INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Transcription

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC
ENERGY AGENCY
Topic A: Improving IAEA Safeguards and International
Regulation of Nuclear Material
Topic B: Peaceful Application of Nuclear Technology
Chair: Jane Brennan
Vice Chair: Kate Hegay
Moderator: Paul Sohn
Glenbrook South Model United Nations
International Atomic Energy Agency
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Letter from the Chair
Dear Delegates,
It is our distinct pleasure to welcome you to the inaugural GBSMUN
conference. After months of preparation from our dais staff we hope this
conference is a memorable experience for each of you. As a senior this
year, I have been actively involved in our team over the past three years
and have served as the speaking coach for the previous two. Outside of
Model UN I am captain of the girl’s lacrosse team, student body president
and a member of the debate team. Also on the dais staff are Paul Sohn and
Kate Hegay, both juniors at GBS who are highly involved and experienced
at Model UN. We are incredibly excited to moderate debate on the topic
selected at the beginning of committee.
This guide should serve as a basis for your research, not the end. In
order to fully resolve these topics, specific research will be necessary. In
terms of awards, we will be evaluating you on speaking in committee,
contributions to resolutions, presence in unmoderated caucuses,
compromise and correct policy actions. The “best delegate” is not the most
aggressive delegate in the room, but will be selected based on knowledge,
participation and appropriate leadership in committee. A one-page
position paper will be expected for each topic. For any further questions
regarding GBSMUN policy on the structure of position papers, please
refer to the delegate guide. I look forward to meeting you all on the 25th,
and please feel free to contact me with any questions prior to the
conference at janebrennan15@gmail.com.
Best of Luck!
-Jane Brennan
2
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Topic A: Improving IAEA Safeguards and
International Regulation of Nuclear Material
History of the Problem:
From the Manhattan Project that ushered in the atomic age, to recent nuclear proliferation,
monitoring and containing the spread of nuclear fission has been a a top priority. The looming Cold
War that reproached the Western World at the conclusion of World War II further complicated the
idea of nuclear safety. Visionary leaders such as Charles de Gaulle and Harry Truman were some of
the first to recognize that this new power must be protected by a coalition of cooperation and intel in
order to keep the new world safe. Luckily, this vision became tangible twenty years later. The
successful conclusion in 1968 of the negotiations on a treaty designed to prevent the further spread of
nuclear weapons the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was paramount in
the history of non-proliferation. Today, 189 nations have signed on the treaty and agreed to the
crucial values it works to uphold ("The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968 - 1961–1968 Milestones - Office of the Historian." 1).
Structure of IAEA:
The IAEA is an international organization with 154 members states, each with one vote on any
issue discussed in the General Conference. This body’s primary role is promoting and applying
nuclear energy toward solving global issues, developing safety regulations in order to protect the
environment and society from dangerous nuclear radiation and waste, and issuing and regulating the
safeguards on nuclear energy as agreed upon in the Non Proliferation Treaty.
3
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Agreements of NPT:
The NPT is unofficially broken down into three primary pillars. However, the three pillar system
often diverts attention away from the main issue of nonproliferation which is of first and foremost
importance ("The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968 - 1961–1968 - Milestones - Office of
the Historian.” 2). Regardless, the pillars still serve as a basis for any actions this committee plans to
take.
I. Nonproliferation: The NPT currently recognizes five states as nuclear powers (China, the
United States, Russia, France and the United Kingdom). These nuclear weapon states (NWS) pledged
to follow the Five Articles of the agreement (detailed below) in order to safeguard nuclear
technology. The NWS have also agreed to not use their nuclear weapons unless in retaliation from a
nuclear strike by a non NWS member or a conventional attack by a NWS member. States that do not
possess nuclear weapons must agree to not attempt to build or receive nuclear weapons.
II. Disarmament: Nations who currently have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon capabilities
must disarm. There is no set date for complete disarmament and the nations must unilaterally solve
this issue through their given legislative bodies.
III. Use of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes: The third pillar of the NPT ensures that
members may pursue the use of atomic energy their nation, providing they can prove that nuclear
related information and infrastructure is solely being used for peaceful purposes. The sharing of
information and infrastructure regarding nuclear energy is permitted as long as both nations have
been cited as honest in their intentions for the sharing of material.
Outside of the NPT’s core goals, there are 6 critical articles (outlined below) that define the
4
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
development of nuclear energy today and dictate the actions taken by any state in this committee.
Article I: Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) agrees not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear
weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to
manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices (“NPT Treaty, 1” ).
Article II: Each non-NWS state must not seek to receive any militarized nuclear material or
information related to nuclear material.
Article III: Each non-NWS party must reach an agreement with the IAEA for the
implementation of its safeguards to ensure all fissionable material is being utilized for only peaceful
purposes. The agreement must all highlight how the given nation will protect their radioactive waste
("The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968 - 1961–1968 - Milestones - Office of the
Historian.", 8).
