VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0505/01 3101559
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 061559Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0267
INFO RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHMCSUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEANFA/NRC WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000505 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR T, S/SANAC, IO/GS, ISN/MNSA, ISN/RA, ISN/NESS 
NA-21 CUMMINS, ILIOPULOS; NA-24 MENSELSOHN 
NA-243 GOOREVICH/OEHLBERT; NA-241 O'CONNOR, SIEMON; 
NE-62 SZYMANSKI 
NRC FOR OIP - DOANE, HENDERSON, SCHWARTZMAN 
GENEVA FOR CD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY
SUBJECT: IAEA NOVEMBER TACC/BOARD: PREVIEW AND ANALYSIS 
 
REFS: A) SAMUNDSON-DRUDOLPH email 10/08/09 
      B) SAMUNDSON-DRUDOLPH email 10/09/09 on Sudan 
      C) SAMUNDSON-DRUDOLPH emails 10/09/09 on Omani projects 
      D) SAMUNDSON-DRUDOLPH email 10/09/09 on UAE; SAMUNDSON- 
         DRUDOLPH email 10/09/09 on Regional Latin America 
      E) SAMUNDSON-DRUDOLPH email 10/09/09 on Ecuador; 
         SAMUNDSON-DRUDOLPH email 10/09/09 on Paraguay 
      F) SAMUNDSON-DRUDOLPH email 10/21/09 
      G) MOSCOW 2248 
      H) UNVIE 425 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST:  The November 26-27 Board of 
Governors meeting will be the last Board session for Director 
General ElBaradei before handing over the reins to Yukiya Amano 
December 1.  With this impetus to reflect on the institution, U.S. 
positions in the Board should be prefaced with a renewed commitment 
to multilateralism and the IAEA as a whole.  The first order of 
business of the November Board of Governors will be to approve the 
report of the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Committee 
convening November 23-24 to approve off-year TC projects.  Assuming 
no closure on the refueling agreement for the Tehran Research 
Reactor (TRR), however, our primary objectives for this Board 
session will focus on the long-standing fuel assurance proposal and 
Iran verification issues.  The DG's quarterly report on Iran will 
include the first official report of the inspection of the Qom 
(Fordo) enrichment facility since its disclosure in September. 
Working with the P5-plus-1 and likeminded, it will be essential to 
frame the inspection report on Qom in its proper context -- Iran's 
intent in building a covert facility in contravention of Board, 
UNSC, and IAEA safeguards "Code 3.1" requirements.  The DG's last 
address to open a Board meeting may set expectations, for better or 
worse, as to how his successor can proceed on the Iran issue that 
has dominated ElBaradei's tenure.  More broadly, the Board session 
will be the first opportunity to increase pressure on Iran should it 
fail to deliver on its October 1 commitments in Geneva and in view 
of potential next steps in the UN Security Council.   Also on the 
Board's agenda will be the DG's report on Syria verification, which 
will present another opportunity to turn up pressure on Damascus 
with respect to its continued failure to cooperate with the IAEA 
investigation.  Since there have been no developments on the Syrian 
TC project on a feasibility study for a nuclear reactor, we do not 
expect this issue to be raised in either the TACC or Board.  Septels 
will preview the Iran and Syria agenda items upon issuance of the 
respective reports.  On Iran in particular, our tactical 
recommendation will hinge on a forthright IAEA report.  Although the 
Director General will not report on verification in the DPRK, the 
issue will be added to the Board agenda pursuant to a request from 
the ROK, Japan and U.S.  Board members will look to the U.S. 
statement should there be any significant developments on DPRK. 
 
