF CULTURAL
PROPERTY, ROME, ITALY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.1
To serve as a research and training center and as a clearinghouse for
the exchange of information among specialists from around the world
to initiate, develop, promote, and facilitate conditions for the
conservation and restoration of cultural property.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $2,898 $1,649 19
U.S. contribution $725 $71 2
U.S. share (percent) 25 4.3 10.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.2
Various public laws, January 1971.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State;
the Smithsonian Institution; the President's Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation; the National Trust for Historic Preservation;
and similar organizations, museums, and universities.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.4
Assists in important restorations/preservations, including the U.S.
Capitol building and the Spanish missions of the American Southwest.
Provides various mid-career professionals and students access to
highly specialized instructional facilities and services not
available elsewhere. Also, the major stakeholders value what they
consider to be unparalleled connections made through the
organization.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.5
One year following notification, provided its contribution payments
are current.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.6
U.S. contribution rate (25 percent) from the International Center's
scale of assessments is based on 1 percent of the United Nations
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
appropriation, not to exceed 25 percent (which the United States
pays). This rate is more than double that of next highest
participating country, Japan (12.38 percent). The United States
successfully rolled back proposed budget increases for the 1996-97
biennium when the U.S. delegation joined other member states in
approving the budget by consensus.
INTERNATIONAL COPPER STUDY
GROUP, LISBON, PORTUGAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:10
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.1
To foster market transparency by collecting and publishing reliable
data on copper production, consumption, and trade without intervening
in markets. The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) also
provides a forum for governmental consultations and supports special
studies of market trends, new technologies, and government policies
affecting the copper industry.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $654 0 3
U.S. contribution $63 0 1
U.S. share (percent) 9.6 0 33.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.2
Authority is Public Law 103-236. The United States accepted the
terms of reference of ICSG on March 15, 1990. ICSG was established
on January 23, 1992.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.3
The International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce; the
bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State; and the U.S. mining industry.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.4
Increased market transparency enables a competitive market to avoid
large fluctuations in price and promotes a better balance between
supply and demand (large price fluctuations have traditionally
plagued the copper market). It has helped "lift the veil" of the
copper industry in the former Soviet Union, which was of significant
interest to U.S. industry. It aids members with effective
forecasting and long-term planning.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.5
A member may withdraw 60 days after written notice is given to the
United Nations and the ICSG's Secretary-General.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.6
ICSG was negotiated at U.S. urging to provide better information to
prevent market instability, as happened in the 1980s. It primarily
benefits the copper industry, but the data provided and the
intergovernmental consultation are useful to U.S. agencies,
including the Commerce and Defense Departments. ICSG has financed
research on potential health problems associated with copper in
drinking water. ICSG publications are available for sale to anyone,
not just to member countries.
INTERNATIONAL COTTON ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:11
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.1
To compile and publish statistics on cotton production, trade,
consumption, and prices; and to facilitate the exchange of
information and the development of more open lines of communication
among scientific workers to better understand research problems.
(Dollars in thousands)
Extra
budget Professio
1995 resources Assessed budget ary nal staff
------------------------ ------------------------- ------ ---------
Total $1,170 N/A\a 7
U.S. contribution $127 $111\b 2
U.S. share (percent) 10.9 N/A 28.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a N/A = not available.
\b Tax reimbursement.
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.2
Authority is 70 Stat. 890, 1956, 5 U.S.C. 170j. (P.L. 94-350,
July 12, 1976.) Initial date of participation was 1939.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.3
The Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Agriculture; the
bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State; and the U.S. textile
industry.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.4
The International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) provides cotton
price analyses and projections to the international cotton community,
something the Department of Agriculture is prohibited from doing.
The U.S. cotton industry supports continued membership in ICAC and
regularly attends ICAC plenary meetings.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.5
Member may withdraw by providing written notification before a new
fiscal year (July 1).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.6
Although State announced the U.S. intention in December 1995 to
withdraw from ICAC effective on June 30, 1996, the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127)
required the President to ensure that the U.S. government
participate in ICAC and State to continue to pay the assessed
contribution. As a result, State rescinded its letter of intent to
withdraw from the organization, and the United States will remain in
ICAC. ICAC publications are available for sale to anyone, not just
to member countries.
INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL
(FORMERLY THE INTERNATIONAL
WHEAT COUNCIL), LONDON, ENGLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:12
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.1
To promote expansion of international trade in grains and secure the
freest possible flow of this trade, and to provide a forum for the
exchange of information and discussion of members' concerns regarding
trade in grains. Through the Food Aid Committee, donors pledge food
aid in the form of grain, which some members buy from the United
States.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $2,169 0 7
U.S. contribution $373 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 17.2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.2
The current authority for U.S. participation is Senate advice and
consent to the International Wheat Agreement of 1986, on November 17,
1987. Initial U.S. participation was in 1942.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.3
The Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Agriculture; and U.S.
grain growers; the bureaus of International Organization Affairs and
Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State; and the U.S.
Agency for International Development.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.4
The United States, as the world's largest exporter of grains,
benefits from the expansion of international trade and from securing
the freest possible flow of this trade. The United States also
benefits from having the most reliable international data on the
grains trade, including data provided by other countries, which would
not otherwise be available.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.5
There are no specific provisions for withdrawal. Not acceding to the
next convention, which will take effect in 1998, would be a way of
withdrawing.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.6
The International Grains Council (IGC) is considering soliciting more
private sector participation to relieve budget problems, but some
countries fear for the integrity of the organization if industry
interests are included. The U.S. government's assessed share
increased to 23.6 percent in 1996 because a new convention was
negotiated that includes all grains and uses more recent data for
calculating assessments. IGC publications are sold to anyone.
INTERNATIONAL HYDROGRAPHIC
ORGANIZATION, MONTE CARLO,
MONACO
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:13
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.1
To establish a close and permanent association with the hydrographic
offices of member states, with a view to rendering navigation easier
and safer throughout the world.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $2,033 0 7
U.S. contribution $91 0 1
U.S. share (percent) 4.5 0 14.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.2
International hydrographic convention, approved by the Senate, May
13, 1968 (treaty). The United States has been a participant since
1922.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State;
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
Commerce; the U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Geological Survey; National
Imagery and Mapping Agency; (formerly Defense Mapping Agency); the
U.S. petroleum industry; and oceanographic and academic
institutions.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.4
Through the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), the United
States obtains high-quality hydrographic survey and chart data that
is essential for safe navigation at sea, promotes trade, and reduces
the threat of environmental damage from ship groundings. IHO's
President is a retired U.S. admiral.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.5
One year following the date of notification.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.6
None.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE
UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW,
ROME, ITALY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:14
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.1
To unify or harmonize private law in different countries, thereby
facilitating international commerce and removing obstacles created by
unnecessary conflicts in law and legal systems; and providing
training in the adoption and use of approved international
conventions by less developed countries.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $1,745 $58 9
U.S. contribution $108 0 0
U.S. share 6.2 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.2
Initially established in 1926 under the League of Nations; present
charter in effect since 1940. The United States has been a member
and active participant since 1964.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs and Office of the Legal
Adviser, Department of State; Office of Foreign Litigation,
Department of Justice; the American Bar Association; National
Conference on Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; National Law
Center for Inter-American Free Trade; American Law Institute; and
other national legal organizations.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.4
Provides an important forum to ensure that U.S. commercial law and
other legal interests are key source for international work on law
unification, and that U.S. commercial practices are reflected in and
protected under treaties and other documents produced in this
process.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.5
Participation is for a period of 6 years. Intent to withdraw must be
submitted in writing at least 1 year preceding the end of the current
6-year period (which expires in 1999).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.6
Two conventions prepared by the Institute on international commercial
law reflecting modern U.S. practice are expected to be submitted to
the Senate in 1997. The Institute is also drafting a multilateral
convention expected to benefit the U.S. aircraft and other
industries.
INTERNATIONAL LEAD AND ZINC
STUDY GROUP, LONDON, ENGLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:15
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.1
To improve transparency in the lead and zinc world markets by
producing and disseminating a wide variety of current statistics; to
provide for an intergovernmental forum for consultations on
international trade in lead and zinc; and to hold discussions of
market trends, new technologies, government policies, and
environmental issues.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $771 0 4
U.S. contribution $53 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 6.9 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.2
Authority is 22 U.S.C. 2672, sec. 5 of Public Law 885, 84th
Congress. U.S. participation started in 1960.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.3
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce; the
bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State; and the U.S. mining industry.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.4
It produces a wide variety of statistics, assisting in effective
forecasting and long-range planning. These statistics are important
to the operation of a competitive market, which should ensure the
lowest possible prices to the U.S. consumer. Annual meetings
provide a forum for industry/government contacts and discussion of
concerns without political agendas or market intervention measures.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.5
A member may withdraw at any time by written notification to the
Secretary-General. The withdrawal takes effect on the date specified
in the notification.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.6
Membership in this organization appears to be more important to
industry than to the U.S. government. The State Department
considers this organization to be a model for similar organizations
for other commodities. Publications are available to anyone. It
also reports on environmental rules concerning lead and other
environmental issues.
