IAEA: COORDINATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO MEMBER

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000163

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR IO/T, E/CBA, ISN/MNSA, ISN/NESS - BURKART, HUMPHREY
STATE FOR USAID
NA-242-MCCLELLAND-KERR; NE - WELLING
NRC FOR OIP - HENDERSON, SCHWARTZMAN, COMMERCE FOR ITA - SARAH LOPP


E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY BEXP EAID
SUBJECT: IAEA: COORDINATION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO MEMBER
STATE NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURES

This is an action request.

--------------

Summary and Comment
--------------


1. (SBU) Summary: On March 27, MsnOffs met with a group of senior
IAEA managers to discuss coordination of infrastructure assistance
activities related to the expansion of nuclear power. Graham
Andrew, S&T Advisor to Director General ElBaradei, requested the
meeting in response to Mission's invitation to the IAEA to take part
in a planned U.S. workshop among "donor" states to harmonize
assistance on safeguards infrastructure. The IAEA briefed MsnOffs
on the structure and process the Secretariat is putting in place to
ensure internal coordination of IAEA infrastructure assistance.
IAEA officials appealed to the United States to look to the
recipient states to take responsibility for driving international
support efforts. This would both ensure developing states' buy-in,
as well as avoid any perception that the developed states were using
"infrastructure assistance" as a Trojan horse to press for more
non-proliferation measures. After MsnOffs assured the IAEA
management team of the U.S. intent to closely coordinate with the
IAEA and to avoid the perception of a "Trojan horse," IAEA officials
indicated their willingness to participate in the pending
U.S.-sponsored workshop (DOE/NNSA's International Nuclear Safeguards
Engagement Program (INSEP) plans to hold the workshop this Spring in
Vienna). In a follow-on discussion with MsnOffs on April 7, Andrew
indicated interest in additional U.S.-sponsored cost-free expert
(CFE) assistance to implement international coordination of
infrastructure-building assistance. Andrew reiterated several times
during the discussion that the Director General has specified that
effective coordination and provision of assistance in this regard is
the Agency's top priority in the area of nuclear energy.


2. (U) Comment: The IAEA is clearly anxious to avoid being seen as
part of any developed states' effort to define infrastructure
support narrowly and primarily as a non-proliferation tool, vice a
broader enabling of nuclear power-related capabilities. The
Secretariat wants to ensure consistency of message, and MsnOffs
suggested they raise Member State awareness of the IAEA's
coordination effort by briefing it at INSEP's planned workshop.
Unless otherwise directed, Mission will seek to coordinate closely
with the IAEA pursuant to its Nuclear Power Support Group (NPSG)
procedures laid out in the IAEA briefing (emailed to
Department/DOE/NRC). Mission requests revised instructions should
Washington desire any departure from our standing guidance to
support and promote safe, secure, and well-safeguarded nuclear
infrastructures in NPT states in good-standing who choose to develop
nuclear power (see para. 10 action request). End comment and
summary.

-------------- --------------
IAEA Coordination Effort Taking Shape
-------------- --------------


3. (U) Andrew began the meeting by welcoming the opportunity to
discuss infrastructure coordination with the United States. He
noted that "one size does not fit all" in terms of the needs of
recipient states and that the IAEA believed it was essential for
recipient states to play a leading role in defining the pace and
content of the assistance they would be receiving. Drawing an
analogy to IAEA Technical Cooperation projects, Andrew said the
recipients should also make a financial contribution. Andrew said
recipient states should actively coordinate their own receipt of
training over the long term, noting that it takes approximately 15
years or so to build a first nuclear power plant. Andrew summarized
his opening comments by observing that "we don't want to rush
support, we want to get it right." (Comment: Andrew's latter
comment reflects concerns he shared privately with MsnOff that the
planned INSEP workshop not/not be seen as "dictating" to recipient
states what they need. It was clearly implied by Andrew's comments
that he would not be in favor of IAEA participation if that were the
case. He also hoped that the U.S. workshop would not inadvertently
undercut the effort he is trying to drive within the IAEA to achieve
internal IAEA coordination of infrastructure support, and then
better IAEA coordination with the international community. End
comment.)


4. (U) Nuclear Power Division Director Omoto gave a presentation
(REF A) describing the process the IAEA is developing for
coordinating its infrastructure assistance programs. The
Secretariat believes this should be a demand-driven process,
organized to meet the needs of the countries seeking assistance in
capacity building for nuclear power. A major component of the

IAEA's plans is the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR)
Mission, which states would request through the Technical
Cooperation Program, with a pilot mission planned in 2009. To
support this effort, the Agency is also building Country Nuclear
Power Profiles (public documents) and a Country Nuclear
Infrastructure Profile database (for internal use, including
assessments and country-specific support plans). The Secretariat
has established a senior inter-departmental Nuclear Power Support
Group (NPSG) to develop the policy framework for this effort, many
of whose members were in the meeting. (Note: TC Africa Division
Director Ali Boussaha chairs the NPSG, but Omoto has been tasked to
take the lead on implementation of internal coordination and
outreach to Member States)


5. (U) In discussion, the IAEA noted that an integrated approach to
infrastructure, especially with countries in the early stages of
planning a nuclear power program, is an effective way to present
safety, security and safeguards in a broader context and to build a
culture of transparency and openness around new nuclear power
programs. Director of the Office of Nuclear Security, Anita
Nilsson, stressed the importance of engaging states early on good
security and safety practices, and argued that doing so should be
seen as a benefit that "enables" states nuclear power aspirations,
not a burden that "suppresses" them. The IAEA officials emphasized
the importance of a demand-driven approach for both practical and
political reasons: Member States receiving support need to show
commitment if they are serious about developing a nuclear power
program. A donor-driven process risks being seen as imposing
conditions on developing countries. In the IAEA's view it is
important that states are committed to take all appropriate steps
and are transparent.