¶2. (SBU) In addition to the pressing verification issues, the 
Russian fuel reserve proposal will be added to the November Board 
agenda for approval; the agreement texts are about to be circulated 
to Member States for consideration.  This is a long-awaited 
development and could bring to fruition the first assurance of 
supply mechanism, a U.S. priority.  The Secretariat has indicated 
that it may, pending a decision from the Director General, consider 
also bringing the International Nuclear Fuel Bank forward in tandem; 
so as to not complicate approval of the Russian proposal, Mission 
has advised deferring the INFB for a future Board session and will 
reinforce this message with the Secretariat.  Our approach to Iran 
needs to be conditioned by the need to preserve a minimum of Board 
comity on the Russia/IAEA fuel reserve decision. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Although this is not a TC project-cycle year, the November 
TACC and Board present an opportunity for a forward-leaning U.S. 
posture on peaceful uses of nuclear energy in view of the 
President's Nobel speech in early December and the upcoming NPT 
Revcon.  The U.S. statement in the Board to join in approving the 
report of the TACC earlier in the week should underline our 
commitment to the TC program and peaceful uses more broadly. 
However, the TACC may also witness open disagreement regarding a 
Secretariat-proposed interregional project on Results Based 
Management (RBM), which is strongly opposed by the G-77.  Should the 
G-77 force the issue by blocking consensus in the TACC, the U.S. 
should support the TC Department in its decision to implement RBM. 
The Secretariat has also issued a legal opinion excluding Iran from 
the RBM project due to UNSCR restrictions on IAEA technical 
cooperation to Iran.  (Note:  There is a requirement for two U.S. 
statements on TC, in the TACC and Board respectively.) 
 
¶4.  (U) Mission requests guidance for TACC and Board meetings by 
November 20.  Guidance for preparatory outreach on assurance of 
nuclear fuel supply (paras 14-16 below) is requested as soon as 
possible and should precede TACC and Board statements and 
instructions keyed to the meeting agendas.  END SUMMARY AND ACTION 
REQUEST. 
 
TACC 
---- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) This year's Technical Assistance and Cooperation Committee 
(TACC) meeting has the potential to be contentious if the G77 refuse 
to join consensus on a proposed Secretariat project focusing on the 
implementation of Results Based Management (RBM).  The Secretariat's 
objective with this project is to strengthen capacities of Member 
States and counterpart institutions in the application of RBM across 
the TC program cycle.  The project is designed to meet Member State 
calls for more efficiency, results, and transparency in the TC 
program.  RBM, if applied correctly, will strengthen TC planning, 
programming, budgeting, monitoring, evaluation, human resource 
management and management of information systems.  To achieve this, 
the Secretariat will train TC recipient country project staff, 
including National Liaison Officers, as well as the planning and 
implementation staff in counterpart institutions.  The main training 
components will focus on program and project design, defining 
performance indicators, reporting responsibility and accountability 
and results-focused budgeting and monitoring.  Additionally, the 
training will bring Member State project teams into a network to 
share good practices in managing technical cooperation programs. 
Participants will also be identified to be resource persons for 
further development of capacities related to results based 
management.  Training methodology and materials will be based on 
adult learning and group size will be kept between 20-25 
participants.  The approach will include the practical application 
of RBM across the TC program cycle.  Each participant as a member of 
a group will, through a process of gathering new information and 
reinforcing existing knowledge, develop a country program design to 
use as a reference in designing their program and projects. 
Resource personnel will not only develop the teaching methods based 
on existing materials, but will also propose innovative 
participant-led training approaches.  The project is expected to 
begin in 2010 and end in 2011.  The USG should strongly support full 
implementation of the RBM project in both the TACC and Board 
statements.   The U.S. statement should thank the Secretariat for 
its work in this area and underscore how RBM helps everyone involved 
in the TC process achieve results.  Mission will subsequently push 
the Secretariat to implement RBM fully by the beginning of the next 
project cycle (2012-2013.) 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The G77 to date are opposed to the RBM project because 
they see it as an attempt by major donors to the TCF to regulate and 
micro-manage the spread of nuclear technology and exert intrusive 
oversight into their national implementation of TC.  The Secretariat 
has been clear in its meetings with the G77 that this project did 
not come from TCF donor countries.  Should the G77 continue to 
oppose the project and move to break consensus on the short slate of 
projects at the TACC/BOG, the U.S. should make clear that doing so 
would set a negative precedent.  The USG should not spearhead an 
effort to broker a compromise (which would only feed into G77 
suspicions about this project), but rather indicate that a move to 
break consensus would undercut TC and stoke Board divisions.   The 
UK, France, Switzerland, Australia, and Canada all agree that 
support should be noted in national statements and consensus should 
be preserved. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Prompted by Iran, some G-77 Member States will use the 
Secretariat's legal finding that Iran cannot participate in the RBM 
project based on UNSCRs as an excuse to take issue with the project. 
 The Secretariat's legal office issued an opinion on 
GOV/2009/65/Annex 2 that Iran cannot participate in the RBM project 
based on UNSCRs 1737, 1747 and 1803 because the RBM is not 
humanitarian in nature and Iran, through the training networks that 
will be established, could access knowledge about TC projects 
dealing with nuclear energy, research reactors, etc.  The U.S. 
should not seek a reversal of the Secretariat's legal opinion. 
 
