|
Main Committee III
Summary record of the 1st meeting
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 27 April 2000, at 10
a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Reimaa (Finland)
Contents
Programme of work
General exchange of views
The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m.
Programme of work
1. The Chairman recalled that, in accordance with
the allocation of items to the Main Committees adopted by the Conference
(NPT/CONF.2000/1, annex VIII), the Committee would focus on agenda
item 16 (d). The Committee would also consider, in parallel with
the other Main Committees, item 17. Because of the links between
international cooperation in the nuclear field and non-proliferation
through safeguards, the work of Main Committees III and II might
overlap. Consequently, the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen would maintain
close contacts with their counterparts in Main Committee II so as
to avoid any unnecessary duplication of work.
2. The first two meetings would be devoted to a general exchange
of views on the issues before the Committee. At the second meeting,
the Director of the Division of Technical Cooperation Programmes
of IAEA would brief the Committee on the Agency's activities in
the field of technical cooperation. He drew attention to the documentation
prepared by IAEA on articles IV and V (NPT/CONF.2000/10 and NPT/CONF.2000/11
respectively) and on article III (NPT/CONF.2000/9).
General exchange of views
3. Mr. de Albuquerque (Portugal), speaking on
behalf of the European Union, the associated countries Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey, and, in addition,
Iceland and Liechtenstein, said that the European Union reaffirm
the importance of the commitment made in paragraph 14 of the decision
on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament
that particular importance should be attached to ensuring the exercise
of the inalienable right of all the parties to the Treaty to develop
research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination and in conformity with articles I, II as
well as III of the Treaty. While the European Union was actively
engaged in measures to facilitate and support the peaceful use of
nuclear energy by all States, it wished to emphasize the importance
of full compliance by all States with their obligations under the
Treaty.
4. In recent years, the European Union had strongly promoted transparency
in nuclear-related export controls, in accordance with paragraph
17 of the decision on principles and objectives. Several publications
about the origins, role, structure and activities of the Nuclear
Suppliers Group had been issued and two international seminars on
the role of export controls in nuclear non-proliferation had been
held in 1997 and 1999 with the participation of the States Members
of the United Nations, experts from international organizations
and academic and industry specialists. The European Union believed
that effective export controls should not be regarded as a hindrance
to international nuclear trade, but as an essential element in strengthening
cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the transfer
of nuclear technology. It would therefore continue to promote transparency
in that area. Mention must also be made of the work done in that
field by the Zangger Committee.
5. For the European Union, it was extremely important that "the
highest practicable levels of nuclear safety" should be in
place everywhere in the world, as provided for in paragraph 18 of
the decision on principles and objectives. It recognized that responsibility
for the safe design, construction and operation of any nuclear installation
rested with the State having jurisdiction over the installation,
but that international cooperation could play an indispensable role
in helping to achieve the highest standards of safety. Thus, the
European Union, through the PHARE and TACIS programmes, and its
member States were major contributors to the international efforts
to assist the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, including
the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, in improving
nuclear safety.
6. The first review meeting on the implementation of the Convention
on Nuclear Safety held in April 1999 in Vienna had shown that the
Convention was a valuable instrument for assessing and improving
nuclear safety levels. The European Union hoped that that encouraging
example of international cooperation would further the early signature
and ratification by States of the Joint Convention on the Safety
of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management.
7. The European Union recalled paragraph 19 of the decision on
principles and objectives, which stated, inter alia, that every
effort should be made to ensure that IAEA had the financial and
human resources necessary to meet effectively its responsibilities
in the areas of technical cooperation, safeguards and nuclear safety.
The members of the European Union collectively provided more than
one third of the Agency's regular budget for the financing of activities
in those three areas. They provided a similarly large proportion
of the voluntary contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund
of IAEA. The European Union was confident that IAEA had the means
necessary to carry out its activities and supported the Agency's
efforts to improve them. It considered that the technical assistance
provided by the Agency should be aligned with national development
programmes and that responsibility for so doing lay primarily with
the recipient States. It also believed that the recipient States
should pay their assessed programme contributions in full in order
to demonstrate the importance that they attached to the projects.
8. Ms. Drabova (Czech Republic) said that her
country had a relatively extensive nuclear programme oriented entirely
towards the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Her Government was
fully aware of the importance of maintaining the highest possible
standards of nuclear safety and radiation protection and ensuring
the necessary resources to meet its responsibilities in the field.
9. The Czech Republic recognized IAEA as the principal body for
the transfer of expertise and technology for the peaceful use of
nuclear energy and was participating in the Agency's Technical Cooperation
Programme. In the framework of that programme it was participating
in a number of projects, the most important of which concerned the
establishment of a cyclotron centre for the production of short-lived
radiopharmaceuticals and the application of positron emission tomography
to medicine. The project was a cost-effective means of increasing
capacity in health care and was an example of the effectiveness
of the new IAEA technical cooperation strategy introduced in 1997.
10. The Czech Republic participated in a number of activities within
the framework of the regional technical cooperation programme. Some
of the activities included physical protection of nuclear material
and nuclear facilities, emergency preparedness, security of radioactive
sources and materials, and information and quality assurance in
the medical applications of ionizing radiation. In response to the
needs of developing countries, it had also contributed to the Technical
Cooperation Fund and had been involved in the financing of several
technical assistance projects, in the countries of the former Soviet
Union. Fellowship programmes for experts from developing countries
were offered on an ongoing basis in all those areas.