Article IV: This agreement will not hinder the right of all the nations to the Treaty to develop
research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without excessive management
or discrimination by the IAEA (“NPT Treaty 1”).
Article VI: Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on
effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear
disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control (“NPT Treaty, 1”).
Article X: Affirms the right that a party may leave the treaty giving a 90 day notice. Also
declared Treaty was indefinite expiration date (“Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty”).
5
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
History of NPT and Safeguards
The NPT originated to create a long term solution that prevented the spread of atomic
weapons and the called for the destruction of those that already existed. Article II of the IAEA Statute
highlights the gray area that this body will focus on throughout much of the conference. The statue
advocates for the pursuance of safe and clean atomic energy but also raises fears that large
unregulated proliferation could lead to the weaponization of this material (“IAEA Safeguard
Overview”, 1). The implementation of safeguards was meant to both encourage states to abide by the
NPT treaty, and ensure all parties seeking fission are using their material for solely peaceful
purposes. Safeguards include routine inspections, random inspections and nuclear activity
monitoring by official IAEA nuclear engineers. Issues pertaining to the treaty, and more specifically
the invasive nature of safeguard systems, have kept some nations from signing the NPT, most
notably India, Pakistan and Israel. In 1970 the Indian Minister for Foreign Affairs explained that the
reason their nation never joined was that the NWS nations never really sought to deplete their
nuclear arsenals which essentially created a group of haves and have-nots in the world. India’s
perception of a skewed power balance led them to proceed to seek nuclear material. In addition to
India, Pakistan has chosen to build up a nuclear arsenal creating tensions reminiscent of the Cold
War days. The issue of nuclear weapons development in India and Pakistan was even further
inflamed when it was found that these nations were aided in their attempt to build nuclear
infrastructure by the United States and China (respectively) (“History of the IAEA”, 3). While it was
claimed these nuclear reactors were built for peaceful purposes, since both nations were signatories
on the NPT, the sharing of nuclear information or material in any form by an NPT member was
6
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
illegal. But even with the blatant violation no charges or penalties stemmed from this cooperation
between nations. North Korea and Iran on the other hand, joined the NPT in order to build up their
nuclear programs without as much outside suspicion. In 2003,
after refusing to release nuclear enrichment figures and barring
IAEA inspectors from entering the nation North Korea
withdrew from the NPT and announced in 2005 it possessed
nuclear weapons. In 2003 Iran’s minister of science declared that
Iran’s nuclear facilities failed to meet the safeguard regulations
of their facilities and temporarily shut down the facilities. Iran resumed nuclear enrichment without
declaring their intent to the IAEA and thus defied article III which states that a nation must declare
intent and receive an inspection before it resumes or starts any enrichment. In 2008 Iran barred
inspectors from viewing all nuclear reactors in their country prompting the IAEA to expand
safeguards (“History of the IAEA”, 2). Now, to pass a nuclear safety exam a nation must allow
inspectors to access all facilities pertaining to nuclear fission including mines, power plants and
reactors. This more comprehensive approach combined with random inspections will prevent nations
from building weapons programs simultaneous to their energy program. The debacles with Iran and
North Korea lead many nations to pursue reform on article X, which details how one withdraws from
the NPT. Article X states that a nation withdrawing must give a three months’ notice and receive a
final inspection before severing its ties to the agreement. North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors and
never declared why they were intent on leaving the NPT which was perceived poorly by the
international community. Nations such as France believe that leaving the NPT should be met with
ramifications in order to discourage dissent. Other nations, such as the United States, believe that
7
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
NATO’s disposable attitude regarding the NPT is going to lead to greater conflict. NATO states that
if there is a state of conflict or general war the treaty is no longer in effect ("The Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968 - 1961–1968 - Milestones - Office of the Historian.” 5). Since Iran and
North Korea are technically in conflict with other nations, under NATO’s interpretation they have
fair reason to suspend protocol even though that is a legitimate response in the eyes of the IAEA. The
recent developments in the nuclear sector and the emergence of developing nations looking for
sustainable energy is further complicating the role of the IAEA and require this committee to combat
unprecedented challenges (“History of the IAEA”, 1).
Current Status of the Problem
Given the multitude of conflicts currently transpiring, the IAEA has become mainly focused
on preventing the conflicts from evolving into nuclear crises. The IAEA currently has safeguard
agreements in place with 170 states, most of which are comprehensive agreements in accordance to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that went into effect in 1970 (US Dept.
