piggybacking: providing donor assistance through u.s. programs

Piggybacking:Piggybacking:Providing Donor Providing Donor

Assistance Through U.S. Assistance Through U.S. ProgramsPrograms

The ConceptThe Concept

Instead of providing assistance directly Instead of providing assistance directly to the recipient government, the to the recipient government, the donor channels that assistance donor channels that assistance

through the U.S. government using through the U.S. government using an existing implementing agreement an existing implementing agreement

between the U.S. and recipient between the U.S. and recipient governments.governments.

The StepsThe Steps

• Donor negotiates MOU with Department of Donor negotiates MOU with Department of Energy specifying how its funds will be Energy specifying how its funds will be spent, as well as other parametersspent, as well as other parameters

• Donor provides funds to U.S. TreasuryDonor provides funds to U.S. Treasury

• DOE channels funds to donor-designated DOE channels funds to donor-designated assistance project through existing assistance project through existing implementing agreement between DOE implementing agreement between DOE and recipient countryand recipient country

Advantages of PiggybackingAdvantages of Piggybacking

• Saves donor the extensive time and effort Saves donor the extensive time and effort needed to negotiate its own implementing needed to negotiate its own implementing agreement with recipient governmentagreement with recipient government– MOU with DOE can be done very quicklyMOU with DOE can be done very quickly

• Ensures close cooperation with ongoing DOE Ensures close cooperation with ongoing DOE assistance programsassistance programs– Expands options for supporting elements of projectsExpands options for supporting elements of projects– Enhances efficiency of project implementationEnhances efficiency of project implementation

• Protections of DOE implementing agreement Protections of DOE implementing agreement with recipient government apply to donor with recipient government apply to donor assistanceassistance

EWGPP ExperienceEWGPP Experience

• U.S. sought partners to help fund fossil U.S. sought partners to help fund fossil fuel plant to replace weapon-grade fuel plant to replace weapon-grade plutonium production reactor in Russiaplutonium production reactor in Russia

• Six countries chose to contribute to project Six countries chose to contribute to project – all through piggybacking: UK, Canada, – all through piggybacking: UK, Canada, Netherlands, Finland, Korea, New ZealandNetherlands, Finland, Korea, New Zealand

• Partners are regularly updated on Partners are regularly updated on progress of implementation; all seem very progress of implementation; all seem very pleased with experiencepleased with experience

Application to Nuclear Application to Nuclear Smuggling AssistanceSmuggling Assistance

• U.S. Congress has authorized:U.S. Congress has authorized:– DOE Global Threat Reduction Initiative to DOE Global Threat Reduction Initiative to

accept funds for assistance related to accept funds for assistance related to securing radioactive sourcessecuring radioactive sources

– DOE Second Line of Defense program to DOE Second Line of Defense program to accept funds for assistance related to border accept funds for assistance related to border monitoringmonitoring

• Some partners have already done piggybacking Some partners have already done piggybacking MOUs – Canada, New ZealandMOUs – Canada, New Zealand

Canada’s ExperienceCanada’s Experience

• Canada’s Global Partnership Program (GPP) is Canada’s Global Partnership Program (GPP) is spending over $200 million to implement GICNT spending over $200 million to implement GICNT Principles 1-5.Principles 1-5.

• Canada’s GPP efforts to combat nuclear Canada’s GPP efforts to combat nuclear terrorism focus on working bilaterally to help to terrorism focus on working bilaterally to help to secure nuclear facilities and weapons-grade secure nuclear facilities and weapons-grade nuclear materials.nuclear materials.

• There are numerous other components, There are numerous other components, however, that are critical and need to be however, that are critical and need to be addressed, such as securing highly radioactive addressed, such as securing highly radioactive sources and upgrading border security to sources and upgrading border security to prevent the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials.prevent the illicit trafficking of nuclear materials.


• In order to make a contribution to these In order to make a contribution to these key components and to ensure a holistic key components and to ensure a holistic approach to preventing nuclear terrorism, approach to preventing nuclear terrorism, Canada’s GPP sought to work through Canada’s GPP sought to work through established programs and to take established programs and to take advantage of existing mechanisms.advantage of existing mechanisms.

• This approach affords Canada several This approach affords Canada several advantages:advantages:


1.1. MOVE QUICKLY: Projects could be implemented MOVE QUICKLY: Projects could be implemented quickly, as piggybacking dispensed with the need to quickly, as piggybacking dispensed with the need to negotiate bilateral treaties with recipient countries, negotiate bilateral treaties with recipient countries, negotiate agreements with individual negotiate agreements with individual organisations/facilities within recipient states, and organisations/facilities within recipient states, and establish a monitoring framework and contracts for establish a monitoring framework and contracts for related technical expertise.related technical expertise.

2.2. FULL CONFIDENCE: Canada could delegate project FULL CONFIDENCE: Canada could delegate project management and monitoring to the US, based on their management and monitoring to the US, based on their track-record of successfully implementing projects. track-record of successfully implementing projects.

3.3. COST SAVINGS: Reduced operational expenses, COST SAVINGS: Reduced operational expenses, leaving more funding available for assistance.leaving more funding available for assistance.


• To date, Canada has provided CAD $16 To date, Canada has provided CAD $16 million through US programs to help million through US programs to help prevent nuclear terrorism:prevent nuclear terrorism:– $9 million to EWGPP (2004)$9 million to EWGPP (2004)– $5 million to Second Line of Defence (2007)$5 million to Second Line of Defence (2007)– $2 million to GTRI (2007)$2 million to GTRI (2007)


• Canada negotiated separate Canada negotiated separate Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) for each contribution.for each contribution.

• Negotiations were swift: MOUs were Negotiations were swift: MOUs were signed and money transferred within 2 signed and money transferred within 2 months of the first negotiation session.months of the first negotiation session.


• Specific projects listed in the MOU were decided Specific projects listed in the MOU were decided upon jointly by Canada’s GPP and the US DOE upon jointly by Canada’s GPP and the US DOE NNSA, in consultation with the recipient country.NNSA, in consultation with the recipient country.

• Each MOU delineates terms of reference for Each MOU delineates terms of reference for how Canada’s contribution will be spent. For how Canada’s contribution will be spent. For example:example:– the recipient countrythe recipient country– the specific port of entry or border crossing where the specific port of entry or border crossing where

detection equipment was to be installeddetection equipment was to be installed


• The MOUs delineate specific reporting The MOUs delineate specific reporting measures on project progress – both substantive measures on project progress – both substantive and financial (monthly reports).and financial (monthly reports).

• The MOUs also include audit and evaluation The MOUs also include audit and evaluation provisions.provisions.

• Canada relies upon robust US monitoring and Canada relies upon robust US monitoring and project management strategies, and Canada project management strategies, and Canada does not directly monitor these projects. does not directly monitor these projects. Canada holds meetings with responsible US Canada holds meetings with responsible US project managers 3-4 times per year.project managers 3-4 times per year.


• For Canada’s GPP, “piggybacking” has For Canada’s GPP, “piggybacking” has been a success and has made an been a success and has made an important contribution to Canadian efforts important contribution to Canadian efforts to help prevent nuclear terrorism.to help prevent nuclear terrorism.

piggybacking: providing donor assistance through u.s. programs

Documents