11. The Czech Republic fully supported IAEA in its efforts to enhance
cooperation in implementing the Programme for Preventing and Combatting
Illicit Trafficking in Nuclear Material. Furthermore, as part of
the process of accession to the European Union, it took part in
consultations with the European Commission, participated in the
PHARE programme, collaborated with the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
and was involved in cooperation for nuclear safety within the Group
of 24.
12. In order to ensure the safe use of nuclear energy, recipient
countries must sign and ratify international agreements and conventions
creating an international legal framework for safe management of
both nuclear facilities and nuclear material, in particular the
Convention on Nuclear Safety.
13. Mr. Minty (South Africa) said that the splitting
of the atom had prompted almost universal optimism about the possibility
of solving the world's energy problems and seeing the peaceful uses
of nuclear energy become the magic key that could unlock new doors
to a better future for all. Since then, nuclear technology applications
were being use routinely in hospitals, farms, industry and universities.
14. In Africa, the application of nuclear technology had in many
instances brought viable solutions to some problems. In that connection,
South Africa commended IAEA which through its Technical Cooperation
Programme, was making a meaningful contribution to sustainable development.
The African region had largely succeeded in tailoring a common approach
to the peaceful uses of nuclear science through the work of the
African regional cooperative Agreement for Research, Development
and Training related to Nuclear Science and Technology (AFRA). That
unique Agreement was an intergovernmental pact of mutual assistance
in the field of nuclear science and technology that brought together
in one forum the scientific experts of Africa to find common solutions
to the problems faced by the continent as a whole. The establishment
of specialized teams to carry out missions in member States was
a commendable development which had produced laudable results. Over
the past five years, IAEA had helped AFRA members formulate new
projects around four themes: radiation safety, human health, increased
agricultural productivity and industrial applications.
15. Turning to the IAEA Technical Cooperation Programme, he commended
the Agency for accepting only technical cooperation projects with
sustainable socio-economic benefits on regional and model projects.
Concerning the latter, South Africa was strongly committed to education
and training in radiological protection and nuclear safety and the
establishment, in collaboration with IAEA, of an African regional
centre for radiation protection and training in South Africa. The
first course on radiation protection had been held from July to
October 1999 at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg.
His delegation welcomed the assistance provided by the Agency in
the establishment of that centre of excellence. Among other successful
projects currently being implemented in South Africa were the sterile
insect technique for fruit flies, new screening methods to detect
drug resistance in tuberculosis patients in two days and neonatal
screening techniques.
16. Although there was a high rate of implementation of the technical
assistance programme — made possible by contributions from
both donor and recipient countries — problems could still
arise unless steps were taken to ensure sufficient financial resources.
He appealed to all, in particular the major donors, to ensure that
the dues to the Technical Cooperation Fund were paid in full and
on time. It was the task of the international community to ensure
that humanity prospered from the advantages of radioactivity, by
perfecting ways of minimizing its risks.
17. Ms. Pellicer (Mexico) said that her country
had always attached great importance to article IV of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and in particular to paragraph 2 thereof, acceptance of
which had represented a major success for those who hoped to see
balance in the commitments made by the nuclear-weapon States and
the developing countries. Her delegation believed that the commitment
made in that paragraph for the first time established a legal obligation
for certain countries to contribute to the scientific and technical
development of others. The gap separating rich and poor countries
in the area of technology was one of the fundamental problems of
the current era. If nothing was done to facilitate and accelerate
the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge in the nuclear
field while ensuring that it was used for peaceful purposes, the
situation could only get worse.
18. The IAEA report on its activities (NPT/CONF.2000/10) gave a
clear idea of the implementation of article IV, with particular
emphasis on the events which had taken place since the previous
review conference. The Agency's efforts to increase the effectiveness
of its cooperation programmes should be noted. IAEA conducted activities
in various fields of nuclear energy, from the generation of electricity
to the application of radio isotopes in the fields of health care,
food, industry, agriculture, water resources and the environment.
The efforts to strengthen the global security regime for radiation,
nuclear waste and transport of nuclear materials were particularly
commendable. IAEA activities had expanded to include capacity-building,
scientific analysis, assistance with legislation and exchange of
information, which explained why States were making use of its services
more and more frequently. All States should thus contribute to the
strengthening of its technical cooperation activities.
19. Decision 2 adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference
stated that every effort should be made to ensure that IAEA had
the financial and human resources necessary to meet effectively
its responsibilities in the areas of technical cooperation, safeguards
and nuclear safety. However, there might be grounds to be concerned
about the paucity of financial resources earmarked for technical
cooperation. Unlike other IAEA programmes, the technical cooperation
programme basically depended on voluntary contributions from Member
States. However, although such contributions were voluntary, they
flowed from a legal obligation under article IV of the Treaty. Not
much could be said about the willingness to honour that provision
if those who were in a position to do so did not provide the necessary
support for the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials
and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses
of nuclear energy. Yet, in recent years, certain States had only
partly fulfilled or failed to fulfil altogether their undertakings
with respect to contributions to the Technical Cooperation Fund.
