(This post is by Christine McCann)

Here’s the latest of our news bulletins from the ongoing crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

State of Nuclear Politics in Japan

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said that his country’s dependence on nuclear power should be reduced to the “maximum extent.”Noda made the remarks during a policy address to the Diet last week.

Japan has approved a bill to create a new government entity, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA), which will oversee nuclear power, manage nuclear disasters, and monitor the health of those affected by radiation from said disasters. The new agency will absorb the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). The new law is expected to go into effect in April. The Cabinet also approved a second bill, which will limit the life of reactors to 40 years, although operators can apply for 20-year extensions.

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have endorsed stress tests conducted by NISA on reactors #3 and #4 at Kansai Electric’s Oi plant in Fukui prefecture.However, the IAEA team made several suggestions for improvement in NISA’s process, including communicating more effectively with local residents, establishing a safety margin, and addressing severe nuclear accidents “more comprehensively.”IAEA spokesman Greg Webb noted that the IAEA inspection does not guarantee reactor safety: “Nuclear safety is a national responsibility in any country. No country has asked the IAEA to be a safety watchdog. We don’t conduct nuclear safety inspections.”
 
NISA has proposed a new set of 30 safety guidelines for nuclear plants. If approved, operators would be required to provide backup sources of power, waterproof cooling facilities, upgrade communication systems, and separate ventilation piping from other equipment, among other safeguards. The newly created Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRA) would oversee the process.
 
Vitrification tests at the Rokkasho nuclear reprocessing plant in Aomori Prefecture failed this week, dealing a serious blow to Japan’s nuclear fuel cycle policy. Vitrification involves mixing molten glass with highly radioactive liquid nuclear waste, in order to store it more effectively. However, tests resulted in a blocked furnace at the plant, as well as the unexpected production of unidentified black particles. Rokkasho officials have no prospect of immediately fixing the malfunction. The plant has continued to encounter problems since testing began there in 2008, and this most recent issue is expected to spur a review of Japan’s nuclear policy.
 
Wolfgang Weiss, the Chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) saidthat massive evacuations and the fact that 80% of the nuclear fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi disaster landed in the ocean have contributed to lower radiation impact on human health. Weiss did not address the impact of radiation on seafood and possible effects on the food chain, nor did he discuss long-term effects of low-level radiation, which are still being studied. The group will publish a preliminary report in May, and a final report in 2013.

The IAEA said it is still considering whether to open an office in Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture, contradicting earlier reports that its Director General, Yukiya Amano, said that the Agency would establish an office there.

Meanwhile, Japan has reportedly asked the IAEA’s Response and Assistance Network to add a new assistance category, which would cover bringing nuclear disasters under control.

TEPCO

TEPCO President Toshio Nishizawa said the utility will reconsider a planned 17% rate hike for businesses, after government officials and business leaders pressured the utility to do so—but any reduction in the new fee is expected to be very small. The company is also pushing for a 10% rate increase for residential users, but by law, the government is required to approve such a change.

Reactor Status

TEPCO has admitted yet another leak of radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, after announcing 16 additional leaks earlier this week.Officials initially said that 6 liters of water had leaked from reactor 4, but later conceded thatthe amount was actually more than 8 tons. The water’s radiation level was measured at 35,500 Bq/liter. TEPCO is unclear about whether the leak was a result of cracks in piping from recent cold weather or from hydrogen explosions that occurred last March.
 
NISA officials have discovered that pipes and other structures at reactor 5 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant do not meet seismic safety standardsestablished in 2006. Although visible damage from the March earthquake is not evident, NISA plans to conduct more extensive inspections. Officials are trying to determine the extent of earthquake damage to reactors 1 - 3, but first checked 5 because radiation levels are lower there, and it’s more accessible. TEPCO continues to insist that the reactors suffered no damage from the earthquake, and the tsunami was the cause of the meltdowns.
 
Contamination (Includes Economic Impact and Human Exposure)

The Japan Dairy Industry Association said that it will publicize results of radiation tests on milk and milk products from 17 prefectures at the end of February. Dairy producers Meiji Co., Megmilk Snow Brand, and Morinaga are members of the association and will participate in the tests, which are designed to reassure the public of product safety.

