The Gutenberg Lectures: Environment Policies Without Boundaries – Foundation for a Peaceful Development, by H. E. Mr. Børge Brende, Norwegian Minister of the Environment. 07.06.04

Sustaining Development - Creating Global Commitment

Excellencies, Dr. Töpfer, Mr. President of the University of Mainz, students, ladies and gentlemen;

Imagine the entire history of our planet as one calendar year – where each calendar day represents approximately 12 million years of history.

The origin of the Earth, some 4.5 billion years ago, is placed at midnight January 1, and the present at midnight December 31:

• In early December, dinosaurs arrived and ruled for a short while, before disappearing on Christmas day.
• Humans made their appearance at the very end, on December 31, but only fifteen minutes before midnight.
• The recorded history of human achievement takes up only the last minute of that year.
• Within that minute, the industrial age represents two seconds.
• And quite amazingly, through the last one quarter of a second before the bell strikes midnight, we have affected nature more than our ancestors had done collectively until then.

In that short period we have transformed the world dramatically. We became capable of:

• sending acid rain across national boundaries;
• transporting toxins to the other side of the world (and vice-versa);
• making a "hole" in the ozone layer – "the world's sunglasses";
• disrupting ecosystems;
• disturbing the climate.

Will that be the legacy of our "15 minutes of fame"?

It doesn't have to be. On certain issues we have proved that we are willing and able to confront the challenges and provide solutions

Take ozone depletion: 20 years ago, scientists discovered that the protective shield of the earth – the ozone layer – was at severe risk. Concern for the health of people, plants and animals became widespread. But world leaders, the international community, science and industry rose to this challenge. Through the Montreal Protocol, the use of ozone‑depleting chemicals in industrialized countries was banned. Industry demonstrated its ability to adapt, and developed alternatives. Intergovernmental cooperation and the commercialization of environmentally friendly products went hand in hand, demonstrating a "best practice" in working towards sustainable development.

In the same spirit as we took on the ozone challenge – we should now approach climate change.

Take acid rain: The acidification of freshwater was for a long time Norway's biggest environmental problem. Lakes and soil were heavily polluted, resulting in depleted fish stocks and plants. But action was taken. The convention on acid rain and the Gothenburg protocol were negotiated and adopted. During the last 20 years, European sulphur emissions have more than halved. By 2010, acid rain over Norway will have been reduced by 93 per cent!

In the same spirit as we took on the acid rain challenge – we should now approach chemicals.

Take wastewater treatment: For decades, the Rhine was one of Europe's most repellent waste dumps. Urban, industrial and agricultural wastewater flowed uncontrolled into it, while water drawn from the Rhine was used for irrigation and drinking purposes. It contained high amounts of heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium and zinc, and other harmful substances, including PCBs and benzene. But decisive action was taken by all countries along its banks to restore the Rhine's health. I remember when you Dr. Töpfer, took your famous swim in the river just outside this beautiful city of Mainz in September 1988. A swim, which in retrospect, serves as the symbol of the Rhine recovery; the courageous Minister of Environment, who once more swims in its waters along with the restored stocks of the mighty salmon.

In the same spirit as we took on the wastewater challenge – we should now approach the provision of safe drinking water.

--o--

I would like to congratulate you Dr. Töpfer, on holding this prestigious professorship at the University of Mainz. There is a tradition of eminent persons in this position. This is the first time the holder is a person with outstanding knowledge and a practical background from the field of environment and sustainable development. It is truly an honour to be invited as a guest speaker at this year's Gutenberg Lectures.

At Gutenberg's birth, knowledge was the privilege of the few. News spread slowly. Innovation was slow, and often perceived as a threat. At Gutenberg's death, printing had opened access to sharing of new ideas and knowledge for the masses. The hand copying of texts had been replaced by effective mass reproduction. The oral distribution of knowledge had been replaced by a culture of writing.

The printing press had become a key to development and change. It is hard to imagine the industrial revolution or the material welfare of our societies without the printing technology.

Just as Gutenberg's invention made it possible to use knowledge to boost development - the same technology – as a precondition for enlightenment, democracy and participation – give us a tool to secure sustainable development.