--------------
Overcoming IAEA Wariness on Donor Meeting
--------------


6. (U) MsnOff explained plans for the safeguards infrastructure
donor harmonization workshop planned by INSEP. The first part of
the workshop would be a session to exchange information among
current providers of safeguards assistance, including the IAEA, to
ensure that these efforts are consistent in substance and do not
duplicate one another, and to identify gaps in their coverage.
Cooley endorsed this as a worthwhile effort in its own right. While
acknowledging and supporting the IAEA vision of a demand-driven,
integrated approach to infrastructure support, Cooley noted that it
was not too early for such donor harmonization so long as it is seen
as being done within the context of the broader IAEA coordination
effort. She cited a recent series of overlapping safeguards-related
training courses in Vietnam as an example of the inefficiencies and
confusion that can arise from donors taking an uncoordinated
approach. MsnOff explained that the second part of the workshop
would allow donor states and the IAEA to begin a dialogue on how
they see safeguards assistance fitting into the context of broader
infrastructure coordination efforts. The states could underscore
the central role safeguards -- and more broadly 3S (safety, security
and safeguards/non-proliferation) -- should play in infrastructure.
The IAEA could provide an update on its emerging infrastructure
development coordination procedures, as described in the IAEA
presentation.


7. (U) The Secretariat raised the question of timing. Most of the
countries interested in nuclear power are in a very early phase of
planning, with limited capacity to absorb assistance. Boussaha
noted that assistance should be provided in a strategic manner,
since many of the countries lack adequate planning capacity, and
should be timed appropriately to their stage of development. In the
case of safeguards, it may be 10 years or longer before they are
ready for and need training in material accountancy.


8. (U) In the end, IAEA participants indicated they would support
the proposed workshop, both by participating and by helping to set
the stage. The Secretariat is organizing a consultancy meeting on
infrastructure May 7-8 in Vienna, which could lay the groundwork for
the INSEP workshop (and possibly others) by recommending follow-on
topical workshops. Agency participants hoped that endorsement by
the May 7-8 meeting, in which "recipient" states will participate,
will help avoid any misperception that the U.S. workshop is part of
an effort by developed states to dictate to developing states what
they need, or to place sole emphasis on safeguards and security
issues, rather than the more general technical assistance developing
states would like to receive.

--------------
Comment and Action Request
--------------


9. (SBU) Comment: Mission sees Andrew's effort to drive an internal
IAEA coordination process as a sincere effort to bring together
Safety, Security, Nuclear Power, and Safeguards components of the
IAEA bureaucracy that have not been well-coordinated on
infrastructure support to date. We see this effort as dovetailing
with USG efforts toward the same end. In this regard, Mission is
pursuing a strategic approach to placement of U.S.-funded CFE's
within the Secretariat to help manage and implement coordination of
infrastructure support. We are pursuing discussions to replace one
CFE within the Division of Nuclear Energy working with Omoto.
(Note: Anne Starz, Technical Secretary to the NSWG, has been
supporting development of the IAEA's infrastructure support efforts,
and has been offered a regular staff position, replacing her
departing supervisor Ian Facer. She will be key to the success of
the Secretariat's coordination effort, and will be the Scientific
Secretary for the upcoming workshop in May.) Mission has heard from
the French Mission that France may also seek to place a CFE in the
same Division; Mission recommends having U.S. persons in position to
help ensure that any activity undertaken by the French also serves
U.S. interests. Also, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
is planning to fund another CFE for infrastructure coordination.
Given the lack of enthusiasm for the IAEA's infrastructure efforts
Mission has observed in DDG Taniguchi and the IAEA's safety-related
divisions over which he presides, Mission is working to place any
NRC-sponsored CFE within the Department of Nuclear Safety and
Security in order to help prompt and facilitate work across
Department lines. (Note: The NRC is also funding a parallel CFE at
the Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris. These two CFEs will work
together to share information and hopefully coordinate some of
IAEA's and NEA's activities. We have also heard interest from the
Technical Cooperation Asia division in finding a U.S. private sector
expert to replace the departing Japanese private sector cost free
expert working on nuclear power infrastructure. In an April 7
meeting with MsnOffs, Andrew indicated clear interest in the
provision of such U.S-sponsored CFEs, but referred MsnOffs to the
line managers to work out details of their placement and role. In
the course of the conversation, Andrew reiterated several times that
Director General ElBaradei has specified that provision of
well-coordinated international assistance to member state's nuclear
infrastructure-building efforts is the Agency's top priority in the
nuclear energy area (IAEA Major Program 1).


10. (SBU) Finally, Mission requests guidance as soon as possible for
how to characterize to our Vienna interlocutors-including at the
IAEA and within the "Friends of Nuclear Energy" group in which we
participate--the status of and relationship among various U.S.
infrastructure support activities, including those under the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership, those undertaken with Russia, and those
being undertaken by the NRC and INSEP.


11. (U) Participants

IAEA participants:
Graham Andrew, S&T Advisor to the Director General
Akira Omoto, Nuclear Power Division Director
Ali Boussaha, Technical Cooperation Africa Division Director and
Chairman of the NPSG
Jill Cooley, Safeguards Concepts and Planning Director
Frederic Claude, Advisor to the Deputy Director General for
Safeguards
Anita Nilsson, Nuclear Security Office Director
Johan Rautenbach, Director, Office of Legal Affairs,
Anne Starz, Nuclear Power Division, technical secretary to the NPSG

U.S. Participants
Kurt Kessler, Deputy IAEA counselor
Mark Goodman, Science Attache
Lisa Hilliard, Science Attache
Heather Astwood, Nuclear Safety Attache

SCHULTE