Consequently, it had not been possible to complete a large number
of projects submitted to the Agency. There was a considerable gap
between the target for payments into the Technical Cooperation Fund
set every two years by consensus by the IAEA General Conference
and the financial resources that were actually paid into the Fund
as voluntary contributions by both donor and recipient countries.
Her delegation wished to call for the strengthening of IAEA technical
cooperation activities, which meant that the States Party to the
Treaty would be more firmly committed to paying their contributions
to the Fund.
20. Mr. Lipár (Slovakia) said that his
delegation aligned itself with the statement of the European Union.
The issue of the regulation of the use of nuclear energy was of
vital importance to his country. Slovakia had promulgated an Energy
Management Act in 1998, which governed the terms and conditions
that were applicable to businesses operating in the electricity,
gas and heating industries sectors. The Act also specified that
the use of nuclear power was subject to the approval of the Nuclear
Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic. Another act, which
entered into force the same year, regulated obligations and rights
with respect to the safe use of nuclear energy and nuclear material,
the management of radioactive waste, compensation for damages caused
by nuclear accidents and State supervision of nuclear installations.
In January 2000, his Government had approved a national medium-term
energy plan, part of which was dedicated to the future role of nuclear
energy. Its main features were energy savings, environmental protection
and energy price development. Safety was the most important precondition
for the use of nuclear energy. Thanks to international cooperation,
two projects for the gradual reconstruction of nuclear power plants
and extensive safety upgrading had been completed.
21. In 1999, Slovakia had presented its national report to the
review meeting convened in accordance with the Convention on Nuclear
Safety. The meeting had confirmed that outstanding results had been
achieved in setting up a regulatory body and in the area of safety
improvement programmes. That result had also been acknowledged by
the International Conference on Strengthening Nuclear Safety in
Eastern Europe held in Vienna in June 1999.
22. IAEA had played a vital role in the improvement of the level
of safety in all nuclear power plants in the country. A number of
activities were still pending, including determining whether the
safety improvements with respect to earlier IAEA recommendations
had been implemented. Apart from technical services in the field
of nuclear safety, cooperation with IAEA covered other important
aspects, including 12 national projects and over 30 regional and
interregional projects undertaken since 1995. In that regard, Slovakia
would fulfil all its obligations arising from technical cooperation
with IAEA.
23. Since 1995, Slovakia had concluded bilateral cooperation agreements
with Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia and
Ukraine; it also maintained outstanding relations with the Governments
of Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland and the United States
of America. Such bilateral activities were mainly devoted to the
development of human resources in the form of training programmes
and consultations, the transfer of technical know-how and the partial
supply of equipment. Cooperation with the European Commission had
also been essential.
24. Slovakia was now no longer just a recipient country of technical
assistance; it was involved in assistance projects developed in
cooperation with other Governments and IAEA for other countries
of the region.
25. Mr. Balboni Acqua (Italy) said that his delegation
fully supported the statement made by the European Union. The countries
members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group had taken a number of steps
to increase transparency. The first step was the drafting, in 1997,
of a collective paper on the origins, role, structure and activities
of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Members of the Group had requested
that the paper should be circulated to all IAEA member States as
an information circular. The paper explained that the NSG Guidelines
aimed to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes did not
contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices without hindering international trade and cooperation
in the nuclear field. The Guidelines therefore complemented the
various international legally binding instruments in the field of
nuclear non-proliferation, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
26. The Group had then organized two international seminars on
the role of export controls in nuclear non-proliferation in Vienna
in October 1997 and in New York in April 1999, respectively. Leading
figures and senior experts in nuclear non-proliferation and export
controls from all over the world had made statements at those seminars,
which had also drawn over 350 participants from NPT and non-NPT
countries, international organizations, including IAEA, and intergovernmental
and non-governmental organizations. NSG countries and the European
Union had provided financial support for the participation of experts
from least developed and other countries facing economic hardship
in the two seminars. The seminars, which were aimed at promoting
an open and all-inclusive dialogue, had helped to clarify a number
of misconceptions and misunderstandings about how export controls
functioned. All the speeches, together with the concluding remarks
by the Chairmen of the seminars, had been compiled in two booklets,
which were easy to acquire. With the aim of additional transparency,
it was planned to set up an NSG web site where information and documentation
about the Group could be made available to Governments and the public
at large. That would provide easy access to the text of the NSG
Guidelines, the list of items covered by those Guidelines, the NSG
collective paper and the speeches and concluding remarks of the
two international seminars.
27. The NSG member States were determined to promote further transparency
in nuclear-related export controls, since they believed that such
transparency would enable States to participate to the fullest extent
possible in the exchange of equipment, material and scientific and
technological information. While reinforcing the international security
environment, the Guidelines did not in any way affect the inalienable
right of all parties to the Treaty to develop research, production
and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
28. Mr. Yang Dazhu (China) said that promotion
of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy was one of the main objectives
of NPT, which, under its preamble and article IV, gave all the parties
the inalienable right to develop research, production and use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination, and
the right to participate in international cooperation.
29. China had always believed that the prevention of nuclear proliferation
and the promotion of peaceful uses were complementary. It wished
to step up its technical assistance to developing countries and
lift unreasonable restrictions imposed on technology transfers so
that all humanity could benefit from nuclear energy.