INTERNATIONAL NATURAL RUBBER
ORGANIZATION, KUALA LUMPUR,
MALAYSIA
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:16
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.1
To manages an international natural rubber agreement designed to
stabilize price fluctuations and rubber supplies through maintenance
of a buffer stock in a historically volatile market.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $1,964 0 8
U.S. contribution $297 0 1
U.S. share 15.1 0 12.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.2
Successive international rubber agreements, first entered into force
in 1980.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.3
Bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State; Department of the Treasury;
and Department of Commerce; the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative; and domestic tire, rubber, steel, and labor
industries.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.4
With the United States as the world's largest consumer of rubber
products and rubber production being concentrated in three Southeast
Asian countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand), certain
assurances are sought through an international agreement that
attempts to stabilize natural rubber prices without disturbing
long-term market trends and ensure expanded future supplies of
natural rubber at reasonable prices.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.5
Agreement of 1987 has expired and a new 4-year extension has been
negotiated. Under terms of old (and new) agreements, withdrawal
permitted upon 1 year's written notice.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.6
This is the only commodity agreement with economic provisions in
which the United States currently participates. Extension of the
agreement enjoys strong industry and congressional support, but it
has not shown that it reduces long-term price variability or benefits
U.S. consumers. Keeping a substantial sum (currently valued at $80
million) of U.S. funds with the International National Rubber
Organization (INRO) or under foreign bank management (i.e., no direct
U.S. control of the funds) to support a buffer stock operation under
the agreement continues to be an unresolved issue.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
LEGAL METROLOGY, PARIS, FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:17
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.1
To recommend adoption of uniform international legal standards and
requirements and provide an information exchange for scientific and
measurement instruments that are used in commerce and industry.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $1,254 0 5
U.S. contribution $110 0 1
U.S. share (percent) 8.8 0 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.2
Convention on legal metrology, as amended. The United States first
participated in 1972.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State;
NIST, Department of Commerce; and U.S. measuring instrument
manufacturers.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.4
Uniform standards for measuring products in trade, public health,
safety, and many other industries are considered essential for their
public acceptance and confidence. Also vital for the protection of
the import/export industries.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.5
International conferences/conventions are required once every 6 years
but recently have been held every 4 years. Intention to withdraw
must be made known at least 6 months in advance of expiration of the
current convention/budget adoption (November 2000).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.6
A merger of operations with the International Bureau of Weights and
Measures has been proposed by the French government. A working group
is currently studying areas of common effort/interest with the
objective of reducing costs and sharpening global focus.
INTERNATIONAL OFFICE OF
EPIZOOTICS, PARIS, FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:18
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.1
To collect and disseminate to government veterinary services facts
and documents concerning the course and cure of animal diseases; to
examine international disease control agreements and assist in their
enforcement; and to promote disease research.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $3,297 $519 5
U.S. contribution $88 $4 1
U.S. share (percent) 2.7 0.7 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.2
Senate approval, and presidential signature on June 9, 1975, of the
original international agreement. Initial U.S. participation was in
May 1976.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.3
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of
Agriculture; the bureau of International Organization Affairs,
Department of State; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; veterinary medicine; and the meat and poultry industries.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.4
The International Office of Epizootics (IOE) is a valuable channel
for dissemination of U.S. research findings and helps apprise the
United States of overseas research and animal infection developments.
U.S. involvement allows the United States to have a prominent voice
in developing international trade standards and regulations and
conform them to U.S. standards. These standards help make trade
without fear possible in this area. As the only international animal
health forum in the world, IOE will set animal trade standards for
the WTO. It also serves as an early warning system for animal
disease outbreaks.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.5
Written notice given 1 year in advance of intention to withdraw.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.6
If the United States were to withdraw, standards would be set without
U.S. participation and in the future might not conform to U.S.
standards. This could greatly affect public health and industries
that import and export U.S. animal livestock and animal products.
