United States General Accounting Office

GAO 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

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

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.

Background 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).

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.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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.

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).

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

Organization

U.S.

assessments

U.S.

assessment

(percent)

U.S. staff in

organization

(percent)

Bureau of International Expositions (BIE) $33 8.9 0

Customs Cooperation Council (CCC)/World Customs Organization (WCO) 3,732 25.0 8.6

Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCOPIL) 91 7.0 25.0

Inter-American Indian Institute (IAII) 120 44.1 0

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 1,643 9.2 4.2

International Bureau for the Publication of Customs Tariffs (IBPCT) 120 5.9 0

International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (IBPCA) 22 6.7 20.0

International Bureau of Weights and Measures (IBWM)a 924 9.8 3.3

International Center for the Study and Preservation and Restoration of Cultural

Property (ICCROM) 725 25.0 10.5

International Copper Study Group (ICSG) 63 9.6 33.3

International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) 127 10.9 28.6

International Grains Council (IGC)b 373 17.2 0

International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) 91 4.5 14.3

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (IIUPL/UNIDROIT) 108 6.2 0

International Lead and Zinc Study Group (ILZSG) 53 6.9 0

International Natural Rubber Organization (INRO) 297 15.1 12.5

International Organization for Legal Metrology (IOLM) 110 8.8 20.0

International Office of Epizootics (IOE) 88 2.7 20.0

International Office of the Vine and Wine (IOVW) 55 4.8 0

International Rubber Study Group (IRSG) 92 11.8 0

International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) 11 3.0 0

International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) 112 2.8 7.1

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)/World Conservation

Union 286 5.6 9.0

Interparliamentary Union (IPU)c 1,096 14.1 12.5

Pan American Railway Congress Association (PARCA) 25 26.3 0

World Road Association (WRA) 20 5.6 0

World Tourism Organization (WTO) 410 5.0 7.1

Total $10,827 11.7 7.4

(Table notes on next page)

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

aThe 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.

bThe 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.

cAuthorizing 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.

Results in Brief 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

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.”

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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.

State Efforts to

Establish U.S.

Interests and Funding

Priority for Each

Organization

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

5

State had already withdrawn from two organizations and transferred funding responsibility for

membership in the World Road Association to the Department of Transportation.

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.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

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.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

Organization Mission

State’s funding

reduction for fiscal

year 1997 (percent)

International Union for the Conservation of Nature/World

Conservation Union

Leader in global conservation; forum for coordinating

conservation efforts 18

Customs Cooperation Council/ World Customs

Organization

Unifies world customs laws and ensures uniform

interpretation of Council conventions 19

International Agency for Research on Cancer Provides global research on environmental cancer

causes 19

International Office of Epizootics Global animal health forum; provides disease

alert/research 19

Table 3: Organizations in State’s Third Priority Category—Selective Interest

Organization Mission

State’s funding

reduction for fiscal

year 1997 (percent)

Hague Conference on Private International Law Facilitates private legal transactions/ relationships,

such as intercountry adoption and process serving

abroad 19

International Bureau of the Permanent Court of

Arbitration

Facilitates settlement of international legal disputes

19

International Bureau of Weights and Measures Ensures standardization of basic units of measure; an

important issue in promoting free trade 19

International Center for the Study and Preservation and

Restoration of Cultural Property

Provides unique expertise, research center, and

training facility for conserving and restoring cultural

property 19

International Grains Council Collects and publishes product market data; conducts

research; coordinates food aid programs 19

(continued)

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

Organization Mission

State’s funding

reduction for fiscal

year 1997 (percent)

International Hydrographic Organization Sets standards for chart making; promotes safe sea

navigation 19

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law Unifies and harmonizes laws in different countries to

facilitate trade and remove unnecessary conflicts 19

International Organization for Legal Metrology Unifies standards/instruments for commerce and

industry 19

International Seed Testing Association Sets and tests seed quality standards; promotes

research 19

International Tropical Timber Organization Tropical timber trade/forest management and

conservation; provides market information for wood

products 19

International Copper Study Group Provides policy forum and access to copper market

data 19

International Office of the Vine and Wine Helps protect public health by ensuring product

integrity and resolve problems such as marketing fraud 21

International Bureau for the Publication of Customs

Tariffs

Translates and publishes customs tariffs of members

23

International Cotton Advisory Committee Provides policy forum and access to cotton market

data 23

International Lead and Zinc Study Group Collects and publishes product market data; conducts

research 23

International Rubber Study Group Collects and publishes product market data; conducts

research 23

International Natural Rubber Organization Provides market intervention to stabilize product

supplies/prices 23

Bureau of International Expositions Provides for orderly planning of international

expositions 23

Interparliamentary Union Fosters international peace and cooperation using

personal contact and dialogue by elected

parliamentarians 23

Inter-American Indian Institute Policy forum and information resource on Native

Americans 100

Benefit of U.S.

