Evolving the Assessment of the
Effectiveness of
IAEA Safeguards Implementation
INMM
Bruce W. Moran, Head
Section for Effectiveness Evaluation
Department of Safeguards
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
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
IAEA
2012-01-24
2
Implementing the State-level Concept
Enhancement of the implementation of the
Agency’s State-level concept requires:
• 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
IAEA
2012-01-24
3
Implementing the State-level Concept
Evolving the safeguards system to be more:
• Objectives
based:
• Information
• Focused:
• Adaptable:
IAEA
As opposed to criteria driven; allows for
customized State-level approaches to meet
State-specific objectives
Use of all information, including State driven:
factors, to determine objectives and conduct
safeguards activities
At the State level and on issues of concern;
putting resources where the risks are
Responsive to changes in information and
analysis for conducting safeguards
2012-01-24
4
Assuring Continued Effectiveness
• Each DIR-SGO is 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
IAEA
2012-01-24
5
Assuring Continued Effectiveness
• State Evaluation Reports
• Prepared by the relevant State Evaluation Group
• Reviewed by a Departmental Committee
• State-Level Approaches
• Prepared by the relevant State Evaluation Group
• Reviewed by Departmental Sub-Committee
• Annual Implementation Plan
• Prepared by 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
IAEA
2012-01-24
6
Assuring Continued Effectiveness
State
Evaluation
State-Level
Safeguards Approach
Safeguards Processes and
Safeguards Approaches
Annual Implementation Plan and
Safeguards Implementation
IAEA
2012-01-24
7
SEE Responsibilities
are cross-cutting
State
Evaluation
State-Level
Safeguards Approach
Safeguards Processes and
Safeguards Approaches )
Annual Implementation Plan and
Safeguards Implementation
IAEA
2012-01-24
8
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
IAEA
2012-01-24
9
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
IAEA
2012-01-24
10
SEE Evaluation Activities
• Selection process will be random and informationdriven
• 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
IAEA
2012-01-24
11
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
IAEA
2012-01-24
12
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
IAEA
2012-01-24
13