Of State). One of the emerging issues is the sharing of nuclear technologies between nuclear NPT
states, and states not party to the NPT. In 2005, the US and India announced that US policy would be
adjusted to allow for the exchange of information regarding civilian use of nuclear energy. This was
met with a dubious international reaction due to India’s reluctance to sign the NPT (India is currently
one the 4 UN states that have not signed the NPT). In 2010, China provided Pakistan with nuclear
materials and claimed that the deal was “peaceful” but many nations, particularly the US,
condemned the deal claiming it violated the NPT by assisting nuclear development in nations not
partied to the Treaty. Incidents such as these give light to the difficulty of enforcing the clauses of the
8
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
NPT. With powerful nations such as the US and China flagrantly violating its terms and intentions,
the legitimacy of the NPT is damaged (Clark 2).
Case Study One: Iran
In November 2011, the IAEA published a report criticizing Iran after concluding that the
nation likely undertook programs attempting to develop nuclear weapons, which is in direct
violation of the nonproliferation pillar of the NPT. The report stated that they could not conclude that
all fissionable materials that had entered the nation was being used for peaceful purposes (IAEA,
Safeguard Statement for 2011). In 2003, Iran failed to comply with their reporting responsibilities as
outlined in the CSA and AP. Although their AP had not been ratified, the country had been
complying with it, but in 2003, the nation obtained vast amounts of fissionable material of various
concentrations and failed to report it to the IAEA. The transactions were undocumented and the
information about the changes made to their existing nuclear reactors was withheld as well.
Furthermore, an additional “pilot enrichment facility” was constructed but not reported to the IAEA
(IAEA Board of Governors, Statement on Iran). These infractions led the IAEA’s Board of Governors to
request that Iran suspend all nuclear activity until inspections were conducted and the country’s
accounts and facilities were verified. In 2006, the Board of Governors passed resolution
GOV/2006/14, which requested that Iran closely adhere to IAEA safeguards and reporting
mechanisms to restore the IAEA’s confidence in their nuclear program. Despite this resolution, Iran
continued to disregard the IAEA’s suggestions and refused to allow inspections or provide the
documentation that the IAEA requested. Following continued unresponsiveness the Security Council
issued a presidential statement requesting Iran’s cooperation and their adherence to resolution
9
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
GOV/2006/14 (Perra 1). 5 On December 23, 2006,
acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations, the SC adopted resolution 1737, which
implemented sanctions against Iran. Security Council
resolution, Resolution 2049, called for an extension of the mandate of the Panel of Experts created
under SC Resolution 1929 to oversee the implementation of the Council’s demands.
This also exposed many holes in the IAEA’s system of detecting nuclear weapons programs.
This crisis stems from a number of factors: discriminatory rules in the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), inadequate application of nuclear safeguards where needed, limited authority for the
IAEA to investigate possible clandestine nuclear programs, personnel rules that limit access to the
best-qualified inspectors, and lack of technical resources and funding. The safeguards permit IAEA
inspectors to enter civilian nuclear programs and alert of suspicious activity, and given that in 20112013 24 nations have expressed interest in developing a nuclear program, the need for such
safeguards will become imperative. Countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons while still
receiving the benefits of the NPT
agreement can abuse many of the
loopholes within the IAEA verifications
system such as acquired nuclear materials
such as uranium from ores, or using
undeclared facilities (Dahl 1).
10
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Case Study Two: North Korea
Another country that has come under immense international scrutiny for its nuclear program
is North Korea. North Korea poses a particular threat because it is considered to be a rogue state
(Bucci 1). In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the NPT and is
currently not partied to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty (CTBT) or a member of the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR). Since World War II North Korea has been
attempting to create a nuclear weapon to threaten Western
states and South Korea. Since then they have developed
nuclear fuel cycle capability and have both plutonium and
enriched uranium programs capable of producing fissile material (International Crisis Group, 2009
Asia Report). In 2010, North Korea unveiled a uranium enrichment program with a stated purpose of
created low enriched uranium for energy, but at a level high enough that it could possibly as
weaponry by the government in Pyongyang. North Korea has conducted 3 nuclear tests since 2006
and in May 2014 activity was observed at the Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site although scientists
disagree whether this activity was indicative of a fourth test. In 2003, the “Six Party Talks” between
North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the US commenced and had the purpose of
reducing the threat of nuclear conflict on the Korean Peninsula. These talks were suspended in 2009
after the death of Kim Jung Il, North Korea agreed to suspend all nuclear activity in exchange for
humanitarian assistance from the US, but this agreement was revoked and North Korea conducted a
nuclear test in early 2013 to provoke the United States. North Korea continues to threaten nuclear
war, but it does not appear that they have the weaponry, or the missiles necessary to threaten anyone
11
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
except their immediate neighbors, South Korea (Myers 1).
Possible Solutions
Resolution 1540 passed by the United Nations Security Council mandates that no non-state
actor shall “develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons and their means of delivery.” The resolution calls for “effective laws” to ensure
that this is held true (UN official Document). This document highlights how a consensus on
international beliefs has been established but a practical measure to enforce these ideas has yet to be
developed. Therefore, it is up to this body to formulate a set of feasible guidelines for this purpose.
