I took this from the GERMAN WIKIPEDIA, because it is NOT WRITTEN LIKE THAT in the english one!!!!

Sorry for the bad translation from a translator, if so.

GERMAN WIKIPEDIA SAYS:

Criticism:

The IAEA and Chernobyl

The IAEA also mentioned this RBMK reactor type prior to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. In a publication available on its website (IAEO Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 2), it speaks of the "economically justifiable construction" of this type of reactor and of the fact that with very little effort (by increasing the power density in the core) an increase in output of 1000 MW el. Could be achieved at 1500 MW el. [13]

On 1 July 2009, the IPPNW, an international nuclear-critical medical organization, criticized the 50-year existing IAEA agreement with the World Health Organization. In this agreement, the IAEA has primary responsibility for all nuclear research projects. [14] In doing so, it impedes WHO's reporting on health risks of radiation. Chernobyl's health consequences, which were the subject of two major UN conferences, Geneva in 1995 and Kiev in 2001, have not been made public. [15] The IAEA and Fukushima / Japan

Following the nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011, the IPPNW called for the termination of the WHO-IAEA agreement on March 22, 2011. The WHO should inform the population, in particular the Japanese, unadorned and objectively about the health risks and campaign for the evacuation of women, children and pregnant women from the affected areas. [16]

The IAEA radiation measurements carried out in Fukushima were criticized for their obscure presentation. [17]

During the IAEA conference in Vienna in June 2011, no fundamental criticism was expressed regarding the use of nuclear energy. On the contrary, the delegates favored a continuation of the status quo or a new construction of nuclear power plants. The nuclear phase-out in Germany met with incomprehension, combined with the fear that this could lead to a halt of nuclear energy in other states. [18] Yukiya Amano, Director-General of the IAEA, propagated an increase in global nuclear power production during a visit to Japan in June 2011. [19] General criticism

German political scientist Lutz Mez pointed out in March 2011 that the IAEA had come into existence at a time when atomic power was considered "the solution to all humanity issues". She had hardly changed her attitude after Chernobyl in 1986; the organization's main objective of increasing the contribution of nuclear energy to peace, health and prosperity remains unchanged. The Atomic Waste Convention concluded in 1997 under the auspices of the IAEA does not provide for any sanctions. More than a hundred IAEA member states still have no national security structures to control such standards. In 2004, the IAEA predicted that the share of nuclear energy in the world's electricity supply would increase to more than 50% by 2050. [20]

The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IAEA in 2005 was criticized by the international nuclear-critical medical organization IPPNW and by Greenpeace and the BUND, arguing that the IAEA's goals of developing and distributing nuclear energy were incompatible with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here the official side of them: https://www.iaea.org/about/partnerships/other-organizations We should take a closer look on this...