140 likes | 150 Views
Explore a holistic State-Level Concept for IAEA safeguards implementation, focusing on State-specific factors and continuous evaluation to ensure effectiveness and adaptability. Learn about the responsibilities and evaluation activities under the State-Level Approach.
E N D
Evolving the Assessment of the Effectiveness of IAEA Safeguards ImplementationINMM Bruce W. Moran, Head Section for Effectiveness Evaluation Department of Safeguards
Starting with the State-Level Concept A holistic approach to safeguards implementation Applicable to all States with SG agreements Based on a comprehensive and continual State evaluation and a State-level approach, including a specific combination of safeguards measures for an individual State Executed through an annual implementation plan Considering the State as a whole provides the opportunity to take State-specific factors into consideration during all stages of safeguards implementation Implementation of the State-level concept is responsive to changes in the analysis, ensuring that safeguards conclusions remain soundly based and up-to-date 2012-01-24
Implementing the State-level Concept Enhancement of the implementation of the Agency’s State-level conceptrequires: • An expanded use of State-specific factors and a structured acquisition path analysis to define and prioritize State-specific technical objectives • State-level approaches that specify and provide options for Headquarters and in-field activities required to meet the technical objectives • Identification and selection of activities in the annual implementation plan • Linkage of the State evaluation process with conduct of safeguards verification activities 2012-01-24
Implementing the State-level Concept 2012-01-24 Evolving the safeguards system to be more: • Objectives As opposed to criteria driven; allows for based: customized State-level approaches to meet State-specific objectives • Information Use of all information, including State driven: factors, to determine objectives and conduct safeguards activities • Focused: At the State level and on issues of concern; putting resources where the risks are • Adaptable: Responsive to changes in information and analysis for conducting safeguards
Assuring Continued Effectiveness • Each DIR-SGOis responsible and accountable for • the implementation of safeguards for each State assigned to the Division and • the conclusions arising therefrom • Each DIR-SGO must ensure that • the implementation of the activities is consistent with procedures or guidelines established for such purpose • any changes to the activities achieve the objectives 2012-01-24
Assuring Continued Effectiveness • State Evaluation Reports • Prepared by the relevant State Evaluation Group • Reviewedby a Departmental Committee • State-Level Approaches • Prepared by the relevant State Evaluation Group • Reviewedby Departmental Sub-Committee • Annual Implementation Plan • Preparedby the relevant State Evaluation Group • Reviewed by the relevant Operations Division Director (DIR-SGO) • Quality Management System • Evaluate departmental processes and procedures and their implementation • Oversee the corrective action programme 2012-01-24
Assuring Continued Effectiveness State Evaluation State-Level Safeguards Approach Safeguards Processes and Safeguards Approaches Annual Implementation Plan and Safeguards Implementation 2012-01-24
SEE Responsibilities State Evaluation are cross-cutting State-Level Safeguards Approach Safeguards Processes and Safeguards Approaches ) Annual Implementation Plan and Safeguards Implementation 2012-01-24
Section for Effectiveness Evaluation (SEE) • SEE will operate as the central quality control tool of the Department for implementation and evaluation issues • SEE will perform the quality control activities on statements, surveillance, and seals, among others • SEE will perform an independent and in-depth assessment for each State of • safeguards verification activities • goal or objective attainment • safeguards conclusions and recommendations • SEE will lead assessments of selected State evaluation reports to ensure that the conclusions drawn are sound 2012-01-24
SEE Responsibilities • SEE will • Conduct selective evaluations of the effectiveness of the State evaluation process • Conduct selective evaluations of specific safeguards verification activities across a selection of States, such as • inspections, complementary access, design information verification and other safeguards activities, such as information analysis • Conduct selective evaluations of the effectiveness of safeguards measures, such as • monitoring activities (e.g., seals and surveillance), measurement activities, and information collection activities • Conduct selective evaluations of annual implementation plans • Conduct technical reviews of anomalies • Prepare the Safeguards Implementation Report and Data Evaluation Report 2012-01-24
SEE Evaluation Activities • Selection process will be random and information-driven • Evaluations will be performed through • Document and information reviews • Quality control tests • Observations and interviews • Periodic reports to DDG and Management Committee on findings • SEE findings identify where process audits and corrective actions may need to be initiated 2012-01-24
Evolving the Safeguards Implementation Report • Purpose of the SIR is to provide safeguards conclusions and information to enhance confidence in those conclusions • SIR should provide more analysis and explanation of the data • SIR is to be aligned with the State-level concept for safeguards implementation. • The report should demonstrate how the Agency is using all relevant information to draw safeguards conclusions • SIR is to be focused on safeguards implementation • Activities formerly presented as “safeguards strengthening” are now routine safeguards tools 2012-01-24
Summary • Safeguards effectiveness evaluation is independently performed by Departmental entities for all aspects of safeguards implementation • SEE quality control activities will assure that • Verification activities were correctly performed • Data was correctly generated and analysed • All information was considered in the State evaluation • Assurance is provided to States that safeguards activities met their objectives and support the safeguards conclusions 2012-01-24