These measures include but are not limited to, appropriate physical barriers, accountability
mechanisms and border control and law enforcement procedures (Effectiveness and…). This
committee is at the freedom to go down multiple routes to effectively address this issue. Nations with
declared nuclear programs should advocate for more invasive measures and the adoption of existing
additional protocols in addition to the creation of new protocols. Nations who are questionably
engaging in illicit nuclear activities or attempting to develop programs will likely be opposed to these
12
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
methods (Strengthening Nuclear…). This body should look to develop a solution that deals with
nations that do not comply with the additional regulations and fail to accurately report their nuclear
activities (IAEA Department of Safeguards). In this framework, repercussions for states that aid
rogue states or non-state actors should be developed.
A majority of the nations will fall in the former but many differentiate in where to focus our
efforts and the extent to which they should be monitored. Possible improvements to the safeguards
system include accountability measures, restructuring legal authority over transportation and
developing solutions to address preventing non-state actors from obtaining nuclear materials.
Currently, several nations have “adopted” the additional protocols but not passed them through their
legislation, thus preventing implementation (IAEA Department of Safeguards 19). As such this
committee can look for ways to ensure these nations take steps to actually adopt these measures
(Strengthening Nuclear…). Additionally, with the rise of ultra-powerful extremist group there is
increasing fear that these factions may garner access to nuclear materials through a rogue state it is
imperative the IAEA finds practical mechanisms to monitor and prevent this. In 1992 and again in
1995 the IAEA affirmed the ability to ensure that declared nation’s nuclear bank is not only verified
but complete. But, the body has yet find a way to monitor these systems beyond the realm of facilities
which excludes the potential acquisition from non-state actors. A new monitoring system will require
to the committee to allow IAEA inspectors broader access without violating national sovereignty of
the states in question (IAEA Department of Safeguards 13).
Lastly, this committee should look to restructure the funding mechanisms for the IAEAS
nuclear security program. In the status quo the program is reliant on extra-budgetary contributions
from donor countries making it difficult to implement long term projects due to the fluctuations in
13
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
funding (Nuclear Nonproliferation). Additionally, the committee does not utilize needs based
assessments which indicates that the funds may not currently be used to the best of their ability.
Questions to Consider:
1) How can this agency deal with the non-compliant nations? What consequences if any should
be given?
2) With new nations developing nuclear facilities (i.e Belarus) how can this body ensure that
nuclear materials are appropriately protected?
3) Some nations are concerned that increasing safeguard programs will limit the development of
peaceful nuclear applications, what can we do to address this concern and effectively separate
these usages?
4) How can this body regulate nuclear facilities within rogue states or non-state actors?
5) How can the body ensure the enforcement of protocols enacted through the IAEA?
Works Cited:
Boureston, Jack. "Strengthening Nuclear Safeguards: Special Committee to the Rescue?" Center on Foreign
Relations. N.p., Dec. 2005. Web.
"Chernobyl Accident 1986." Chernobyl. N.p., 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of
Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine (n.d.): n. pag. IAEA.org. International Atomic Energy Agency, 27 Feb.
2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
David Sanger, Helen Cooper, "Iran is Warned Over Nuclear 'Deception'," The New York Times, 25 September
2009.
"Encyclopedia of the Nations." Structure. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
"History of the IAEA." International Atomic Energy Agency. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
IAEA Department of Safeguards. IAEA Safeguards: Staying Ahead of the Game (n.d.): n. pag. IAEA, July 2007.
Web.
International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement
in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2005
International Atomic Energy Agency, Overview of Safeguards Requirements for States with Limited Nuclear
Material and Activities
"IAEA Safeguards Overview." International Atomic Energy Agency. International Atomic Energy Agency, 17
May 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
"Iran Hails NPT Call on Israel for Atomic Transparency." Israel Rejects Nuclear-free Mideast Conference. N.p., 30
May 2010. Web.
<http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2010/May/middleeast_May52
7.xml§ion=middleeast>.
Iran's Nuclear Facilities. Digital image. Federation of American Scientists, 2009. Web.
<http://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/images/user/28361/large_20090226_Iran_nuclear.jpg>.
14
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
North Korea's Nuclear and Missile Programs," International Crisis Group, Web. June 2009
"NPT Treaty." UN News Center. UN, 03 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Nuclear Sites in North Korea. Digital image. AFP/ Global Security. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://japanfocus.org/Georgy-Bulychev/2356>.
"NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: IAEA Has Made Progress in Implementing Critical Programs but
Continues to Face Challenges." U.S. Government Accountability Office. N.p., 16 May 2013. Web.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968 - 1961–1968 - Milestones - Office of the Historian." The
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968 - 1961–1968 - Milestones - Office of the Historian. N.p., 19 Nov. 2014.
Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
"Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Nuclear Tipping Point. Digital image. BBC News. N.p., 13 Apr. 2010. Web.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8618915.stm>.
“Profile for North Korea NTI.” NTI: Nuclear Threat Initiative, N.p., n.d
Strengthening the Effectiveness and Improving the Efficiency of the Safeguards System: Report. Vienna: IAEA,
1995. IAEA. Sept. 2014. Web.
"United Nations Official Document." UN News Center. N.p., 28 Apr. 2004. Web.
15
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Topic B: Peaceful Application of Nuclear
Technology
History of the Problem
The second half of the IAEA’s agenda is to promote the use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. The IAEA stresses aggressive funding and research to provide nuclear energy for both the
developed and undeveloped world. Conversely, the IAEA is also tasked with ensuring that the mass
expansion of nuclear power is done in a safe manner. The safeguard system implemented to prevent
massive nuclear disasters has seen great evolution over the past forty years.
Applications of Nuclear Energy:
Since the first nuclear generator was made in 1937, the world has become increasingly reliant
and interested in atomic energy. At the commencement of World War II Europe saw nuclear energy
as the best means to achieve energy independence from the United Kingdom (which controlled much
of the Middle East) and the United States. In 1954 the first nuclear power plant was connected to a
grid, the Soviet plant Obninsk. The United States followed suit and built a nuclear power plant in
Virginia in 1954 (“History of Nuclear Energy”, 2). Many of the early power plants in the United States
were built for militaristic purposes but many were converted following the OPEC boycott. France
soon followed suit and began to build the largest, most efficient systems of atomic energy in order to
meet their rising energy needs (“Outline History of Nuclear Energy”, 1). Today 30 countries operate a
combined 435 nuclear power plants that collectively supply the population with 12.3% of its
electricity (“World Statistics”, 1). Nuclear energy is often seen as the most feasible energy source for
the future due to its high yield, sustainability and minimal environmental impact. Nuclear energy
16
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
does also have its issues, especially in being the energy solution for developing nations. Of the main
energy sources nuclear power is the most difficult to harness due to high fixed and variable costs and
extreme safety protocol. The IAEA needs to balance the line of making nuclear energy easy to access
on a mass scale but also regulating the energy in order to make it safe for the population.
Nuclear Incidents:
At its founding, the IAEA took a more lenient approach to safety regulation and was more
preoccupied with preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Nations were largely expected to
regulate and uphold high standards of safety yet were not held accountable by the international
body. This viewpoint shifted after the Chernobyl meltdown, the most deadly nuclear power plant
disaster in history (“Chernobyl’s Legacy, 9). The incident killed 31 people and cost over 18 billion
Rubles. The Chernobyl incident discouraged mass employment of nuclear technology for fear that
these meltdowns would become more prevalent. As a result, the IAEA increased its spending on
researching safer ways to harness nuclear power (Chernobyl Accident 1986, 2).
Although the use of nuclear energy temporarily decreased following the Chernobyl incident,
many nations still relied on nuclear energy to provide a mass amount of energy to their society. In
2011 another mass disaster altered the existing nuclear safety framework for the IAEA following the
Fukushima Daiichi disaster. As a result, the IAEA amped up spending on safety research. The IAEA
spends 8.9% of its 469 million dollar budget on regulating infrastructure in order to prevent future
meltdowns from occurring.
Food Security
17
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
The human population is growing at a rate of 1.2% every year, yet the world is also losing
farmland at a rate of approximately 2.7% per year. Many of these farms grow the staple crops (wheat,
corn) that are used to provide the basic level of sustenance to the global population. By 2050, the
world must increase the production of food by 70% in order to feed the world population if it grows
at the expected rate (“2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics”, 1).
While the IAEA is mainly known for its surveillance of nuclear technology, the organization is
now in a unique position to harness nuclear technology to make the production and cultivation of
food a more efficient process. Currently the IAEA is supporting over 200 projects in 100 countries.
While this may seem to be a large investment, more focus needs to be brought to the growing food
shortage or future generations will be at serious risk of mass malnutrition.
Nuclear technology could have a dual usage in combating the current food crisis. Nuclear
technology would directly improve the means at which food is stored and grown including, but not
limited to, the use of genetically altered insects or bacteria as a form of pesticide. Nuclear energy
could be cheaply harnessed by agricultural firms in order to speed up the process of collecting crops,
as well as used to desalinate or clear harmful water or waste from farmland. (The Growing World
Food Shortage”, 2). All methods that could be used to make the production of food a more efficient
process must be duly explored.
The issue of food shortage has been felt the hardest in developing countries. In Africa alone
there are over a quarter of a million people who are hungry (25.7% of population). Immediate aid
must be provided to these areas but the pursuit of a long term answer still must be addressed as soon
as possible.