¶8.  (U) The TACC will begin deliberations on November 23 and is 
expected to conclude on November 24 with formal adoption of its 
report.  Australia from the SEAP group will provide its Mission 
Counselor, Dr. Ron Hutchings, as rapporteur. 
 
TACC AGENDA ITEM 1 - DDG STATEMENT 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U) DDG Ana Maria Cetto will give the opening statement at the 
TACC.  All indications point to her explaining the successful use of 
the Program Cycle Management Framework to create a TC program of 
qualitatively better projects than in the past.  She will also note 
the trend of many countries joining more regional and inter-regional 
programs, which in her view indicates the growth of the TC program 
into a global program that facilitates information exchange. 
Finally, she will stress the importance of sustained funding for the 
TC program and the need for implementation of RBM.  To date there 
are no indications she will raise issues surrounding the Syria 
feasibility study project for a nuclear reactor approved in 2008, as 
this project has not moved forward.  (Note:  Like-minded missions 
are also not planning to raise this project in the TACC for the same 
reason.  End note.) 
 
TACC AGENDA ITEM 2 
TC: THE AGENCY'S PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR 2010 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶10.  (U) In addition to the RBM project there are nine other 
projects that need TACC/Board approval to move forward.  Refs A-E 
address project objectives, justification, and beneficiaries in a 
comprehensive manner.  The U.S. should support all nine projects, 
assuming satisfactory findings through internal USG project reviews. 
 The project are: (1) Sudan: "Conducting a feasibility Study for 
Planning and Establishing a Research Reactor" SUD/4/008, 2) Oman: 
"Long Term Planning for Energy and Water Demand and Supply in Oman" 
OMA/0/002, 3) Oman: Strengthening Capabilities for the 
Implementation of the Sultanate of Oman's Strategic Plan for 
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy" OMA/0/003, 4) Oman: "Strengthening 
National Capabilities in Radiation Medicine and Dosimetry" 
OMA/6/002, 5) Oman: "Strengthening the National Regulatory 
Infrastructure for Radiation Safety and Occupational Exposure 
Control in Oman" OMA/9/002, 6) UAE: "Support for the Development of 
National Nuclear Power Infrastructure for Electricity Generation in 
the UAE" UAE/9/008, 7) Ecuador: "Upgrading a Gamma Irradiation 
Facility for multipurpose use" ECU/8/028, 8) Paraguay: "Improvement 
and Modernization of the Radiotherapy Services of the National 
Cancer Institute of Paraguay, and Training of Human Resources in 
these areas." PAR/6/013, and 9) Regional Latin America: "Assessment 
of National Regulatory Infrastructures for the Safe and Peaceful 
Uses of Nuclear Energy in Latin America and Caribbean" RLA/0/044). 
(NOTE: The Sudan TC project requesting a feasibility study for a 
research reactor is a standard study of whether the country can 
support such an endeavor.  The TC Division has assured Msnoff that 
no proliferation concerns exist in this project.  END NOTE.) 
 
TACC AGENDA ITEM 3 - EVALUATION OF 2009 TC ACTIVITIES 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶11. (U) Document GOV/2009/72 (ref F) reports on the evaluation of 
the Agency's technical cooperation activities in 2009 and outline 
the 2010 work plan.  The 2009 Evaluation of Technical Cooperation 
Activities report indicated overall success in projects on areas 
related to research reactors and Tsetse fly eradication.  However, 
there are significant concerns with research reactor projects, 
particularly in risk identification and monitoring, post 
installation support and technical expertise.  According to the IAEA 
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), these difficulties 
were also shared by projects supporting the implementation of 
nuclear power programs, although the issues with nuclear power 
endeavors are significantly more problematic in project formulation, 
capability for building human resources, infrastructure, financial 
resources and technology.  Food irradiation projects also had 
limited impact due to a lack of implementation support from TC 
recipient countries.  The lack of implementation included various 
factors such as low producer interest, competing methods, and 
technical difficulties.  However, OIOS found the greatest failure in 
the TC Division's implementation of projects to fight cancer. 
(NOTE: This is not an evaluation of PACT, the Program of Action for 
Cancer Therapies.  PACT is not within the TC Division; it is a 
separate program in the IAEA's nuclear applications department.  END 
NOTE.)  The TC projects in the area of radiotherapy were found to be 
largely deficient in monitoring and accountability, infrastructure, 
safety, human and financial resources and the adequacy of knowledge 
and training. 
 
