women's draft statement on waste management for CSD19

[Sascha Gabizon]

Dear women, 

Please find enclosed a proposed addition to the negotiation text of the CSD19 on nuclear waste management 

We always stumble on the inability of the World Health Organisation to publish health information on the health effects of the nuclear industry, because of the outdated agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

In our work with women and children who are ill from radiation in the Chernobyl area, in Mayak Russia, in Semipalatinsk Kazakhstan, in the Navaho uranium mines in the US, etc etc, we are continuously face with the long term, terrible effects of radiation, in particular on children, which effects being transmitted from mothers and fathers, to their children and grandchildren, including chromosome changes.

We need to be able to have access to this health information on women and children, but the WHO can not publish independently, that is why they continue to say that Chernobyl cost "only" 4000 lives and that the health effects seen by the governments of Ukraine - who talk about at least 100.000 diseased, are attributed mostly to "psychological stress" by the international atomic energy agency.

For years, renowned medical professionals around the world have asked for an end to this agreement, but the UN has taken no action. 

This CSD19 can take action.

Best greetings, 

Sascha

Contribution by Women Major Group to Chair draft negotiation text

 

The women’s major group proposes to add point (d) to C.31 on Radioactive Waste Management

 

C. Waste Management

 

Policy options/action needed

31. Actions are needed to define a long-term waste management strategy within the context of

sustainable development and poverty eradication at all levels.

(a) Develop and enforce comprehensive national and local policies and strategies based on

the principles of sustainable development and on the 3R concept;

(b) Make use of planning instruments for local and national waste strategy implementation

and waste management infrastructure;

(c) Take into account the social and poverty issues related to waste management, including

the livelihoods of waste scavengers and rag-pickers;

(d) Improve education and raise public awareness, including to change perspectives on waste

to see it as a resource;

(e) Put in place national spent fuel and radioactive waste management plans.

(d) Abolish the outdated agreement between World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency from 1959 (WHA 12.40), which limits access to independent information on health effects of radioactive waste, transport, management and disposal.

 

Rationale:

We call for the end of the application of the WHO/IAEA Agreement of 1959 (WHA 12.40) which impacts, in our opinion, on the ability of the WHO to act freely in nuclear matters, in particular to publish research on the health impacts of radiation and assist the population of contaminated areas. With increasing problems with nuclear energy industry – the Asse Waste scandal in Germany, the problems with the Mayak MOX plans in Russia – , it is more than ever necessary to increase the world’s decision makers and citizens knowledge about the health risks and risks to the survival of humankind related to nuclear power and  technologies.

 

We subscribe to the arguments expressed in the Appeal by Health Professionals for the independence of WHO.[[1]] In addition, we would like to emphasize that the wordings of the WHO-IAEA Agreement of 1959 are not the same as the wordings in agreements concluded by the WHO with other organizations, e.g. FAO, UNESCO or UNIDO. The WHO/FAO Agreement of 1948 request the two organizations to “consult each other regularly in regard to matters of common interest”, which undoubtedly does not go so far as the WHO/IAEA Agreement of 1959 does by requiring consultations “with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement”.

 

Even if the WHO considers that the WHO/IAEA Agreement of 1959 follows the model of agreements concluded between WHO and other international organizations[[2]], the facts shows the difference in application. It shall also be stressed that the confidentiality clause of the WHO/IAEA Agreement of 1959 is misused when it prevents the publication of the proceedings of the WHO Conference on Chernobyl (1995) since the speakers of the conference never asked for confidentiality.

 

Substantial revision of the WHO/IAEA Agreement of 1959 is extremely important for the WHO to recover its full independence and to prevent the WHO from being influenced by the nuclear lobby. “Adjusting the matter by mutual agreement” is totally unacceptable when one million children are condemned to live in areas contaminated by radionuclides from Chernobyl, and when “Chernobyls” can happen in the future, as we have just experienced with Fukushima.

 

In the light of the newly created International Renewable Energy Agency, where WHO should be scrutizing also the health effects linked to the production, use and disposal of renewable energy technologies, we would suggest that WHO reviews its agreement with the IAEA whilst developing a new agreement with IREA, so that both mirror eachother.

---

[1] Appeal by Health Professionals for the Independence of WHO, launched in 2007, http://independentwho.info/IMG/pdf/appeal_healthprofessionals_eng.pdf

[2] Interpretation of the World Health Organization’s Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Statement WHO/06, 23 February 2001, http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2001/en/state2001-05.html