Statement by Clare Gatehouse, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations Fourth Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
16 October 2008
(As delivered)
We would like to thank UNSCEAR Secretary Malcolm Crick for his informative presentation today and commend him on his work in support of the Scientific Committee.
We would also like to congratulate Canada in their assumption of the role of UNSCEAR Chair for the next two years, and we commit to offer our support to the Canadian delegation in its facilitation of our upcoming consultations on a draft resolution.
Speaking on behalf of Australia, as the previous Chair of UNSCEAR, I would like to reiterate Australia’s strong support for the Scientific Committee. We are appreciative of the assistance that the UN Environment Program (UNEP) has offered to UNSCEAR over the past few years, particularly with regard to seeking to address the funding issues facing the Scientific Committee that its Secretariat has brought to member states’ attention. In this regard, we welcome the establishment by the Executive Director of UNEP of a general trust fund to receive and manage voluntary contributions to support the work of the Scientific Committee, to which Australia (via the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA) contributed $90,000 in 2007.
UNSCEAR has a low-profile compared to other UN agencies, but performs a critical task. UNSCEAR’s unique work has provided the scientific basis to establish international standards for protection of the public and of workers against ionizing radiation. These standards are linked to important legal and regulatory instruments to protect all our people.
Today, as a result of UNSCEAR’s work, we probably know more about the effects of ionizing radiation than we do about many other pollutants such as chemical and biological pollutants.
This work is more vital than ever. While UNSCEAR was formed over fifty years ago in the context of the use and widespread testing of nuclear weapons, today its work is most vital in understanding the risks involved with new technologies. The report of the 56th Session of UNSCEAR shows that the worldwide exposures from man-made sources has doubled in the last 15 years, due mainly to developing technologies in diagnostic medicine. This increase has gone largely unrecognised by the community.
Similarly, with climate change, there is interest in some countries in the potential for expanding nuclear power. At such a time, it remains vital that the radiological impacts of all the various activities associated with the nuclear fuel cycle are well understood. UNSCEAR plays an essential role in providing objective scientific analysis towards assessing methods of nuclear power production.
Although, by way of comparison, it is interesting to note that, worldwide, radiological exposures from the nuclear fuel cycle are less than one thousandth that from diagnostic medical practice.
It appears to us that, with decisions of hundreds of billions of dollars needing a sound knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation, the modest funding to UNSCEAR of approximately $1 million per year seems inadequate.
To be specific, with the expansion of scientific knowledge and the number of papers in the peer-reviewed literature across a wide variety of scientific disciplines it is no longer possible to continue with just one scientific Secretary to cover all the work in a comprehensive manner. As a minimum, the UNSCEAR Secretariat should comprise one scientist from the physical sciences and one scientist from the biological sciences to undertake the task of reviewing and editing the reports of consultants to prepare them for the working groups of the Scientific Committee.
We believe that the matter of this understaffing should be addressed before considering whether to increase UNSCEAR’s membership and we believe that those member states acting as observers to the Scientific Committee should continue with their current status for the time being. It is our sincere hope that those member states are able to contribute their knowledge to the work of the Scientific Committee in that capacity until UNSCEAR’s funding issues are resolved.
With this in mind, it is disappointing then that the Secretery-General’s report on financial and administrative implications of increased UNSCEAR membership has yet to be formally distributed.
When it comes to considering membership of UNSCEAR, in Australia’s view it should be based on sustainable knowledge on a broad range of issues in the field of radiation levels and effects. The work of the Committee requires the capability to compile, prepare and evaluate scientific reports; the assessment of draft scientific documents; and the capability to summarize and synthesize the material for the General Assembly, the scientific community and the public. These are the sole criteria that should be kept in mind when it comes to appointing representatives to the Scientific Committee.