In the spirit of Gutenberg – we must rise to the challenge and better balance the way we approach growth – and the way we protect the environment.

We need growth – but it has to be sustainable.

Production and consumption is important to provide welfare today. Sustainable production and consumption is even more important to secure welfare tomorrow as well.

Zero growth makes it impossible to eradicate poverty, the most important threat to life. Unhealthy growth makes it impossible to sustain nature, the most important source of life.

To eradicate poverty and protect our ecosystems and bio-diversity, we must use the opportunities nature gives us today, in a way that does not reduce our benefits from nature tomorrow. Zero growth cannot be a goal, but zero emissions most certainly can.

The challenge today is not the ability to act – because we are able. The challenge is to mobilize our willingness to act, and the courage to change our global path towards sustainability.

We must make the most of our toolbox of instruments.

We must apply the same firm and action oriented response as we have managed towards the ozone layer, acid rain and the contaminated Rhine, also towards the broader range of challenges – such as chemicals, biodiversity, climate change and water.

Chemical risks

Imagine that you cannot eat fish, for fear of contaminating your body with mercury. Imagine a mother who does not dare to give mother's milk to her baby, for fear of harming the child's development. It's not imagination – it really happens.

The use of chemicals has proved vital for industrial and economic development. The downside is that the releases of hazardous chemicals have put the environment and human health at severe risk.

The most hazardous substances in the long run are persistent toxic substances that accumulate in the food chain. They are so-called POPs like PCB, DDT and dioxins, and heavy metals like mercury, lead and cadmium. Top predators are at highest risk. So are humans, as the release of these substances returns in the very food we eat.

The Arctic is of special concern, as global winds and ocean currents are turning it into a chemical sink. The environment and human populations in the Arctic are exposed to high levels of POPs and heavy metals, despite no local releases. It is almost impossible, and at best extremely costly, to get rid of these substances once they have been released into the environment. This really makes the case for a precautionary approach – economically as well as ecologically.

It is now time to turn words into action.

We have already agreed to conventions for some hazardous chemicals – the Stockholm Convention on POPs and the Montreal Protocol on ozone depleting substances. Now we need a concerted and global strategy to address the remaining chemical challenges. My proposal is to strengthen the Stockholm Convention to include mercury and other heavy metals.

Our toolbox has the necessary instruments. We must dare to put them to effective use.

Biodiversity

Imagine more than 100 species become extinct every day – amounting to maybe more than 40.000 every year! It's no imagination – the library of mankind is burning.

Biodiversity is a basic resource for human development and for the world economy. 40% of the global economy is based on biological products and ecosystem processes. 10 of the world's 25 top selling medical drugs in 1997 were derived from natural resources. A diverse and exciting nature is the source for outdoor recreation, tourism and education.

Globally, half of the wetlands are already lost. Half of the world’s 1.200 woody bamboo species may be in danger of extinction as a result of massive forest destruction, causing severe threat to the giant pandas and mountain gorillas which relies on bamboo for its survival. Every year, about 16 million hectares of rainforest are lost: almost half the size of Germany.

These causes are manmade. It is our responsibility to stop the current loss.

We must ensure that our policies significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 as agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg 2002. Continued desertification and deforestation will affect us all, but most severely, it will affect the poorest of the poor, who often live in rural areas and off the land.

We should also welcome local initiatives, such as tree planting, supporting this goal. Next week, I will have the pleasure of presenting the 2004 Sophie Prize to Professor Wangari Maathai. She is founder of the Green Belt Movement (GBM) and current Deputy Minister for Environment in Kenya,. This international environmental prize is established by Jostein Gaarder, whom I am sure many of you know as the author of Sofies Welt. To date, GBM has planted over 30 million trees. Not only do such projects prevent soil erosion, enhance soil fertility & water conservation and promote biological diversity, they also provide rural families with greener and cleaner environments, in addition to firewood, timber and fruits.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is the main global instrument for reaching the goal. Now we must turn words into action.

I would like to see a scientific panel that recognises the many interlinkages that exist between the different policy areas: climate change and desertification, chemicals and biological diversity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has shown that science can be a partner in policy making, providing the basis for sound decisions and effective action. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) serves as the natural "habitat" for such a panel, providing a holistic approach to monitoring, a systematic review of environmental indicators and an early warning system.