Decontamination

Farmers in Fukushima Prefecture are criticizing a decision by the Environment Ministry to only extend decontamination subsidies if at least 30 cm of surface soil is replaced with subsoil and plowed by special large machines. Farmers say that many rice paddies are too small to accommodate the huge equipment. Fukushima government officials will petition the Ministry to underwrite the costs of zeolite, a substance that absorbs radioactivity, even if the large equipment is not used.

The Environment Ministry will conduct pilot decontamination tests over the next several months on a highway running through the no-entry zone in Fukushima Prefecture. Radiation measurements on the highway vary from low-level to more than 50 millisieverts per year. Effectiveness of the decontamination methods will be assessed in July.

Other Nuclear News

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said new seismic studies reveal that96 nuclear plants in the eastern and central United States may be at risk from earthquakes exceeding their design capacity, based on previously uncataloged data. The discovery, which was prompted by the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant after last year’s massive earthquake and tsunami, could result in major and costly upgrades to the nation’s plants. The NRC is allowing nuclear plant operators four years to assess whether or not their reactors can withstand earthquakes based on the new data; presumably, even more time will then be allotted for upgrades. Experts, who say the delay is too long and could put the country at risk for a massive nuclear disaster, are harshly criticizing the decision. Dave Lochbaum, Director of Nuclear Safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists said, “The NRC does not need a new model; it needs a new spine.”

Significant amounts of unusual wear have been discovered on tubes that carry radioactive water at Unit 2 of Southern California Edison’s San Onofre nuclear plant. The reactor was shut down earlier this week when one of the tubes was discovered to be leaking radiation, and plant officials admitted that a small amount might have escaped into the atmosphere. Some tube walls were eroded by as much as 30%. The erosion is significant because the tubes, which are manufactured by Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy, were just replaced in 2009. Former NRC engineer Joram Hopenfeld, who is now retired, said, “The safety implications could be very, very severe.” Officials at Southern California Edison are still trying to determine the cause of the problem.

France’s Court of Audit has declared that the country must extend the lifespan of its already aging reactors, because failure to invest in new reactors or alternate forms of energy has threatened the country’s power supply. Sophia Majnoni, Nuclear Campaigner at Greenpeace France, criticized the move, which could put the population’s safety at risk. The country’s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) “is the only authority entitled to decide whether to extend the lifespan of reactors,” Majnoni added. France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear power, more than any other country.

With this year’s United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development meeting – also known as “Rio+20” – fast approaching, Greenpeace senior political advisor Pat Lerner takes an in-depth look at the UNSG’s High Level Panel report on Global Sustainability "Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing": 

It had been billed ahead of time as“a secondBrundtland Report [1]”,designed to be visionary and describe a future 20 years from now, “a future worth choosing.”Its mandate was clearly recognized:“efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other social and economic targets are hampered by the inability to agree on decisive and coordinated action in national and multilateral fora.”   Yet in the end the politicians did what they always do – they kicked the tough issues down the road for someone else to deal with and bowed to what they thought could get agreed.  No wonder there’s a leadership vacuum.

Don’t get me wrong.  There are some good ideas in the recently released report by the UNSG’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability“Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing”.  But it’s clear the usual sort of unseemly dickering and trade-offs we are familiar with in climate negotiations took place among the Panel, as those involved headed towards compromises.  They heard us calling for greater urgency so the words are there, but the recommendations have been watered down with dates that clearly don’t reflect the urgency merited by our oceans, forests and climate.  But then we shouldn’t be surprised as it’s the very same individuals negotiating our planet’s fate.

TheResilient Peoplereport and its recommendations are a bit of a mixed bag.  Bravo for calling to “phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse subsidies by 2020”. The G20 pledged to do so in October 2009, as did APEC a month later – that’s 53 countries.  More recently,the IEA warned of the dangers of further delay, saying in effect that we could finally have a level playing field for alternatives to fossil fuels if the$400 billionper year of hand outs were phased out.  You would think this would be a “no brainer” for leaders said to be obsessed with eliminating public deficits.  First rule of thumb when you’re in a hole – stop digging!  So what, and who, is holding them back?  You heard us say it in Durban and you’ll hear us say it in Rio – “listen to the people, not the polluters!”

We are pleased the Panel sees oceans as “crucial for humanity’s future”, because of the contributions they make to livelihoods, food security and the environmental services they provide.  The report highlights the decline of marine environment, particularly over the past two decades.  It is clear that a radical overhaul is needed for that management of our oceans; we simply can’t continue with a business-as-usual approach that will surely lead to a social, economic and environmental disaster.  So why such weak recommendations, which fail to address the issue of overcapacity in the fisheries sector, as well as the simple reality of too many big boats chasing too few fish? There is no sense of urgency for action; we cannot agree to an approach that merely tinkers at the margins and signs a death warrant for the oceans.  Fortunately, the zero draft of the Rio outcome is spot-on in calling for a new UN implementing agreement that would give a clearer framework for cooperation on marine conservation and sustainable management. Conserving 20-30% of the global oceans in marine protected areas could create a million jobs, and avoid the destruction of the livelihoods of the millions of people who depend on marine resources.

TheResilient Peoplereport is somewhat contradictory on food and agriculture and some of its recommendations run the risk of being counter-productive.  The call for an “ever-green revolution in agriculture” brings back memories of the first green revolution, which was based on intensive use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hybrid seeds and irrigation water, with disastrous results for diversity of native crop varieties, soil health, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions and long-term food security.  Governments must be clear about what is needed; not simply greater resource use efficiency, but a dramatic reorientation of agricultural systems away from chemical farming and towards low external input, ecological farming methods which work with, not against nature.

Speaking of biodiversity, where, oh where are forests and biodiversity in theResilient Peoplereport?  We need commitment by all countries and companies to immediately eliminate the subsidies and industrial demand-side drivers of deforestation and forest degradation so we can achieve zero deforestation by 2020. The world completely missed the biodiversity target agreed to in 2002, “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss.”   I guess the Panel didn’t want to dwell on targets missed when voluntary, bottom-up approaches are still thought useful. The real question is whether those approaches remain sufficient for the scale of the challenges we face.  The Panel’s recommendation for Governments to adopt “whole-of-government approaches to sustainable development issues, under the leadership of the Head of State or Government” suggests they understand the crisis dimensions of the planet’s future as this approach is typically used in conflict and post-conflict situations.  But this is easier said than done, and it’s hard to see how the issues will really surface to the top of the pile, unless strengthening UNEP really means giving it specialized agency status.

In terms of what needs to be done to catalyse a socially just, green economy, theResilient Peoplereport is correct in calling on Governments, international financial institutions, major companies and small and medium enterprises to do their parts in mandating, incentivizing, adopting and diffusing sustainable business practices, which move beyond the short-term and embrace longer term investment horizons. The toolbox includes mechanisms that can be implemented right away, such as removal of dirty subsidies and redirecting those revenues for sustainable investments; establishing full-cost pricing for negative externalities like taxes or emission trading schemes for fossil fuels; reviewing investors’ fiduciary responsibilities which prevent many large investors from longer-term thinking and sustainable investments; and building investor confidence through stable long-term policy frameworks, such as renewable energy targets, and through public financing instruments, risk-sharing, and advance purchase commitments (such as feed-in tariffs) to bridge the viability gap in funding. These are all recommendations governments should take on board for immediate implementation.  That said, the panel wimps out when it comes to corporate accountability. While mandatory sustainability reporting would provide investors, policymakers and citizens with improved information, and would represent a step forward from the current state of pure voluntarism, it simply isn’t enough. We need governments to fulfill the promise they made in Johannesburg ten years ago and deliver clear and binding rules on global corporations. Governments must establish full accountability and liability for any social or environmental damage caused by multinational corporations.

