(544.5250) WISE Amsterdam - The mandate of the energy experts (whose working group is officially entitled Ad Hoc Openended Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Energy and Sustainable Development, or IGEESD), as given by the UN General Assembly, is to prepare recommendations for actions taken by CSD with a view of promoting a sustainable energy future for all. The advance report of the Secretary General, entitled "Energy and sustainable development: options and strategies for action on key issues" and the draft negotiating text of the energy experts contained language on nuclear that was rather worrying.
|
COP 6.5 dates announced |
In stead of posing the question whether or not nuclear has anything to do with sustainability, the advance report treated the technology as one that needs improvement (and thus further investment) and apparently is not fundamentally problematic.
Although the draft negotiating text did recognize that nuclear power is associated with "a number of serious concerns, viz. nuclear safety, spent fuel and waste management and proliferation of fissile material", it continued to state that these concerns are merely perceived as serious risks by the public, implying that the public is wrongly concerned about the dangers surrounding nuclear power. The report further suggested that it might be possible to find cost-effective solutions to the above-mentioned problems and that once these problems are solved, nuclear energy technologies will thus be able to contribute to "a sustainable energy future." In the recommendations section, governments were merely encouraged to improve safety regulations and waste management (under the supervision of the IAEA), harmonize safety requirements, improve transparency and prevent the proliferation of fissile material. Had the Energy experts been really concerned about these issues, they should have encouraged the governments to phase out nuclear power.
Interestingly enough, one of the co-authors of the draft negotiating text was IGEESD Co-Chair Irene Freudenschuss-Reichl, who is also on the board of the IAEA. This UN body still has the double mandate of not only taking care of the safety of the world's civil nuclear installations, but also to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world."
According to a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), nuclear power has no place in a sustainable energy future. This should be recognized by the CSD, either by declaring nuclear to be non-sustainable or by not considering nuclear at all, they argued. These NGOs have therefore launched a petition, urging the CSD to refrain from any indications of support for nuclear technologies. This petition can be signed online (by organizations only, not by individuals) in English, Dutch, Spanish and French at www.antenna.nl/wise/csd/. Further distribution among your networks is encouraged!
Although neither the session of the energy experts nor CSD 9 itself will result in any binding resolutions, the way in which they deal with nuclear will have implications on the future of nuclear power. A tacit or even outspoken support for nuclear technologies by a Commission supposed to be dealing with sustainable development would be a trump card in the hands of an industry that keeps trying to obtain recognition for it being clean, climate friendly and sustainable. Furthermore, CSD 9 is to prepare the 10-year evaluation of the Rio Earth summit of 1992. Nuclear friendly input to Rio + 10 could very well result in nuclear being considered a fact of life, needing further investment in order to address the problems associated with it, in stead of a failed and unsustainable technology that should be phased out as soon as possible.
The Energy Experts group will present its final report to CSD as this issue is mailed out, and we can therefore not yet report the results of the discussions on nuclear power. Look out for an update in our next News Communique.
The first days of the deliberations, however, indicated that they might be overshadowed by largely conflicting approaches of the nuclear issue, which became one of the most contentious issues tabled. right away. This was regretted by many delegations hoping to reach agreement on issues such as access to electricity (which about 2 billion people of the world's population still have to do without), technology transfer and capacity building. It might also result in a failure to reach agreement on a final text to be presented to CSD 9. It must be pointed out that, although officially the meeting is one of energy experts, i.e. technocrats who are not supposed to negotiate but to present an "expert's advice" to the CSD, in fact most of the 53 member countries to CSD sent delegations of diplomats to the energy experts group. The result was that most of the deliberations were political rather than scientific in nature.
During the first round of discussion of the item nuclear energy, various countries suggested that the paragraph on nuclear should be amended to include a call to a phaseout of nuclear power (Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Barbados) or at least to an end of transboundary shipments of radioactive waste along the coasts of non OECD countries (Colombia, Barbados, Guyana).
The EU countries, which had chosen not to make individual national statements and were represented by current EU chair Sweden, had to deal with largely differing views on the question whether or not nuclear can be considered sustainable. The result was a woolly statement by Sweden indicating that nuclear was a sensitive issue and that improvements should be made regarding cost-effectiveness, safety, proliferation and the environment.
The EU also suggested that independent national regulatory authorities be established. Poland indicated that it would like to phase out and replace nuclear power with "advanced fuel" technologies amongst others. The G-77, represented by Iran, stated how, despite its "obsession with safety", it feels nuclear is an important technology to the G-77. Like most other countries it suggested that efforts be made to improve safety, waste management and public participation. The Russian Federation, Canada, Japan and the US all stated that safety is of course important, and that nuclear does have disadvantages, but that it should be retained as an energy option. Russia suggested intensified research and development, which should lead to "proliferation resistant and safe reactors". The US suggested that where in the draft text the IAEA is mentioned in relation to proliferation safeguards and promotion of the NPT, the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) be added. India asserted that the NPT has no relation to nuclear energy and together with Egypt and China argued that concerns about proliferation should be discussed elsewhere, i.e. not in the framework of the IGEESD or CSD. Sri Lanka argued that states currently using nuclear power should not be encouraged to abandon it. Instead, safety should be increased.
Since chances are small that the energy experts will denounce nuclear as non-sustainable, anti-nuclear campaigners are planning to step up their efforts towards CSD. Actions will take place during the CSD session in April (contact: NIRS) and in the weeks ahead of us, the 53 member countries of CSD should be actively approached on this issue. To find out whether your country is currently a member of CSD, check the web site www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csdmem.htm
Nukes sustainable? No way!
Sources:
- WISE Amsterdam;
- Report of the Secretary General, "Energy and sustainable development: options and strategies for action on key issues", February 2001 UN Document E/CN.17/ESD/2001/2;
- Draft Negotiating Text for the Ad Hoc Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Energy and Sustainable Development, Second session, dated 26 January 2001, UN Document E/CN.17/ESD/2001/L.1;
- Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 23 October 1956 with subsequent amendments;
- Statements to the IGEESD of the delegates of Saudi Arabia, Colombia, Barbados, Guyana, Sweden, Poland, Iran, Russian Federation, Canada, Japan, USA, India, Egypt, China and Sri Lanka, 27 February 2001, New York
For actions during the CSD session in April, contact: Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), 1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Tel: +1 202 328 0002. Fax: +1 202 462 2183.
Email: nirsnet@nirs.org
Internet: www.nirs.org
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |