The Use of Performance Targets in the State - Level Concept

With the pursuit of the State - Level Concept (SLC), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sought to further evolve the international safeguards system in a manner which maintains (or improves) the effec tiveness of the system in an environment of expanding safeguards demands and limited safeguards resources. Contemporary safeguards have been focused on assessing the nuclear program of the State as a whole, rather than on the basis of individual nuclear fa cilities. Since the IAEA completed the conceptual framework for integrated safeguards in 2002 , State - level Approaches (SLAs) have been developed that seek to combine the measures provided for by the Additional Protocol with those of comprehensive safeguards agreements in an optimal manner. This process resulted in facility specific approaches that, while making use of a State’s broader conclusion, were nonetheless prescriptive. A State - specific implementation of safeguards, while providing desired flexibility, has le d to concerns over possible discrimination. If the same facility based safeguards approach is not to be used in all States, how can States be sure that safeguards resources are being allocated in an appropriate manner? The use of perform ance targets in the implementation of the SLC has several benefits in this regard. While performance targets have been used in the past, they have reflected material attractiveness as opposed to path attractiveness. Acquisition Path Analysis (APA) , along with the State e valuation process, can be used to prioritize paths in a State in terms of their attractiveness for proliferation. While taking advantage of all safeguards relevant information, and tailoring safeguards to individual State characteristi cs, it will be essential for the Agency to ensure that paths of the highest priority in all States meet the same high standard of coverage. Similarity, lower priority paths will be accorded less stringent performance targets. The performance targets will , however , be the same for all States, thereby promoting non - di scrim in ation. This is a very important feature of performance targets in the SLC . Other key benefits include emphasizing the importance of detection prior to path completion, unifying Agency in - field and headquarters activities, and allowing the Agency to be responsive to new information relevant to safeguards implementation . The prospects for the use of such targets , as well as how they might be formulated and implemented in the development of SLAs, is assessed in this paper.