30. China attached great importance to the peaceful uses of nuclear
energy. It currently had three nuclear power plants with a capacity
of 2,001 megawatts and was building four others whose total capacity
would be 6,600 megawatts in order to cope with rising energy needs.
China had always stressed safety and quality.
31. China participated in technical cooperation activities and
in exchanges with other countries in compliance with the relevant
provisions of the Treaty. The cooperation agreements it had signed
with 16 countries formed a solid basis for its activities. Recognizing
the sovereignty of other countries, and within the framework of
reciprocal exchanges in the area of nuclear scientific research,
it had provided assistance to developing countries and imported
technologies from developed countries, including France, the Russian
Federation, Canada, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
32. At the multilateral level, China participated in the technical
cooperation activities of IAEA, to which it had always paid its
contribution on time and in full; it had even made additional financial
contributions within its means, particularly for projects in Ghana,
Zanzibar and the Asia-Pacific region. Being a developing country
itself, China benefited from IAEA technical assistance.
33. China had always fulfilled its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation
within the framework of the bilateral and multilateral agreements
to which it was a party. With regard to the export of nuclear materials,
it subscribed to the following three principles: the export must
be made for peaceful purposes; it must be made within the framework
of the IAEA safeguards regime; and materials could not be transferred
to a third State without the prior agreement of China.
34. Nonetheless, the prevention of nuclear proliferation should
not be subject to a double standard and should not be utilized to
impede international cooperation. The legitimate right of all countries,
in particular most of the developing countries, to benefit from
nuclear technology should be guaranteed.
35. China recognized the positive contribution and active role
of IAEA in the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
and international cooperation. The Agency participated in more than
1,000 assistance projects for its members and had set up a new strategic
framework for technical cooperation, which was proving to be effective.
Nonetheless, he shared the concerns expressed by the representatives
of Mexico and South Africa at the drastic decline in resources allocated
to technical cooperation, despite the fact that States parties were
obligated under article IV to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear
energy. All States parties to the Treaty must therefore pay their
contributions to IAEA for technical cooperation activities on time
and in full. His delegation congratulated the many countries which
had not only done so but were also participating in those activities
in other ways. It was regrettable, however, that certain countries
had reduced their contributions or even stopped paying them altogether,
which had caused IAEA insurmountable difficulties.
36. His delegation wished to draw all delegations' attention to
the situation and announced that it had submitted a working paper
on the subject to the Conference. It requested that the document
should be distributed as an official document of the Conference
and hoped that that suggestion would be supported by the other delegations.
37. Mr. Wood (Canada) reaffirmed his country's
commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
as illustrated by the comprehensive review of Canada's nuclear non-proliferation
policy undertaken in 1999 by its Parliament and Government. The
review had reaffirmed the benefits of international cooperation
in the nuclear field and had concluded that nuclear power was a
safe and cost-effective source of energy.
38. Canada had a well-developed nuclear industry and was a major
supplier of nuclear goods and services. It shared its knowledge
and experience with a significant number of NPT signatories; it
had concluded bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements with 38 countries.
Those agreements provided additional assurances that cooperation
would be used only for peaceful end-uses. They provided for the
fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific
and technological information, in accordance with Canada's NPT obligations.
39. Nuclear safety and the storage and disposal of nuclear waste
were among the major issues relating to peaceful nuclear cooperation.
The Conference should reaffirm the objective adopted in 1995 that
all States should, through rigorous national measures and international
cooperation, maintain the highest practicable levels of nuclear
safety, particularly with regard to waste management, and observe
standards and guidelines in nuclear materials accounting, their
protection and transport. Canada would soon be implementing new
legislation that would place increased emphasis on nuclear safety.
Although nuclear safety was a national responsibility, international
cooperation was essential, and Canada actively participated in many
important initiatives undertaken by IAEA to strengthen safety standards
and practices. It also participated in the nuclear safety working
group of the Group of Seven.
40. Canada was the signatory of a number of major nuclear conventions,
particularly the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the Joint Convention
on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management, the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear
Accident and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear
Accident or Radiological Emergency. Safety in the international
transport of nuclear material, particularly by sea, was critical,
and Canada encouraged the Conference to endorse the 1997 decision
taken by the International Maritime Organization to incorporate
a code for the safe transport of irradiated nuclear fuel into the
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea.
41. The Agency played an important role in facilitating nuclear
cooperation and ensuring that it was only for peaceful purposes.
Every effort must be made to ensure that it had the financial and
human resources necessary to effectively meet its responsibilities
in the areas of technical cooperation, safeguards and nuclear energy
and safety. The Agency should make every effort to use its available
resources in the most efficient manner possible, in accordance with
its mandate and the priority needs of member States.
42. Canada was a major donor to the Agency's technical cooperation
programme and funding was always a major concern. The Conference
should encourage the Agency to endeavour to find ways to fund its
technical assistance activities, particularly by broadening the
donor base.
43. Those issues should be addressed in a programme of action approved
by the Conference for the coming five years to ensure the relevance
and effectiveness of the Treaty. His delegation was prepared to
participate in the preparation of the Committee's report and of
the final document of the Conference.