Membership in the

Organizations

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,

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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 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.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

The International Natural

Rubber Organization

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

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

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

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.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

The Inter-American Indian

Institute

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

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

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

Securing Private Funding 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

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

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.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

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

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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.

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.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
B-270707 

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

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Additional

Information on 25

International

Organizations

26

Bureau of International Expositions, Paris, France 28

Customs Cooperation Council (known also as the World Customs

Organization), Brussels, Belgium

30

Hague Conference on Private International Law, the Hague, the

Netherlands

32

Inter-American Indian Institute, Mexico City, Mexico 34

International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France 36

International Bureau for the Publication of Customs Tariffs,

Brussels, Belgium

38

International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the

Hague, The Netherlands

40

International Bureau of Weights and Measures, Sevres, France 42

International Center for the Study of the Preservation and

Restoration of Cultural Property, Rome, Italy

44

International Copper Study Group, Lisbon, Portugal 46

International Cotton Advisory Committee, Washington, D.C. 48

International Grains Council (formerly the International Wheat

Council), London, England

50

International Hydrographic Organization, Monte Carlo, Monaco 52

International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, Rome,

Italy

54

International Lead and Zinc Study Group, London, England 56

International Natural Rubber Organization, Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia

58

International Organization for Legal Metrology, Paris, France 60

International Office of Epizootics, Paris, France 62

International Office of the Vine and Wine, Paris, France 64

International Rubber Study Group, Wembley, England 66

International Seed Testing Association, Zurich, Switzerland 68

International Tropical Timber Organization, Yokohama, Japan 70

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (also referred

to as the World Conservation Union), Gland, Switzerland

72

Interparliamentary Union, Geneva, Switzerland 74

World Road Association, (formerly known as the Permanent

International Association of Road Congresses/PIARC), Paris,

France

76

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Contents

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Department of State

78

Tables Table 1: Organizations, Assessed U.S. Dues for 1995, and

Percentages of the U.S. Assessment and U.S. Professional Staff to

Organizational Totals

3

Table 2: Organizations in State’s Second Priority

Category—Health, Safety, and Economic Well-being

7

Table 3: Organizations in State’s Third Priority

Category—Selective Interest

7

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Contents

Abbreviations

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

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

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.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Bureau of

International

Expositions, Paris,

France

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

Convention of International Expositions, ratified by the Senate on April 30,

1968. The United States began participation in 1968.

Major U.S. Stakeholders 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

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 One year after date of receipt of withdrawal notification.

Significant Issues 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

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

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.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Customs Cooperation

Council (known also

as the World Customs

Organization),

Brussels, Belgium

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

staff

Total $14,929 $6,793 58

U.S. contribution $3,732 $428a 5

U.S. share (percent) 25 6.3 8.6

aExtra budgetary contribution includes $20,000 in tax reimbursement to CCC.

Basis for and Initial Date of

U.S. Participation

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 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

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.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Exit Requirements 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 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.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Hague Conference on

Private International

Law, the Hague, the

Netherlands

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

staff

Total $1,309 $66 4

U.S. contribution $91 $10a 1

U.S. share (percent) 7.0 15.2 25

aTax reimbursement.

Basis for and Initial Date of

U.S. Participation

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 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

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.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Exit Requirements 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 None.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Inter-American Indian

Institute, Mexico City,

Mexico

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

November 1940 convention providing for creation of the Inter-American

Institute. The United States has been a member since 1941.

Major U.S. Stakeholders Bureau of Inter-American Affairs, Department of State; Bureau of Indian

Affairs, Department of the Interior; and tribal councils.

Benefits to the United

States

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 One year notification required for withdrawal.

Significant Issues 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.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Agency

for Research on

Cancer, Lyon, France

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

staff

Total $17,902 N/Aa 48

U.S. contribution $1,643 $755 2

U.S. share (percent) 9.2 N/A 4.2

aN/A = not available.

Basis for and Initial Date of

U.S. Participation

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 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

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.

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Exit Requirements Withdrawal effective 6 months after receipt of notification by the

Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO).

Significant Issues 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.

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Bureau

for the Publication of

Customs Tariffs,

Brussels, Belgium

Mission Objectives To translate and publish the customs tariffs of member governments and

to disseminate this information to the members.

Dollars in thousands

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 Per the convention, article 15, notice shall be given to the Belgian

government.

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Bureau

of the Permanent

Court of Arbitration,

the Hague, The

Netherlands

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 Bureau of International Organization Affairs and the Office of the Legal

Adviser, Department of State.

Benefits to the United

States

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 One year following receipt of notification to withdraw.

Significant Issues None.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Bureau

of Weights and

Measures, Sevres,

France

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 One year after receipt of notification of intent to withdraw. Forfeits right

of any joint ownership in international prototypes.

Significant Issues The Bureau has a strong scientific orientation. It has tried unsuccessfully

over the years to branch into commercial applications—which is what

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

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.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Center

for the Study of the

Preservation and

Restoration of

Cultural Property,

Rome, Italy

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

Various public laws, January 1971.

Major U.S. Stakeholders 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

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.

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Exit Requirements One year following notification, provided its contribution payments are

current.

Significant Issues 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.

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Copper

Study Group, Lisbon,

Portugal

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 A member may withdraw 60 days after written notice is given to the

United Nations and the ICSG’s Secretary-General.

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Cotton

Advisory Committee,

Washington, D.C.

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

staff

Total $1,170 N/Aa 7

U.S. contribution $127 $111b 2

U.S. share (percent) 10.9 N/A 28.6

aN/A = not available.

bTax reimbursement.

Basis for and Initial Date of

U.S. Participation

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 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

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 Member may withdraw by providing written notification before a new

fiscal year (July 1).

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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.

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Grains

Council (formerly the

International Wheat

Council), London,

England

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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.

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Exit Requirements 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 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.

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International

Hydrographic

Organization, Monte

Carlo, Monaco

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

International hydrographic convention, approved by the Senate, May 13,

1968 (treaty). The United States has been a participant since 1922.

Major U.S. Stakeholders 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

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 One year following the date of notification.

Significant Issues None.

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Institute

for the Unification of

Private Law, Rome,

Italy

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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.

Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Exit Requirements 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 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.

Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Lead

and Zinc Study Group,

London, England

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 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.

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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.

Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Natural

Rubber Organization,

Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

Successive international rubber agreements, first entered into force in

1980.

Major U.S. Stakeholders 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

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 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.

Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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.

Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International

Organization for Legal

Metrology, Paris,

France

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

Convention on legal metrology, as amended. The United States first

participated in 1972.

Major U.S. Stakeholders Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State; NIST,

Department of Commerce; and U.S. measuring instrument manufacturers.

Benefits to the United

States

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 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 A merger of operations with the International Bureau of Weights and

Measures has been proposed by the French government. A working group

Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

is currently studying areas of common effort/interest with the objective of

reducing costs and sharpening global focus.

Page 61 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Office of

Epizootics, Paris,

France

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 Written notice given 1 year in advance of intention to withdraw.

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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.

Page 63 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Office of

the Vine and Wine,

Paris, France

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 Any member may withdraw after giving 6 months’ notice.

Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues: 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.

Page 65 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Rubber

Study Group,

Wembley, England

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 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

Page 66 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

withdrawal occurs within the second half, dues for the following year

must still be paid (18 months’ notice).

Significant Issues 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.

Page 67 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Seed

Testing Association,

Zurich, Switzerland

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 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

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 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.

Page 68 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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.

Page 69 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Tropical

Timber Organization,

Yokohama, Japan

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

staff

Total $4,068 $15,960 14

U.S. contribution $112 $1,177a 1

U.S. share (percent) 2.8 7.4 7.1

aU.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

International Tropical Timber Agreement of 1983, signed by the United

States on April 26, 1985.

Major U.S. Stakeholders 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

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.

Page 70 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Exit Requirements 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 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.

Page 71 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

International Union

for the Conservation

of Nature (also

referred to as the

World Conservation

Union), Gland,

Switzerland

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

staff

Total $5,146 $40,000

(est.)

67

U.S. contribution $286 0 6

U.S. share (percent) 5.6 0 9.0

Basis for and Initial Date of

U.S. Participation

State Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 

(P.L. 101-246).

Major U.S. Stakeholders 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

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.

Page 72 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

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 Any time, upon receipt of written notification.

Significant Issues 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.

Page 73 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Interparliamentary

Union, Geneva,

Switzerland

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

staff

Total $7,988 N/Aa 16

U.S. contribution $1,096 0 2

U.S. share (percent) 14.12b 0 12.5

aN/A = not available.

bCurrent authorizing legislation limits U.S. assessment to 13.61 percent of IPU’s budget.

Basis for and Initial Date of

U.S. Participation

Various public laws. United States has been a member since the first

meeting in 1889.

Major U.S. Stakeholders 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

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 No withdrawal provision cited.

Page 74 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

Significant Issues 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).

Page 75 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

World Road

Association, (formerly

known as the

Permanent

International

Association of Road

Congresses/PIARC),

Paris, France

Mission Objectives 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

1995 resources

Assessed

budget

Extra

budgetary

Professional

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

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 Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, and U.S.

construction companies.

Benefits to the United

States

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

Page 76 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix I 

Additional Information on 25 International

Organizations

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 WRA’s governing commission accepts resignations based on convention

provisions.

Significant Issues 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.

Page 77 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of State

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 78 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of State

Now on pp. 4, 5, and 17.

See comment 1.

Now on p. 6.

Now on p. 5.

Page 79 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of State

Now on p. 4.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 17.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 7.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 8.

See comment 4.

Page 80 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of State

Now on p. 15.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 9.

See comment 6.

Now on p. 7.

See comment 4.

Now on p. 16.

See comment 7.

Page 81 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of State

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.

(711166) Page 82 GAO/NSIAD-97-35 State Department
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100