INTERNATIONAL OFFICE OF THE
VINE AND WINE, PARIS, FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:19
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.1
To study wine and its production methods, packaging and labeling
standards, and associated marketing practices with the object of
ensuring product integrity and harmonizing regulatory requirements in
the international wine trade.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $1,144 0 14
U.S. contribution $55 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 4.8 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.2
Public Law 98-545 of October 25, 1984 (98 Stat., 2752). The United
States began its participation in 1980. Its request for full
membership was accepted on July 24, 1984.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.3
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the
Treasury; the bureaus of International Organization Affairs and
Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State; U.S. vintners;
and the California Winegrowers Association.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.4
The International Office of the Vine and Wine (IOVW) facilitates the
global dissemination of information on the U.S. wine industry,
thereby helping promote U.S. wine, brandy, and viticultural exports.
It also aids in promoting product integrity, therefore helping to
protect public health worldwide. Finally, intergovernmental channels
of communication have helped to expedite resolution of international
incidents involving trade impediments, contamination, and marketing
fraud.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.5
Any member may withdraw after giving 6 months' notice.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES:
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.6
If the United States were to withdraw, both U.S. industry and
consumer protection interests will be left unrepresented. IOVW's
deliberations have significant trade consequences. Differences in
acceptable production techniques (which can hinder or promote market
access), primarily between European and U.S. wine makers; sanitary
practices; labeling; and the presence of chemical products are the
subject of IOVW standards. IOVW is petitioning for WTO recognition,
which could make the IOVW's resolutions binding (they are now
optional) and backed by the WTO's enforcement powers.
INTERNATIONAL RUBBER STUDY
GROUP, WEMBLEY, ENGLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:20
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.1
To promote the understanding of long-term trends in future rubber
(natural and synthetic) production and consumption, provide accurate
statistics, and promote research. It also serves as a forum for
consultation among principal producing and consuming countries.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $780 0 4
U.S. contribution $92 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 11.8 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.2
Authority is 22 U.S.C. 2672, sec. 5 of Public Law 885, 84th
Congress. Initial date of U.S. participation was 1944.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.3
Bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State; International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce; and the U.S. rubber
industry.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.4
Quick dissemination of technical information on supply and demand
promotes U.S. competitiveness. Information on market trends is
important to the United States as the world's largest rubber
consumer. Also, the U.S. contribution leverages contributions from
other members. The result is greater market transparency and
efficiency, directly benefiting U.S. industry and consumers. The
International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) also provides information on
worldwide investment opportunities/new technologies.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.5
Withdrawal within the first 6 months of the financial year, which
starts on July 1, becomes effective at year's end (effectively 6
months' notice). If withdrawal occurs within the second half, dues
for the following year must still be paid (18 months' notice).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.6
Membership in this organization appears more important to industry
than to the U.S. government since it is industry that primarily uses
the statistics provided by IRSG for long-range planning and
projections. However, the U.S. government does use the information
provided for planning and intergovernmental consultation purposes.
Publications are available for sale to anyone, not just member
countries.
INTERNATIONAL SEED TESTING
ASSOCIATION, ZURICH,
SWITZERLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:21
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.1
To develop official rules for testing seed sold in international
trade, to accredit laboratories that issue international seed lot
quality certificates, and to promote seed research and technology.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $368 0 3
U.S. contribution $11 0 0
U.S. share (percent) 3.0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.2
Basis for participation is 70 Stat. 890, 1956, 5 U.S.C.170j.
Initial date of U.S. participation was 1924.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.3
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture; the
bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Economic and
Business Affairs, Department of State; U.S. agrobusiness; and U.S.
land grant colleges.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.4
Membership in the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA)
ensures that U.S. seed exporters have access to, and are competitive
in, world markets through the use of approved uniform testing
methods. Membership allows the United States to maintain its
influence over the establishment of standards. It also ensures that
high-quality imported seed is available to U.S. consumers and that
U.S. testing facilities are accepted worldwide as meeting
international standards.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.5
A government may withdraw by sending written notice to ISTA, but it
will be responsible for its dues for that entire calendar year unless
withdrawing because of a change in the ISTA constitution. Then the
withdrawing government is responsible for its dues up to the change.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.6
Membership allows the United States to take part in the process of
developing official procedures used to test seed sold in
international trade. Withdrawal would deny the U.S. government the
opportunity to block proposed international testing rules that could
function as trade barriers to U.S. seed. ISTA generates about 40
percent of its operating funds from the sale of goods and services it
produces. If ISTA allows additional labs to join as nonvoting
members, as was proposed, it could result in lower U.S.-assessed
dues.
INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER
ORGANIZATION, YOKOHAMA, JAPAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:22
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:22.1
To increase transparency of the tropical timber market, promote
sustainable management of tropical production forests, and promote
research and development aimed at improving the sustainable
management of tropical forests.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $4,068 $15,96 14
0
U.S. contribution $112 $1,177 1
\a
U.S. share (percent) 2.8 7.4 7.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a U.S. extra budgetary contribution includes $55,000 in tax
reimbursement to International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO).
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:22.2
International Tropical Timber Agreement of 1983, signed by the United
States on April 26, 1985.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:22.3
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative; bureaus of Economic and
Business Affairs, International Organization Affairs, and Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of
State; Forest Service and Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of
Agriculture; and International Trade Administration, Department of
Commerce.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:22.4
Improve availability of market information for U.S. importers of
tropical timber for furniture, paneling, and other wood products.
Also, ITTO identification of markets for lesser-known species
promotes better utilization of resources and provides consumers with
greater variety, which helps keep consumer costs down. The United
States participates in ITTO's voluntary program, but its contribution
is expected to decrease to $200,000 from about $1 million annually.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:22.5
A member may withdraw 90 days after written notice is received by the
United Nations (notice must also be given simultaneously to the ITTO
council).
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:22.6
U.S. officials believe issues discussed in ITTO, such as
certification and labeling of wood products, apply to wood products
from all types of forests including temperate forests. They believe
that decisions on these issues could have a significant impact upon
the global competitiveness of the U.S. timber industry. The United
States also has a strong interest in promoting the sustainable
management of tropical forests through ITTO because of the
relationship of tropical forests to global environmental problems.
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE
CONSERVATION OF NATURE (ALSO
REFERRED TO AS THE WORLD
CONSERVATION UNION), GLAND,
SWITZERLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:23
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:23.1
The leader in influencing, encouraging, and assisting governments and
nongovernmental organizations throughout the world to conserve the
integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of
natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.
(Dollars in thousands)
Extra
budget Professio
1995 resources Assessed budget ary nal staff
------------------------ ------------------------- ------ ---------
Total $5,146 $40,00 67
0
(est.)
U.S. contribution $286 0 6
U.S. share (percent) 5.6 0 9.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:23.2
State Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991
(P.L. 101-246).
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:23.3
Bureaus of International Organization Affairs and Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of
State; Fish and Wildlife and National Park Service, Department of the
Interior; U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce;
Environmental Protection Agency; the U.S. Agency for International
Development; and various environmental organizations.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:23.4
Supports U.S. goals for the maintenance of a healthy, natural global
environment and conservation of biological diversity. Supports
international conservation conventions of importance to the United
States. Provides a unique forum for the coordination of governmental
and nongovernmental conservation efforts regarding the use of natural
resources and leveraged assistance to international networks of
volunteer scientists and specialists.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:23.5
Any time, upon receipt of written notification.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:23.6
Modest assessed contribution is highly leveraged since the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) receives
about 90 percent of its funding from various contribution sources
other than assessed membership dues. Comparatively small (nine)
"state" membership provides about 40 percent of IUCN's assessed
budget. In addition to its assessed contribution, the United States
provided a voluntary contribution in the amount of $1 million in
fiscal year 1995 to support programs of particular interest.
INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION,
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:24
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:24.1
To be the focal point for worldwide parliamentary dialogue and to
works closely with the United Nations for peace and cooperation among
peoples and the firm establishment of representative institutions.
The Interparliamentary Union (IPU) is comprised of the world's
parliamentary bodies.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $7,988 N/A\a 16
U.S. contribution $1,096 0 2
U.S. share (percent) 14.12\ 0 12.5
b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a N/A = not available.
\b Current authorizing legislation limits U.S. assessment to 13.61
percent of IPU's budget.