44. Ms. Ngawati (New Zealand) said that New Zealand,
having chosen not to develop a nuclear power industry, was not a
major participant in exchanges of nuclear technology. It nonetheless
recognized that it was important to ensure the right of parties
to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes, without discrimination and in conformity
with articles I, II and III of the Treaty. Her Government was assisting
developing countries in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy through
the Regional Cooperative Agreement in Asia and the Pacific and cooperating
in the Agency's training programmes in areas where New Zealand had
particular expertise.
45. A culture of nuclear safety was a prerequisite for international
cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The sometimes
tragic incidents in nuclear installations over the past year demonstrated
only too vividly the need for the highest safety standards and unwavering
vigilance in their implementation. The activities of the Agency
in strengthening the global regime for nuclear, radiation, waste
and transport safety were of crucial importance.
46. Her Government attached particular importance to the Agency's
cooperation with States in assessing radiological conditions at
former nuclear test sites. It particularly welcomed the independent
investigation carried out by an international advisory committee
under the auspices of the Agency on the environmental impact of
nuclear testing at the atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa in the South
Pacific.
47. Ships carrying nuclear materials and radioactive waste passed
along the coast of New Zealand at regular intervals. That was a
source of concern for New Zealanders and the inhabitants of many
other coastal States in the region. At their latest summit meeting,
the South Pacific States had explicitly requested that such shipments
should be carried out in a manner which addressed all risks of accident
and the concerns of the countries involved, including the coastal
States. In particular, they had requested that the shipments should
be of demonstrably minimal risk, that ships should comply with the
highest safety standards and that the shipping States should agree
to promote the safety of the cargoes and provide compensation for
any industries harmed in the event of an accident, even a non-nuclear
one.
48. Her Government was disappointed that the dialogue with South
Pacific States on compensation and liability issues had recently
been suspended by the transport States, namely Japan, France and
the United Kingdom. The talks had been called to address the inadequacies
of the current regime. Her Government was ready to resume them at
any time. Her Government's objective was a strong legal regime requiring
prior notification and informed consent procedures for transboundary
movements of radioactive materials, a goal it was also pursuing
within IAEA and IMO. The current Conference offered a further opportunity
for parties to the Treaty affected by the shipment of such materials
to join together to seek a regime which would provide stronger assurances
on safety, security, liability and compensation.
49. Mr. Dahan (France) supported the statement
by the representative of Portugal on behalf of the European Union.
In accordance with its undertaking to fully implement article IV
of the Treaty and the principles and objectives adopted by the 1995
Review and Extension Conference, his Government was endeavouring
to promote civilian applications of atomic energy at the national
and international levels and in the framework of the European Union.
France was also helping to fund the Agency's regular budget and
its Technical Cooperation Fund, and participated regularly in the
Agency's activities. Over the past four years, French nuclear experts
had been involved in about 180 technical cooperation missions run
by the Agency. France was also supporting individual programmes
organized in collaboration with the Agency, and had entered into
many bilateral and multilateral agreements in the area of peaceful
applications of nuclear power, including 130 intergovernmental agreements
with non-nuclear-weapon States.
50. Development of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy was only
possible if they fulfilled three conditions: non-proliferation and
security, safety and transparency. As for the first of those, it
was essential to combat proliferation and illicit trafficking in
nuclear and radioactive materials. Exchanges of equipment, materials
and scientific and technical data would be acceptable only if they
gave rise to no diversion for illicit purposes; that, in turn, required
effective, objective and transparent export monitoring, active support
for the Agency's safeguards system and adherence by States to those
policies. States should work together against the threat from illicit
trafficking in and diversion of nuclear materials for the purpose
of proliferation or for criminal ends, through improved sharing
of information and cooperating to improve their national systems
of accounting and physical protection of nuclear materials. To that
end, in 1998 it had helped IAEA organize an international conference
on illicit trafficking and it called on all States to sign the Convention
on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.
51. However, the maintenance of strict nuclear-export controls
was not an end in itself and must not be an obstacle to the development
of nuclear trade. In that regard, France welcomed the success of
the two international seminars on the role of export controls in
nuclear non-proliferation held in Vienna in 1997 and in New York
in 1999 and the plan to establish an information site on the Internet.
It also welcomed the role played by the Zangger Committee in the
application of the provisions of article III, paragraph 2, of the
NPT.
52. The second condition, safety, was related to the danger inherent
in the use of nuclear energy. Safety must be a constant concern
and improvements were needed in all areas (nuclear reactors, management
of high-level and long-lived waste, transportation of nuclear materials,
management of radioactive sources and long-term waste management).
France was continuing to work actively to that end, both in an individual
capacity and within the framework of the European Union and IAEA.
It was contributing, in particular, both directly and through the
PHARE and TACIS programmes of the European Union, to the enhancement
of the safety of the nuclear installations of the States of Central
and Eastern Europe and the States members of CIS.
53. France called on all States that had not yet done so to sign
and ratify the Nuclear Safety Convention and the Joint Convention
on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management. France itself was a party to the first of those
conventions and had completed the domestic procedures for the approval
of the second one. With respect to nuclear civil liability, it was
contributing to the enhancement of existing instruments. As to environmental
responsibility, it was a party to the OSPAR Convention and the Convention
on Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter.