18
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Current Status of the Problem
Food Security
Case Study 1:Indonesia
Currently, nuclear energy is being used as a powerful
weapon against hunger in many developing nations. In 2013,
Indonesia partnered with the FAO in a campaign to diminish
hunger in the country. The FAO and the National Nuclear
Energy Agency of Indonesia (BATAN) agreed to share
scientific and technical information, train personnel, and conduct seminars on the use of nuclear
energy in agriculture. Through this collaboration, Indonesian farmers were trained in plant mutation
breeding, insect and pest control, and food irradiation. Indonesia did this as part of their initiative to
cut the hunger rate in the nation by 2015. Furthermore, following a landslide in February of 2014,
hunger was rampant in the areas affected by it. Even several months later, almost 200 people
remained displaced. Of these people the majority were at a camp by the Public Health Centre
Building. The IAEA sponsored a specialist to venture assist
people in this region by irradiating traditional Indonesian
dishes so that they could be packaged and transported to the
region. Irradiating the food for disaster victims is particularly
important because protects them from food borne diseases to
which they would otherwise be easily susceptible (Henon 1)
Case Study 2: Cameroon
19
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
In 2012 the government in Cameroon pledged itself to preventing livestock death due to preventable
diseases. It is estimated that 25% of all livestock in Cameroon die annually as a result of diseases that
can be prevented with the use of nuclear energy. Using radioimmunology to assess the reproductive
efficiency of animals and using isotope levels to evaluate the nutritional value of their feed has
increased the livestock productivity significantly with farmers reporting numbers as high as 67%. H.E.
Mr. Jean Marc Mpay, Ambassador and Resident Representative, Permanent Mission of the Republic
of Cameroon to the IAEA, and Kwaku Aning, IAEA Deputy Director General and Head of the
Department of Technical Cooperation, have signed Cameroon’s Country Programme Framework
(CPF) for the period of 2014-2018 on 23 September 2014. A Country Programme Framework (CPF) is
the frame of reference for the medium-term planning of technical cooperation between a Member
State and the IAEA and identifies priority areas where the transfer of nuclear technology and
technical cooperation resources will be directed to support national development goals. With the
continuation of this previously successful collaboration, Cameroon expects to continue to see the
implementation of nuclear technologies in not only agriculture, but also in the fields of health, energy
resources, and water resources (IAEA, Cameroon’s CPF)
Case Study 3: EU
Nuclear
reduces
hunger
energy
by
also
mitigating
indirectly
climate
change. The European Union is currently
facing a crisis of food and energy security as
a result of reduced trade with Russia due to
the Ukrainian crisis. In June of 2015, the EU
20
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
attempted to set new energy targets for 2030. The plan focuses on weaning the area off of fossil fuels
in order to prevent further changes in their climate and an increase in food prices. The EU seeks to be
as energy independent as possible and is exploring nuclear energy as a possible primary source, but
many are skeptical, as most nations would just have to replace importing oil for importing uranium
(Oxfam Issue Briefing 2014).
None the less, despite the perceived benefits, many nations have rejected these technologies on
the basis that they are not safe for human health. Although over 40 nations have legalized irradiation,
the European Union remains adamant that they pose health risks. Dr. Gerald Dettman at Brown
University has conducted a study that revealed that while a dose of 100,000 rads on fruits and
vegetables will kill insect larvae, it will only mutate fungi, bacteria, and viruses possibly creating
more virulent contaminants while reduce the products nutritional value by 5-80%. Furthermore, Dr.
Gayle Eversore researched the effects of consuming irradiated foods on animals and recorded that, as
result of carcinogens created as a result of irradiation such as benzene in irradiated beef, and animals
consistently fed irradiated feed had increased cases of
tumors, reproductive failures, and kidney failure (Eversore 2).
Energy
Another peaceful use for nuclear materials is energy. Nuclear energy has been proliferated
greatly within the past decade and leading nations such as France have come to rely heavily on it to
meet their electrical needs. Globally, nuclear energy currently generates 12.3 of the world’s electricity.
It is the 3rd most common source of energy for electricity, and the most commonly used source of
alternative energy, thus, it is not surprising that many developing nations such as Jordan are anxious
to develop a nuclear program to become more energy independent.
21
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Case Study 1: France
France is the world’s leader in harvesting nuclear energy for electricity with 74% coming from
nuclear energy. In 1974, after the world experienced the first major oil shock, France decided to
rapidly expand their nuclear energy program to cushion the nation from the economic downturn
invariably associated with the rise of oil prices. In 1999, the French parliament declared the three
planks of the nation’s energy policy which still stand today: security, respect for the environment,
and attention to nuclear waste management. Due to the fact that 90% of the electricity in France is
generated using either hydro or nuclear energy, their CO2 emissions are extremely low despite being
an industrialized nation. The nation also has the lowest electrical prices in the EU and, by exporting
their electricity to other EU nations earned 65.2 billion Euros in 2010. However, despite the success of
their nuclear program, France wants to decrease their dependence on nuclear energy and expand into
other possible sources of renewable energy such as solar, wind, and particularly hydro. In October
2014 an energy transition bill was passed by the National Assembly and so went on to the Senate.