The Panel recommends that“Governments should agree to develop a set of key universal sustainable development goals, covering all three dimensions of sustainable development as well as their interconnections. “We welcome this recommendation, but think the timeline needs to be accelerated. The responses to sustainability must reflect at least the same level of urgency and seriousness as the responses to the economic and financial crises.  Agreeing on aspirational, long-term SDGs by 2015, which are set for 2030, would simply not achieve this response. The focus needs to be on the next ten years, as choices made within this period will be crucial for preventing catastrophic climate change, saving our oceans and protecting remaining natural forests -- all of which are fundamental for human development and well-being. The time-horizon for SDGs should be no longer than two election periods at most, 2020, to ensure immediate implementation and avoid gaps in political commitment. The SDG process must guarantee the full implementation and follow-up of the MDGs.

TheResilient Peoplereport suggests“to achieve sustainability, a transformation of the global economy is required.  Tinkering at the edges will not do the job.” We agree, but find the report' unconvincing in its recommendations.  It’s as though the authors lost the courage of their convictions somewhere along the way.  The upshot looks like “tinkering at the edges”, which simply isn’t enough to save the only planet we call home.

Read more: The "Resilient People, Resilient Planet:  A future worth choosing" report

Pat Lerner is a senior political advisor for Greenpeace International. Written with input from Nathalie Rey, Susanne Breitkopf, Julian Oram, Kaisa Kosonen, Sofia Tsenikli, Sebastian Losada, Mario Ferro and Roman Czebiniak

Notes:

[1] Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report, from theUnited Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)was published in 1987. Its targets were multilateralism and interdependence of nations in the search for a sustainable development path. The report sought to recapture the spirit of theUnited Nations Conference on the Human Environment- the Stockholm Conference - which had introduced environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere.Our Common Futureplaced environmental issues firmly on the political agenda; it aimed to discuss the environment and development as one single issue.

The publication ofOur Common Futureand the work of theWorld Commission on Environment and Developmentlaid the groundwork for the convening of the 1992Earth Summitand the adoption ofAgenda 21, theRio Declarationand to the establishment of theCommission on Sustainable Development.

An oft-quoted definition of sustainable development is defined in the report as:

"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

In addition, key contributions ofOur Common Futureto the concept of sustainable development include the recognition that the many crises facing the planet areinterlocking crisesthat are elements of a single crisis of the whole^[1]and of the vital need for the active participation of all sectors of society in consultation and decisions relating to sustainable development.

Our Common Futureis also known as the Brundtland Report in recognition of Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland’s  role as Chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

[2]2010 estimate, from theWorld Energy Outlook

At the end of 2011, before government officials closed up shop for the holidays, President Dilma demanded final approval on the new Forest Code in Brazil. This new proposal condemns the Brazilian forests and is a deal between government and agribusiness that was made in back rooms and secret meetings. But strong public pressure against the dangerous new code and a lack of consensus inside the Congress prevailed and the final vote was left to 2012.

The Brazilian Congress returned to work yesterday, and the stage is set for the battle for the Amazon to resume.

Please take action: Tell Dilma to stop the new Forest Code 

Raw HTML.. 

The new Code is on the agenda of the Chamber of Deputies to be voted on March 6th, but it could be delayed again, because some deputies are not happy with the text approved by the Senate, as it reduces the benefits earned by ruralists, including the powerful agribusiness sector. The deputies have the last say in the voting before the new law goes to President Dilma's signature and will probably propose a new version of the Forest Code that better fits their needs.

Unfortunately, this outcome would mean that the new Forest Code proposal finally approved by the Senate could get even worse.

But that isn’t everything; the Brazilian Congress is under serious pressure to vote on the new Code as soon as possible to avoid the world’s gaze as the debate moves closer to the upcomingUN conference on Sustainable Developmentin Rio this June. If the vote is delayed again, it could mean that President Dilma will be caught passing a law dismantling forest protection just as she is inviting world leaders to Brazil under the guise of saving the planet.
At this point, only President Dilma can put a stop to the proposed law - the new Forest Code - that could destroy the Amazon.

Tatiana Carvalho is a Greenpeace Amazon Campaigner. Photo: Greenpeace activists at the COP 17 in Durban, dressed as trees protesting the proposed Brazilian Forest Code.