54. France considered it vital that nuclear and radioactive materials
should be transported as securely and safely as possible, in conformity
with the highest international standards. It was a party to the
international conventions dealing directly or indirectly with that
issue and participated in the relevant work of IAEA and IMO, incorporating
its outcome into domestic legal instruments. Thus, vessels sailing
under the French flag and transporting irradiated nuclear fuel,
plutonium or highly radioactive waste in flasks had to comply with
the provisions of IMO resolution A/748 (XVIII) of 4 November 1993.
55. France was involved in the efforts to improve existing safety
standards and ensure the application of the new standards adopted.
For example, it had participated in the meeting organized by IAEA
in 1998 for the purpose of reviewing the international instruments
on transportation of radioactive materials and it was taking part
in the activities of the working group charged with the review of
the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and
its operation.
56. As to the third condition, transparency, France was committed
to continuing the efforts it had already undertaken, notably in
the area of safety. It was very much aware of the need for special
vigilance with respect to the supervision, in conditions of transparency,
of nuclear procedures and installations and for the maintenance
of the independence and plurality of the bodies responsible for
safety and radiation protection. It was also concerned with transparency
in the management of its stocks of civil plutonium: it was a member
of the group of nine States signatories of the guidelines for the
management of plutonium in all peaceful nuclear activities adopted
in 1997 and it made public each year the status of French stocks
of civil plutonium, which was published by IAEA, as well as information
on its policy in that area.
57. Development of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy would be
a crucial challenge in the twenty-first century insofar as it would
help to solve the daunting economic and human problems in the fields
of energy, agriculture, health and the environment. That development
could take place only in a climate of trust characterized by compliance
with the commitments made in respect of non-proliferation and increased
safety and transparency. France hoped that the promotion of the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy and of international cooperation
in that area would receive the necessary attention and that it would
be given a powerful impetus at the conclusion of the Conference.
58. Ms. Beliaeva (Russian Federation) said that
her country paid particular attention to maintaining the strictest
compliance with its obligations under article IV of the Treaty.
The Russian Federation was in favour of international cooperation,
on the basis of equality, in the peaceful use of nuclear energy
and provision of assistance to developing countries in order to
meet their needs, in strict conformity with articles I, II and III
of the Treaty, that was to say based on the principle of the non-proliferation
of nuclear weapons. It supported broad access by countries to the
benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to cooperation
in that area, at both the bilateral and multilateral levels, within
the framework of IAEA for example.
59. Nuclear energy was currently the only energy source capable
of being a substitute for organic fuel. The burning of fuel of that
type to produce energy was leading to the rapid exhaustion of reserves
and the loss of a source of important raw materials for the chemical
industry and for medicine, as well as contributing to the degradation
of the environment.
60. At the third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, measures had been proposed
with a view to restricting and reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases. The participating countries had undertaken to take steps
to halt the continued degradation of the environment.
61. Given the growth of global needs in fuel and energy and the
limitations of traditional sources of energy, there was an urgent
need to develop new technology in the field of energy capable of
satisfying most of the increased needs. Research in the Russian
Federation showed that it was possible to create a nuclear fuel
cycle free of the shortcomings of today's nuclear energy. The principle
of "natural safety" was a generalization of the internal
safety principle in nuclear power stations through its application
to the entire fuel cycle, taking into account the problem of radioactive
waste and the non-proliferation regime. That principle entailed,
inter alia, the elimination of serious nuclear accidents that exposed
the population to the dangers of irradiation, safe burial of waste
and technical support for the non-proliferation regime. The users
of such technology could be both developed countries and developing
countries whose desire to gain access to nuclear technology was
legitimate.
62. The organization of an international project aimed at developing
promising nuclear technology, under the auspices of IAEA and with
the participation of interested developed and developing countries,
could combine the efforts of the participating countries with a
view to realizing the fundamental aims relating to the use of nuclear
energy.
63. The Russian Federation accorded considerable importance to
the Agency's technical cooperation programme and activities. One
of the main elements of technical assistance was cooperation in
the areas of training of national staff and scientific research.
Since the establishment of IAEA, her country had been actively involved
in technical assistance programmes through the supply of equipment,
machinery and materials; it had also organized interregional and
regional training programmes in its institutes and enterprises,
and had disseminated data acquired through its rich experience.
64. Under the IAEA technical cooperation programme, the Russian
Federation organized every year in its scientific and technical
institutes and enterprises, scientific training programmes and visits
for specialists from developing country members of the Agency. Despite
its difficult economic situation, her country continued to provide
assistance to those countries, in particular with respect to the
construction of accelerators and neutron generators; it also continued
to train specialists. In March 1999, her Government had delivered
a cyclotron to Egypt which would serve as the basis for the establishment
in that country of a regional medical research centre. The Agency
was involved in that project.
65. The Russian Federation accorded considerable importance to
cooperation with the States members of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS). Such cooperation was carried out in accordance with
the 1992 framework agreement on the basic principles of cooperation
in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Council of Heads of
Government of the CIS member countries adopted in 1997 a long-term
plan to develop cooperation among those countries in that area and
to strengthen the safety of nuclear facilities. The plan defined
the legal, normative, organizational, economic, scientific, technical,
environmental and social aspects of such cooperation as well as
its main policies and tasks. The Council had decided to establish
a committee of CIS member countries on cooperation in the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy.