This set a target of 50% for nuclear contribution to electricity supply by 2025, with a nuclear power
capacity ceiling at the present level of 63.2 GWe, meaning that EDF must shut at least 1,650 GW of
nuclear capacity at the end of 2016 when its Flamanville 3 EPR is scheduled to start commercial
operation. The bill also sets long-term targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030
compared with 1990 levels, and by 75% by 2050; to cut final energy consumption by 50% by 2050
compared with 2012 levels; to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 30% by 2030 relative to 2012; and to
increase the share of renewables in final energy consumption to 32% by 2030. The energy bill is
expected to be ratified in 2015 (World Nuclear Association: France)
22
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Case Study 2: Jordan
Seeing the benefits of successful nuclear programs, many developing nations have started their
own nuclear energy programs to gain energy independence. One such example is Jordan. Jordan
imports 95% of their energy supply, and given that they have a copious supply of uranium,
developing a nuclear program would not only help to gain energy independence but would
accelerate the growth of their economy. Their current plan is to have a 1000 MWe nuclear power unit
in operation by 2021 and another by 2025 both in the Arma region near the uranium deposits. These
nuclear reactors are to be built with Russia’s support. Russia has pledged to assist the Jordanians
with information and funds necessary to complete their nuclear plants. In 2014, Jordan was the first
nation in 5 years to invite INIR experts into their nation to inspect their nuclear progress. The IAEA
has praised Jordan for exemplifying the kind of transparency that the agency deems necessary (World
Nuclear Organization: Jordan).
Case Study 3: Fukushima
Despite the benefits of a nuclear program, there are still
many risks associated with nuclear energy. The IAEA strives to
minimize the occurrence of these risks with INIR inspections
during construction and inspections once a plant has been
completed. In March 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck the city of Sendai. 11 reactors at 4
nuclear plants shut down successfully as a result of the earthquake and upon inspection showed
that they suffered no significant damage. Although the generators were able to withstand the
23
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
earthquake, they were vulnerable to the tsunami. Power, from grid or backup generators, was
available to run the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system cooling pumps at eight of the eleven
units, and despite some problems they achieved 'cold shutdown' within about four days. The
other three, at Fukushima Daiichi, lost power at 3.42 pm, almost an hour after the quake, when
the entire site was flooded by the 15-metre tsunami. This disabled 12 of 13 back-up generators on
site and also the heat exchangers for dumping reactor waste heat and decay heat to the sea. The
three units lost the ability to maintain proper reactor
cooling and water circulation functions. Electrical
switchgear was also disabled. Thereafter, many weeks
of focused work centred on restoring heat removal from
the reactors and coping with overheated spent fuel
ponds. This was undertaken by hundreds of Tepco
employees as well as some contractors,
supported by firefighting and military
personnel. On March 12, the plant began
releasing substantial amounts obyl on the
list of accidents that measured level 7 on
the International Nuclear Event Scale. The
most pressing issue, is that the water that caused the incident is now contaminated with
radioactive materials and through ocean currents this material can be carried as far as California
putting thousands more at risk as the contamination cannot be isolated.
24
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Possible Solutions
Any increase in nuclear usage inherently leads to growing fears regarding potential militaristic
developments. As such, if this body continues to advocate for the implementation of these programs
it is imperative we develop a framework which ensures a means of regulating nuclear power without
violating national sovereignty. This body must find a way to standardize the development of these
peaceful programs and the monitoring of the growing facilities in all new establishments and
preexisting programs.
Energy
As nuclear energy programs proliferate throughout the world it is imperative that the
safety of are surrounding these facilities is protected. As past accidents in Fukushima and
Chernobyl have shown, nuclear mishaps can be
catastrophic and inhibit a regions ability to grow for
decades. This body should look to create universal
guidelines to be followed in the case of a nuclear
meltdown. Although this guidelines clearly do not
prevent the incident, hopefully they will mitigate the impacts. But, a prerequisite to all potential
solutions regarding energy implementation requires the international community to debate
whether the presumed benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the apparent risks associated with its
usage. Many fear the health risks associated with radiation, waste and accidents, all
comprehensive solutions should in some form address all three of this issues (Cohen).