¶12.  (U) OIOS urges the TC Division implement its recommendations 
quickly.  The U.S. statement should support OIOS's findings and 
welcome the 2009 evaluation.  On the TC cancer therapy programs 
specifically, the U.S. should note its support of the PACT program 
and urge the TC division to work closely with PACT to implement 
projects in cancer therapy to avoid duplication, maximize needed 
expertise, maximize use of TC funds, and capitalize on PACT's 
successful partnerships with the WHO and NGOs to implement a full 
range of cancer prevention programs in-country. 
 
¶13.  (U) The U.S. should also support the OIOS program of work 
outlined for 2010, which includes evaluations in safety of nuclear 
installations, contribution and role of the FAO/IAEA agriculture and 
biotechnology laboratory, project planning processes and achievement 
of objectives, and the national liaison officer (NLO) function and 
structure.  This work plan, specifically the latter two evaluations, 
will help streamline TC project management. 
 
ASSURED SUPPLY 
-------------- 
- 
¶14.  (SBU) The IAEA Secretariat received a request from the Russian 
Federation to put consideration of Russia's LEU fuel reserve 
proposal (ref G) on the Board agenda.  The GOR apparently issued its 
necessary decree authorizing the MFA to sign the proposed "Agreement 
1" with DG ElBaradei.  Board action would be to (1) approve the 
Agency's role as set out in Agreement 1 and the accompanying Model 
Transfer Agreement ("Agreement 2"), and (2) authorize the DG to sign 
the first document with Russia and to exercise the authority to 
enter into the transfer agreement with a requesting state under 
relevant criteria.  IAEA fuel banks point man Tariq Rauf (EXPO) 
shared with Msnoff that he had expressed to Moscow his personal 
assessment that the Russian reserve proposal would not enjoy 
consensus support and that Russia may wish to consider the means for 
gaining approval (i.e., how to win a vote).  Instead, Russia plans 
to sign up the required majority of 18 Board members as co-sponsors, 
and then challenge others to vote against, knowing the resolution 
will ultimately pass.  Mission has reaffirmed to the Russian Mission 
here several times this week that we stand ready to help lobby other 
Board members for the proposal.  Mission requests timely 
authorization to co-sponsor the Russian proposal and has encouraged 
other like-minded to do the same.  Among these like-minded, Japan 
has expressed some anxiety, and will require an approach in 
capital. 
 
¶15.  (SBU) Rauf also previewed INFCIRC 772 that came out on November 
6, containing a letter the DG received from the Ambassador of Egypt 
as chair of the NAM.  In its letter, the NAM enunciates views on 
each operative paragraph of UNSCR 1887 that has relevance to the 
work of the IAEA.  With respect to OP14 of the Resolution, the NAM 
reiterates its judgment that the IAEA Board is not in a position to 
take action on proposals providing for international assurance of 
nuclear fuel supply in the absence of a coherent, comprehensive 
examination of all factors.  The letter goes on to posit that 
decisions on IAEA participation in any fuel assurance mechanism must 
be made by consensus of the General Conference.  In connection with 
the prospect of voting on the Russian proposal, Rauf pointed out 
that a few but not all NAM heavy-hitters are currently on the Board. 
 (See also ref H, paras 31-33.) 
 
¶16. (SBU) Action Request: Mission looks forward to inter-agency 
assessment of the Russian agreement texts and points to draw on in 
advocating to other Board states their co-sponsorship and/or 
approval of the Russian proposal.  We request further that 
Washington's subsequent instructions to USDEL for the Board of 
Governors meeting include a substantive statement for delivery under 
the anticipated agenda item.  Mission notes that the prospect of a 
controversial vote on the fuel proposal will make Russia 
unenthusiastic about any vote on Iran and will thereby likely limit 
Board options under the Iran agenda item. 
 
DAVIES