Our toolbox has the necessary instruments. We must dare to put them to effective use.

Climate Change

Imagine a scenario were the global mean temperature increases as much during the next 100 years, as it has done since the last ice age, ten thousand years ago! It's not imagination. IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, tells us that we could face an increase in temperature between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius during this century, caused by human activity.

A "blue Arctic" with only a minimum coverage by sea ice in the summer could become a reality. Imagine the white majestic of the North, the polar bear, waking up from her winter den only to realise that the sea ice has melted away, leaving her and the cubs stranded on a deserted island. It's not imagination – it really happens.

Drought, desertification, as well as floods, already threaten the livelihood for millions of people, both in the North and South. Just two years ago Germany experienced dramatic floods, turning citizens into water refugees and leaving large cities like Dresden partly under water. More recently, thousands have been reported dead and hundreds of thousands left homeless on the Hispaniola Island (Haiti and the Dominican Republic). Ecological disasters and extreme weather are no longer single-standing issues.

Finding effective response measures to the problem has to have our highest priority. It is time to turn words into action.

Today, a majority of countries (120) have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This is a clear signal that the international community is committed. Now we must build on this commitment and ensure that the Protocol enters into force. I therefore welcome the positive signals from the Russian President on speeding up the Russian ratification process.

However, stronger action after 2012 is needed. We must cover more of the global emissions with participation from all countries. Larger developing countries with fast rising emissions such as India and China should also undertake obligations.

Our toolbox has the necessary instruments. We must dare to put them to effective use.

Water and Sanitation

Water is our source of life. Yet today, 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water.

Imagine women and young girls in Africa and Asia who walk 6 km on average to fetch water – every day. Imagine some 6,000 children dying from waterborne diseases due to unclean water and poor hygiene – every day. It's not imagination. In most developing countries, 90% of the wastewater is discharged untreated, causing adverse impacts on ecosystems and livelihoods.

I have visited areas in India and China where some cities claim they literally will run out of water in 7-8 years. It is not because water supply has been reduced, it's because demand has increased. In developing countries, as much as 90 percent of water is used for irrigation alone.

The world cannot increase its supply of fresh water. What it can do is to change the way it uses it. Of course we must produce food, and we must continue to use water for industrial and economic growth. But to serve an increasing population and the unserved today, there is clearly a need for more effective use of water.

At the UN Millennium Summit and in Johannesburg we promised to reduce by half the number of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water by 2015. Now we must turn our words into action.

We must reorganise our efforts at the global, regional, national and local level. The UN should take steps to develop a global water management plan. Since environmental considerations need to be at the very front in such a plan, UNEP should take a lead role on water within the UN system. UNEP should clarify its own mandate and activities on water and to reposition itself to take on this role.

Water supply and sanitation is mainly a local issue. At the national level, more emphasis should be placed on service delivery rather than developing infrastructure. Sanitation needs to receive at least as much attention and funding. Finally, we should strengthen the role of local authorities and empower community groups to take part in service delivery and management of water resources.

Our toolbox has the necessary instruments. We must dare to put them to effective use.

Distinguished audience;

It is evident that our planet suffers from unsustainable practices. It is evident that our planet is in need of immediate action, and must be guided in a new direction with a policy for sustainable development.

I think it is time that we enhance our efforts:

• to orchestrate multilateral action
• to strengthen compliance, and
• to anchor responsibility

We must orchestrate multilateralism

With more than 200 Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), international environmental governance is too fragmented, shared among too many institutions with overlapping and some times even conflicting interests. The independent secretariats spread across the globe compete for time, attention, and financial and human resources. With too many independent programs and secretariats, too few meet the environmental challenges with a holistic approach.

There is no doubt that we must move forward in a more coordinated and concerted manner. To borrow from the water management analysis: "What we need is not just to fix the pipes – what we really need, is to fix the institutions that fix the pipes".

In my view, we should strengthen the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and turn UNEP into a United Nations Environmental Organisation (UNEO).