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:24.2
Various public laws. United States has been a member since the first
meeting in 1889.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:24.3
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State;
the Clerk of the House of Representatives; and the Secretary of the
Senate, Parliamentary Services.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:24.4
Promotes personal contact and dialogue between members of the world's
parliamentary bodies--especially emerging democracies--in a formal,
secure, but neutral structure to discuss legislative functions and
relations and universal values, peace, and cooperation.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:24.5
No withdrawal provision cited.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:24.6
U.S. participation in IPU is within the provenance of the Congress
and not a matter for executive branch decision-making.
Responsibility shifts each Congress and now rests with the House of
Representatives (administered by the Clerk). IPU has sought to raise
the U.S. assessment from 12.58 percent to 15 percent, or above the
statutory limitation. No Senator has attended any IPU meeting since
1989. No Member of the House has attended any IPU meeting since
March 1994. IPU funding was temporarily suspended in December
1995--but subsequently approved--pending IPU reversal of the
assessment increase and adjustment of its meeting schedule to better
accommodate U.S. participation (meetings are normally scheduled at
times when the Congress is in session).
WORLD ROAD ASSOCIATION,
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE
PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF ROAD
CONGRESSES/PIARC), PARIS,
FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:25
MISSION OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:25.1
To analyze road and road transport policy issues as an aid to
national decisionmakers, to encourage research and exchange of
information on research results and best practices, to disseminate
findings, and to address the concerns of all members.
(Dollars in thousands)
Assess Extra
ed budget Professio
1995 resources budget ary nal staff
------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ---------
Total $353 $400 3
U.S. contribution $20 $136 0
U.S. share (percent) 5.6 34.0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS FOR AND INITIAL DATE
OF U.S. PARTICIPATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:25.2
Authority is sec. 164, Public Law 102-138, approved October 28,
1991. The United States regained membership in the World Road
Association (WRA) (it lapsed during World War II) in November 1989.
Original justification of 22 U.S.C. sec. 269 (44 stat. 754, June
18, 1926) is still valid.
MAJOR U.S. STAKEHOLDERS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:25.3
Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, and
U.S. construction companies.
BENEFITS TO THE UNITED
STATES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:25.4
WRA, as the only intergovernmental forum for road issues, has
provided ready access to innovations developed abroad that can be
applied in the United States. Significant savings accrue to the
United States because other countries share their research with the
U.S. government through WRA. Also, the U.S. government and
industry can increase international awareness of U.S. technical
expertise for the purpose of encouraging the export of U.S. goods
and services, making U.S. businesses more competitive overseas.
EXIT REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:25.5
WRA's governing commission accepts resignations based on convention
provisions.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:25.6
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
officials pays about one-third of the U.S.-assessed contribution,
which the federal government would otherwise have to pay. The
Federal Highway Administration pays for extra budgetary projects and,
beginning in fiscal year 1997, it will pay the U.S.
government-assessed contribution.
(See figure in printed edition.)APPENDIX II
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
=========================================================== Appendix I
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of State's letter
dated December 20, 1996.
GAO COMMENTS
1. We acknowledged in our draft report that State had conducted a
comprehensive review in 1995 to determine whether international
organizations served important U.S. interests and whether continued
U.S. membership in them was warranted. However, because the results
of this effort were not (1) formally documented in State's records;
(2) made available to us; or (3) reported to the Congress at the time
of our review, we could not assess the completeness of State's
evaluation.
2. We agree that the basis for the decision to withdraw from certain
organizations was within the range of criteria that State announced
in May 1996 and, therefore, have modified our report.
3. Because we believe that State's December 1996 report to the
Congress is a step in the right direction, we are not making any
recommendations at this time. (We have not reprinted attachment A,
state's December 1996 report.)
4. In finalizing this report, we categorized the organizations in
accordance with the broad priority categories used in State's
December 1996 report to the Congress, rather than be whether the
organizations served a "broad" or "narrow" interest.
5. We have clarified our report language.
6. While we do not doubt that ICCROM is a unique organization that
provides valuable benefits to some U.S. agencies, some U.S.
government officials have questioned whether the cost of belonging to
this organization may not be disproportionately high when weighed
against the national interest.
7. We revised the report to reflect this information; however, we
believe that there are some areas of overlap between these
organizations.
*** End of document. ***