Check against delivery

Nobel Laureate, Professor Wangari Maathai, members of the Nobel Committee, Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

When Egyptians want to describe unsuccessful attempts by one person to become intimate with another, they sometimes say: A thousand raps at the door, but no salute from within. We may all recognize this situation; we may all have been there one time or another. But I find this saying pertinent to a quite serious issue – women standing before the doors where decisions are being taken. When Kofi Annan presented his progress-report for the Millennium Development Goals last year – he stated that almost no progress could be detected for an increase in women’s participation in government. This is endemic for local government as well as national government - it is endemic for womens’ rights and voice - a thousand raps at the door, but no salute from within.

If we are to be successful in combating poverty – and we are to be successful - women must have a voice. Professor Maathai has taken a voice, provided a channel for voices and inspired others to use their voices. Participation and voice should be entitlements – but in reality – the door is often closed. This is unfair to women – and it is a problem for all. We know that poverty is increasingly lopsided towards women. We know that no measures work more effective against poverty than the provision of rights and education for women. We know that good governance is the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and providing development – we can hardly call it good governance if half the population is outside – knocking on the door.

What is good governance? Is democracy enough – the organization of elections? No. In order for us to reap the fruits of good governance, government must have the ability as well as the will to provide rule of law, effective institutions, human security and vital government services. Institutions, rules and systems must support equity and be pro-poor. Good governance means to keep a consistent focus on poor people’s participation in the development process. Inclusion is a key word – a thousand knocks on the door must be heard.

Constructive engagement is a key word from the realm of high politics – it describes the nudging of regimes in need of reform forwards – the alternative to isolation. But I think we need not let high politics have a monopoly on the notion. It also captures the essence of civil society movements; people engaging constructively to better their situations. Constructive engagement to safeguard the natural resources people depend on for their livelihood, for their families. Constructive engagement for empowerment.

In Kenya of a few years back, the rule of Daniel Arap Moi deteriorated into a system for the adminsitration of injustice and oppression. What better breeding ground for violent unrest? The way I see it, all the ingredients were there. But it did not happen. Why? Maybe also because civil society became prepared. Maybe also because empowerment was happening from below. Maybe also because people gradually developed the feeling that they could claim the right to influence their own lives and mobilize their own resources. To find solutions and make choices.

I have always meant that the fight against poverty and the safeguard of the environment are linked to the promotion of peace. We base a lot of our work on that assumption. An increasing share of developmental resources is now channeled to peace-building efforts and the prevention of conflict. That’s why we have developed a separate Strategic Framework for Peace-Building. But we are too slowly realizing the importance of dealing with soft-power issues as ingredients in peace building – in a serious way.

Researchers into peace-promotion have had difficulties demonstrating that either poverty or environmental factors separately, in and by themselves, are strong determinants of conflicts. But we know that degradation of living standards and the loss of livelihoods are such reasons. The loss of livelihood may be the result of a number of elements. Some of them are amenable to immediate policy changes and lack of good governance. Others are the result of environmental degradation of natural habitats such as forests or arable land and water. Which are again linked to governance-issues – very few are uninfluenced by decisions taken about their management.

Poor people tend to be the ones most directly dependent on the environment and the use of natural resources. They are therefore also often most severely affected when resources are degrading. Poor people are also the most vulnerable when exposed to environmental hazards and environment-related conflicts, and have the least access to alternatives if or when they occur.

Water resources are one case in point. Through the prism of water one may see a number of challenges; of livelihood and development, of peace or unrest, of sustainable development.

There are, therefore, several reasons why our government is funding quite a few activities linked to the management of water–resources. Some of them have the objective of understand the underlying role of water in a given conflict – one example is the Middle East. Some - to explore or experience in which way joint management of shared resources can be a constructive element in building transboundary trust. Take the Nile – one salient example. The Nile is water for life for the people in 9 African countries. As such potent focal point for potential trasboundary conflict – but also the potential for shared experiences and trusted cooperation across boundaries. If serious conflict should happen around the management of the Nile – it could include so many poor people’s livelihoods – the future of so many communities. We therefore work closely with the Nile Basin Initiative – to facilitate ways in which all 9 states can seek solutions together – in a peaceful way.

We seek all the projects because water is livelihood – whether it runs in river deep or shallow stream or is present in such limited amounts that it can only sustain a precarious existence for nomads – as prof. Maathai mentioned in her speech.

The immediate cause of the tragedy in Darfur is the ruthless behavior of government forces and militias towards unarmed civilians. But behind the disaster of today is the land degradation of northern Darfur of the past two decades. Extended drought and poor land management have pushed the desert southward year by year and forced Arab nomads from the north deeper into southern farmlands. This causes resentment and conflicts. Even if this is the most recent and tragic contemporary example, unfortunately there are many more critical situations. Poverty and environmental degradation work together in a vicious circle – and indeed lead to conflict. And, I think we shall see more of this in the future. Because if we look at two factors, projections of poverty-levels and population growth, we might see devastating effects. If current trends are not arrested, if we don’t act – there will be more people living in absolute poverty in Africa than in Asia. The shift will happen in the next 10 years. At the same time, population growth might lead to increased scarcity water, of land and other vital natural resources people depend on for their livelihood. And there is reason to assume – out of this conflict will grow. That is why we have to act – and this is about development and environment.

When we learn more about this we may be able to deal with it. But – lasting solutions must come from within – from outside we can only lend a helping hand. That is way this Nobel Prize is so important.

Solutions from within – that means government and civil society. It implies open debate, empowerment, mobilization and participation – in short - democracy. Just as The Green Belt Movement has done.

Does democracy provide a guaranty against environmental degradation? No, unfortunately not. I would not go so far as certain pessimists who claim that democracy is systematically unable to handle environmental challenges where solutions do not provide immediate or direct benefit. According to this view democracy is not conducive to convince citizens that they need to accept on the individual level costs of unpopular political, for a diffuse but vital good to be provided in the future – such as the safeguarding of our climate. This is too pessimistic. But, unfortunately we must resign ourselves to the fact that a lot of work needs to be done once democracy is installed and the right to participate is respected. We must resign ourselves to the reality that Democracy only solves most problems better than the other models of government. The rest is up to us.

We now have ample opportunity to take this message forward. We have the guidelines to act – indeed - all governments have signed up for Millennium Development Goal number 7 – which established the duty for governments to improve management for sustainable development – and we must see this as a golden opportunity. It is up to us, to you, to hold governments accountable, hold them to their promises – to make sure words are followed by action - by reality. Here, professor Maathai, you have a key role to play – to be an advocate for the environment, for sustainable development. Leaders need you, African leaders need you. They need you to tell them that poverty reduction, economic development and growth cannot happen, in the long run, without sustainable management. They need you to tell them that the future for Africa lies in the empowerment of the people, not only the right to raise their voices, but in the releasing of their potential. They need you to tell them that the future of Africa lies in the empowerment of women.

That’s why this prize is so important. And, let me add one more reason why I find this prize so pertinent for our challenges; it is right when the Nobel Committee takes into account that peace is so much more that the absence of war between nations. Peace is also happening locally – conflicts are also happening locally. More and more so we are reminded of this – and we need to remind ourselves that people live their lives locally. The diffusion of conflict, the prevention of conflict through sound and democratic management of disputable resources – this is peacemaking on the small level – important for the people living there. And important for the people living in similar situation. But it is also peacemaking of a potent kind – small disputes exploited and growing into big disputes – may cost a lot more lives – small disputes diffused locally may safe a lot of lives. So - peace is also a local thing.

Dear friends, posted on a wall in my office-corridor, there is a quote by Madeleine Albright – It makes me laugh when nothing else is funny. She says ”there is a separate place in hell for women who don’t help each other”. I think she might be right. But ideas about the architecture of the place she mentions aside – we know that there is a better place on earth for women who do help each other.

Professor Wangari Maathai, it is a pleasure to be here with you again today – dear friends, lets work together to create that place on earth. Thank you