66. In the field of nuclear energy, the Russian Federation promoted
cooperation with respect to the construction and safe operation
of nuclear power plants and the construction of research reactors
with many member countries signatories to the Joint Convention on
the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management. Over the previous two years, the Russian Federation
had launched two projects in Slovakia and was currently building
new facilities in China and the Islamic Republic of Iran. It supplied
fresh fuel for reactors and provided investment services.
67. The project for the construction of the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) was an example of success in international
cooperation. It had demonstrated that it was possible to settle
complex legal, international, environmental, economic and political
problems. In May 1998, that international project had been praised
by the G-8 Summit at Birmingham, which had noted that the results
of the technical studies confirmed the validity of hopes that the
physical objectives could be achieved, and demonstrated the technical
viability of the concept as a whole. The technical project would
be completed in 2001. The project marked a decisive stage towards
the use of a new source of energy for the benefit of all countries.
68. Turning to cooperation with respect to small nuclear reactors,
including sea water desalination plants, she said that her Government
intended to participate in the implementation, within the framework
of the IAEA programme, of an international experimental project
on the construction of a nuclear desalination plant. A project on
the construction of a desalination unit at sea had been undertaken
with Canada; work was ongoing on a similar project in collaboration
with Indonesia.
69. The guarantee of a sufficient level of nuclear safety remained
a priority concern in the utilization of nuclear energy and technologies.
Reference should be made, in that regard, to the convening under
the auspices of IAEA of the first review meeting of the contracting
parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety. The positive atmosphere
during the deliberations had made it possible to carry out an objective
assessment of the status of all the nuclear power plants in activity.
Participants had overcome their political differences and considered
the problems from a purely technical standpoint.
70. In 1999, the Russian Federation had signed the Joint Convention
on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management. The Convention should be able to secure the number
of signatures required for its entry into force in 2000.
71. The Russian Federation participated in the IAEA programme on
the establishment of a network of regional and international experimental
research centres on the processing of radioactive waste from the
application of nuclear technology in medicine, scientific research
and industry. In 1999, the Agency had opened within the framework
of that programme, in the Russian Federation, an experimental centre
for the CIS region, specifically for Eastern Europe.
72. The NPT had provided an exceptional framework of constantly
expanding international cooperation for peaceful uses of nuclear
energy in the coming decade. Her country was committed to pursuing
cooperation with all the countries concerned and was convinced that
nuclear energy was the technology of choice for the production of
energy that would give humankind an alternative to the continued
environmental damage that would be inevitable if the earth's organic
resources were further exploited. Nuclear technology offered new
and practical prospects in terms of know-how and new models for
ongoing global and societal developments.
73. Mr. Rich (United States of America) recalled
the mandate of Main Committee III, noting that it had to assess
achievements, review the current situation and determine what had
to be done in future in order to improve still further the effectiveness
of cooperation with respect to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
74. His delegation noted the cluster III debates on the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy that had taken place in each of the Preparatory
Committee meetings for the current Review Conference. Those debates
had set the stage for the deliberations of Committee III and demonstrated
the value of the strengthened review process as it applied to article
IV, and of cooperation for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
The United States had clearly demonstrated its depth of commitment
to the goals of the NPT, especially those of article IV which established
the inalienable right of all the parties to the Treaty to pursue
peaceful nuclear development and to engage in the fullest possible
exchange to facilitate such development. Both bilaterally and through
international organizations, including IAEA, the United States had
supported nuclear cooperation in fields ranging from nuclear power
to nuclear applications in medicine, agriculture, hydrology and
industry. Since the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, the United
States had provided some $100 million to support the Agency's technical
cooperation activities.
75. A review of the current situation showed that impressive results
had been achieved. An illustrative success story was how nuclear-based
technology, known as the sterile insect technique, had been used
to eradicate the tsetse fly from the island of Zanzibar a few years
previously. That environmentally friendly technology had given hope
to over 700,000 families and had also been applied in Ethiopia in
an initial effort to eliminate the tsetse fly from the African continent.
His Government was proud to have supported the Agency's work in
Zanzibar. That experience proved that peaceful nuclear cooperation
activities could make a substantial difference in the lives of people
throughout the world.
76. The international community should not lose sight of the imperative
of nuclear safety. The United States had contributed over $550 million
to programmes to assist many countries bilaterally and through the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). His Government
also supported the Agency's work on nuclear safety and had pledged
a voluntary contribution for 1999 of $750,000. States parties had
an obligation to ensure that cooperation under the Treaty did not
contribute to the risk that nuclear explosive capabilities could
proliferate or spread to additional countries or regions. Compliance
with non-proliferation commitments was critical to the future of
cooperation under article IV.
77. Looking ahead, the United States believed that what had already
been done in the area of cooperation under article IV made it possible
to realize the considerable potential of nuclear technology, which
could greatly improve the well-being of people throughout the world.
Nuclear applications could improve many aspects of life, including
medical care, the supply of potable water, electricity generation,
the shelf life of food supplies and the health of livestock. The
United States remained committed to peaceful nuclear cooperation
under responsible non-proliferation undertakings as provided for
by the Treaty. His Government would continue to cooperate, on the
basis of those principles, with the least developed countries in
cases where nuclear techniques could safely contribute to sustainable
development. By working together, the States parties to the Treaty
could help to realize the full promise of peaceful nuclear cooperation
for the benefit of current generations and those of the future.