25
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Food and Water Security
Scientists have universally acknowledged that if we do not alter our feeding habits we0 will
not be able to sustain sufficient levels of food to satisfy world hunger (Henriques). This committee’s
goal is to tackle this issue by generating solutions through nuclear applications. These techniques
include making crops more resistant to strains of disease, controlling pests and animal disease and
monitoring the quality of soil and water. Applications have been successful in halting the spread of
deadly cattle diseases, introducing improved strains of crops and diminishes the effects of the fruit
fly in Latin America (Ahmad 3). Implementation of these programs can be difficult due to the fact
many of the nations that would benefit most are those who lack existing nuclear structures. But, some
nations are concerned that along with the spread of peaceful use
of nuclear technologies will come the increased probability of
some meltdown or the potential proliferation of militaristic uses.
This committee should work to create programs to ensure that
these establishments are only being used for peaceful purposes.
Additionally, many nations are concerned over the potential health risks associated with modified
foods (NEI). The committee should weigh the risk of increased health deficits against potentially
resolving hunger issues in many parts of the world.
The use of many of these techniques will raise alarm with many that the quality or safety of
the food tampered with will be dangerous to consume. While the issue of hunger may be a prevalent,
addressing it to hasty could result in far reaching residual effects. The use of radiation or mutation
has the possibility of rendering the crop enhanced inedible (UNGA). If the IAEA’s efforts result in a
catastrophe other organizations will be more wary in joining the fight to end world hunger.
26
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
Questions to Consider
1) How does this body ensure that these developments are benefiting both developed and
underdeveloped nations?
2) Will stricter safeguards implemented through this body inhibit the ability to develop peaceful
applications?
3) What safety measures must be taken prior to developing this peaceful nuclear applications?
4) How can this body ensure these newly established programs remain peaceful?
5) How can we monitor these programs to prevent militaristic advancements without violating
national sovereignty?
6) How do we implement these practices in developing nations who would likely benefit the most
from these programs, but lack a stable governmental structures?
Works Cited
Ahmad, Ishfaq. "Sustainable Development and Nuclear Technoloy." Science Vision 2nd ser. 7.1 (n.d.): n. pag.
Print.
"Chernobyl Accident 1986." Chernobyl. N.p., 13 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
Cohen, Bernard. "Risks of Nuclear Power." The University of Michigan Health Physics Web Site: Risks of Nuclear
Power. N.p., 2005. Web.
Energy.gov." The History of Nuclear Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Eversore, Gayle, Phd. "The Dangers Of Food Irradiation." The Dangers Of Food Irradiation. N.p., 1998. Web.
"THE EU’S 2030 ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE PACKAGE." Www.oxfam.org. Oxfam Issue Briefing, June
2014. Web.
Female Scientist. Digital image. Human Health: Priority of Cuba's Nuclear Energy Agency. N.p., 1 Oct. 2014. Web.
<http://www.cadenagramonte.cu/english/index.php/show/articles/19872:human-health-priority-of-cubasnuclear-energy-agency>.
"Fukushima Accident." Fukushima Accident. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown. Digital image. The River. N.p., 2014. Web.
"The Growing World Food Shortage." World Food Shortage and How ADRA Is Fighting It. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov.
2014.
Henon, Yves. "Food Made Safe by Irradiation Feeds Landslide Victims in Indonesia." International Atomic
Energy Agency. IAEA, n.d. Web.
Henriques, Sasha. "Contributing to Food Security with Nuclear Technologies." IAEA. N.p., 18 Sept. 2012. Web.
"Inside The Most Dangerous Room in the World." Time. Time, 13 June 2013. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
“NPT Treaty." UN News Center. UN, 03 Mar. 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Nuclear Electricity Generation. Digital image. The Economist. World Nuclear Association, 24 May 2011. Web.
<http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/03/26/BB/20110326_BBM985.gif>.
"Nuclear Power in France." World Nuclear Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
"Nuclear Power in Jordan." Nuclear Power in Jordan. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
"Nuclear Technology Vital for Cost-Effective Energy Sources, Achievement of Millennium Development Goals,
Delegates Tell General Assembly." United Nations Meeting Coverage. N.p., 5 Nov. 2013. Web.
27
Chair: Jane Brennan
April 25
"Outline History of Nuclear Energy." History of Nuclear Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
"Protecting Africa's Lifeblood: Controlling Animal Disease in Cameroon." International Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA, n.d. Web.
"Radiation Techniques Assist In Global Food Security." Nuclear Energy Institute. N.p., Feb. 2009. Web.
"World Statistics." Nuclear Energy Institute -. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
"2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education Service." 2013 World Hunger
and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education Service. N.p., 15 June 2014. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.
28

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Transcription

Similar documents

Family Law Barbara Glesner Fines 1-511 Holmes 235-2380

View/Open - AUC DAR Home

B.Tech.(Sem-1st-2nd) Communicative English BTHU

A REPRINT of a July 1991 Report to Congress, Executive Summary

Technical Meeting on Technology Assessment for New Nuclear

Characterization of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flows in Micro to Nuclear

Technical Meeting on Establishing a National Position for New

PowerPoint íë ì íì´ì - Belfer Center for Science and

Poster - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs