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 [email protected]. Best of Luck! -Jane Brennan 2 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Glenbrook South Model United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency 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
© Copyright 2024