78. Mr. Twist (Ireland) said that his delegation
supported the statement made by the representative of Portugal on
behalf of the European Union. Ireland was committed to both the
Treaty and the Agency, which were symbiotically related. There were
however elements in both the Treaty and the Statute of the Agency
on which his delegation placed more emphasis.
79. After reading out paragraph 1 of article IV of the Treaty,
he said that the international community could not ignore the scientific
developments and resulting health and environmental awareness in
the more than 40 years since the foundation of the Agency. Nuclear
accidents generated headlines, some would say in disproportion to
their real effects, but such negative publicity did nonetheless
reflect an underlying reality, which was that the potential for
catastrophe was always present when nuclear energy was used. One
of the key functions of the Agency was to ensure that the world
relied more on expertise than luck in avoiding the risks inherent
in the use of nuclear energy, the potential consequences of which
demanded the highest possible safety standards and emergency preparedness.
80. In recent years the member States of the Agency, together with
its secretariat, had been developing a family of international legal
instruments to implement the nuclear safety culture, particularly
the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on the
Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive
Waste Management. His delegation welcomed those developments but
noted that some lacunae remained, particularly regarding the regime
of liability for nuclear damage, which did not yet meet the concerns
of all States; the issue of research reactors, which required greater
attention; and the issue of maritime transport of radioactive material,
which was a matter of particular concern for Ireland as a coastal
State. In relation to that last issue, his delegation shared the
concern expressed by New Zealand. Pending the establishment of an
international legal monitoring system, his delegation urged all
States shipping radioactive material to respond positively to the
invitation issued at the Agency's 1999 General Conference to provide,
as appropriate, assurances to potentially affected States upon their
request that their national regulations took into account the Agency's
Transport Regulations and to provide them with relevant information
relating to shipments of radioactive materials.
81. States which had forgone the nuclear military option and ratified
the Treaty should receive assistance in the peaceful use of nuclear
energy. Under no circumstances should those who had refused to accept
the non-proliferation commitment be treated more favourably. Ireland
joined those who urged the three States operating unsafeguarded
nuclear facilities to accede to the Treaty unconditionally as non-nuclear-weapon
States.
82. Mr. Abe (Japan) said that the Treaty was founded
on three pillars, namely, prevention of the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, the development of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
and the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, all of which were essential
to the credibility of the non-proliferation regime. The Treaty provided
an international framework to facilitate cooperation between industrialized
and developing countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. His
Government was determined to do its best to extend its cooperation
bilaterally and multilaterally and promote the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy while ensuring non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
It supported the particularly important role of the Agency in that
respect.
83. Nuclear energy had an important role to play in economic and
social development and in electric power generation. If it stopped
its nuclear power stations, Japan would have to import 1.5 million
more barrels of oil per day, and world oil production would have
to increase by 16 million barrels per day. In response to the current
crisis in oil prices, the OPEC countries had had difficulty in agreeing
to increase their production by 1.5 million barrels per day, which
was just 9 per cent of the additional oil the world would need if
all nuclear reactors were to be replaced. That would also entail
adding 2 billion more tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every
year and the construction of much infrastructure throughout the
world.
84. The development and utilization of nuclear energy must go hand
in hand with assurances of nuclear non-proliferation and safety.
While the primary responsibility lay with individual countries,
international cooperation also had an essential role to play. His
Government had financed a number of projects to help the countries
of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Central and
Eastern Europe to improve their nuclear facilities. It had contributed
to various funds created by the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development and to support programmes under the auspices of
the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD.
85. The entry into force of the Convention on Nuclear Safety in
1996 had been an important milestone in the area of cooperation.
Japan was a party to that Convention and hoped that more countries
would accede to it. A thorough investigation had been carried out
into the serious nuclear accident in Tokai-mura in September 1999.
His Government had made recommendations for prevention of similar
accidents and was ready to share the information and lessons learned
from the accident with other countries.
86. It was important to address the management of radioactive waste,
which was being produced in increasing quantities. Japan was determined
to continue its pursuit of an acceptable solution to the problem.
It also shared grave concerns about illicit trafficking in fissile
materials and had provided assistance to countries such as Kazakhstan,
Belarus and Ukraine in order to improve their national systems of
accounting for and control of nuclear material. His delegation appreciated
the Agency's efforts in that area and would continue to contribute
to activities aimed at improving physical protection.
87. The policy of his Government for the management of plutonium
and other nuclear materials was based on the principle that States
should have no more of such materials than was necessary for a rational
and logical plan for peaceful use. His Government would continue
to improve transparency in that regard by publishing the information
required by international guidelines.
88. His Government supported the Agency's technical cooperation
programmes and welcomed efforts to strengthen them. Japan was a
major contributor to the Technical Cooperation Fund, and was participating
actively in programmes of bilateral cooperation with developing
countries; it would continue its efforts in that regard, taking
into account the financial situation, technical capabilities and
needs of recipient countries. As for the concerns expressed by some
delegations about the level of the Fund, his delegation believed
that that issue should certainly be addressed seriously in the Agency's
deliberations, but that more care should be taken to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of each project.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m.
777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008
| 
