Changes in Global Atomic Policy
The 2005 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Mohamed El Baradei in lieu of their work in preventing military use of nuclear energy and for their efforts towards the safest possible standards of the use of nuclear for peaceful purposes.
The United Nations (UN) is aware that the UN came to fore at the dawn of the nuclear age late into the 1940s. The environment and atomic policy of the UN as such was greatly shaped by this fact.
On July 7, 2017, many member states meeting in New York in a UN Conference signed into the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which represents the first legal instrument multilaterally binding member states for nuclear disarmament in the last 20 years. The vote consisted of 122 ayes in favour of the treaty and only 1 nay by the Netherlands against the treaty.
The treaty covers a wide range of nuclear weaponization activities including the developing, testing, production, manufacture, acquisition, possession and stockpiling of nuclear armaments as well as the issuing of threats to use nuclear armaments (UN News Centre, 2017). Although the UN’s previous Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 included 191 signatories, many countries like North Korea continue to attempt to transcend limitations imposed by the NPT.
IAEA’s Engagement with the Environment and Atomic Policy of the UN
The IAEA and its relationship with the UN is critical in light of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which follows a general agreement entered into by the two bodies in 1957 such that the IAEA is to work in conformity with the policies of the UN. This greatly helps the IAEA in achieving its goal of worldwide nuclear disarmament by working in a partnership with organizations connected to the UN’s system.
This also helps the IAEA in encouraging the peaceful use of nuclear energy in accordance with the legal regime provided by the UN. In this the IAEA partners with various agencies within the UN including the United Nations Environment Programme. Some of these partnerships include partnerships with the World Health Organization (WHO) in cancer control and treatment, which is a major consequence of exposure to lethal radiation, and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in moving towards a green economy with cleaner nuclear production and disposal.
The IAEA’s involvement with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is critical, and both have a stated aim to co-operate on issues such as the UN’s environmental policy, nuclear waste management, nuclear resource efficiency and climate change. Both have a role in shaping the environment and atomic policy of the UN. The co-operation between the UNEP and the IAEA began in 1974, when both entered into a project based on the IAEA’s Laboratory for Marine Radioactivity Studies located in Monaco.
The IAEA and the UNEP entered into a Practical Arrangement in 2014 that looked to govern collaboration between the two bodies. The focus of the Practical Arrangement was to foster co-operation specifically in terms of climate change, management of ecosystems, efficient and sustainable use of resources, hazardous waste disposal and in influencing environmental policy.
In the collaboration framework provided in this Practical Arrangement, both bodies are to work together to support members to the UNEP and member states of the IAEA to provide support in developing scientific capabilities, meet environmental challenges, achieving resource sustainability and deal with the variability caused by climate change (IAEA, 2017).
The IAEA’s overall legal framework for safety requirements in the peaceful use of nuclear energy is met by the only legal policy to implement safety standards in managing radioactive wastes internationally – the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
The Joint Convention seeks to achieve nuclear safety through an international collaborative approach based on the sharing of expertise on radioactive wastes and spent fuel management. The Convention fixes international safety standards and measures to ensure nuclear safety based on agreements between stakeholders and it strives to achieve national arrangements in individual countries based on the standards agreed upon in the convention.
The Convention also includes clauses that facilitate individual countries with improper infrastructures to receive international assistance in case of a lack of resources. The Convention applies both to countries with nuclear power programmes and those using radiation sources for industrial and commercial purposes (IAEA, 2011). The UNEP thus forms part of the IAEA’s collaborative approach that aims to build consensus on issues of nuclear safety.
Under the NPT of 1968, the IAEA conducts on-site inspections of nuclear materials in countries to ensure nuclear safety. Other than this, the UN also has the legal document of the UN Conference on Disarmament, which was adopted in 1996 to promote nuclear disarmament. In addition the UN also has the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space for the curbing the use of nuclear armaments in outer space and the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Radiation to report on safety standards on the effects of exposure to nuclear radiation worldwide. The UN also has the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, 1980 to protect nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands (UN, 2017).
The UNEP does not consider nuclear power as a renewable source of energy, with its principal problem with nuclear power being the disposal of radioactive wastes. The UNEP fears environmental contamination by nuclear waste such as spent nuclear waste pools of water. Nuclear power and fuel also pose security threats, which can immensely increase contamination risks. The UNEP is also opposed to nuclear power plants being built near populated areas and the dependence of certain countries such as France and Japan on nuclear power.
The UNEP also feels that nuclear power plants are outside the reach of underdeveloped countries, imposing an unfair balance of trade for the poorer nations (UNEP, 2016). The UNEP stands for strict safety standards for nuclear power plants and views nuclear waste as a source for severe forms of contamination and pollution.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)