The international community has mandated UNEP to be the centrepiece in coping with global environmental concerns. But at present, UNEP is does not have the tools needed to perform and carry out its mandate. An insufficient financial resource base remains one of the serious stumbling blocks for decisive action. More than 30 years on, it is still the little brother among its larger siblings in the UN family.

The annual budget of UNEP is only 100 million USD. This is in fact sensationally low – no more than a third of the budget of the Norwegian Ministry of Environment. In comparison, the World Health Organisation (WHO), a specialised agency within UN, has an annual budget of more than 1 billion USD.

The current system of voluntary contributions is not viable, and a shrinking donor base is of serious concern. I think it is time that we urgently find new ways to ensure that UNEP receives adequate, predictable and stable funding.

We also need universal membership. Unfortunately, many nations still perceive that taking part in global environmental cooperation is too demanding and refrain from participation. In this age of globalisation it is quite a paradox that these really global issues are to be handled by an organization with limited membership and authority.

UNEP should be turned into a real global environmental organization, a UNEO, that can turn the stumbling blocks into one effective stepping-stone. A UNEO would put an even more forceful focus on the overall implementation of international environmental standards and agreements, including the development of a common reporting system and a common dispute settlements system for all MEAs. Finally, a UNEO would assist in the build-up of environmental capacities in developing countries.

We also need to look more closely at how we can reform the overall work within the UN system.

The Rio Earth summit in 1992 was indeed a successful one. But in many ways it marked the end of a process, and not the start of one. For too many years focus was directed towards renegotiation rather than implementation. With this in mind, the international community agreed to reform the work of CSD – turning it into a global springboard for local action.

At the recent session, CSD12, I think we succeeded in reforming the Commission. CSD12 was a checkpoint for implementation, a hub for exchange of best practices and lessons learned, and most importantly, a forum for action-oriented, inclusive and open dialogue. With a clear message from the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan at the opening of the High-Level session; to ensure that "CSD now becomes a watchdog for implementation", Ministers were encouraged to embark on a decade of implementation.

We must strengthen compliance

In my view, we do not lack new environmental treaties and new policy declarations. In my view, we lack initiatives and mechanisms that can implement agreements already made. In my view, we need a compliance regime similar to the international trade regime (WTO): one that is fearless and speaks out whenever agreements are not followed.

The WTO has evolved into one of the most important and effective multilateral regimes in the world today. It has the ability to attract members and discipline them through legal norms, backed by powerful sanctions and a sophisticated dispute resolution mechanism.

In contrast, the environmental regime represents a fragmented form of governance that lacks the coherence, scope and authority of the WTO. We continue to work in accordance with the voluntarist tradition and proceed on an ad hoc, issue-by-issue basis. Punitive sanctions are few and far between.

To put the global environmental house in order, we must create mechanisms that deter non-compliance. Non-compliance must have a consequence.

An International Environmental Court

Without sanctions, non-compliance will always be an option. With sanctions, a court of arbitration is definitely needed. The case for an International Environmental Court is obvious.

As the number and scope of rules in environmental law are increasing rapidly, and as certain natural resources are becoming increasingly scarce, the potential for disputes is likely to increase substantially. Currently, the International Court of Justice in Haag is the main permanent institution that is available in cases of environmental or natural resource disputes. A separate chamber for environmental disputes was established in 1993, but it has never been used. There is definitely a need to establish an International Environmental Court.

An International Environmental Court will provide the opportunity to deal with cases concerning rights and obligations under environmental treaties. It will be possible to submit cases based on states responsibility and liability related to transborder pollution or exploitation of open access resources. In such an arrangement, states should be the primary actors, allowing for private actors as well. The proceedings should be public and interested parties should be allowed to present their arguments before the court.

We must anchor responsibility

In environmental politics, as well as in other fields, governments set the tone for action. However, governments cannot do it alone. We need responsible consumers who demand sustainable products. And we need private actors that can generate growth and provide environmental friendly technological solutions. We must focus on cleaner production. We must create new markets. And we must let consumers make informed choices.

Corporations should still do their business – but do their business differently

Pollution is not free. It leaves the bill for cleaning up to our neighbours, and the costs of lost species to our grandchildren. Therefore, a company must not only pay for the internal cost of production. It should also pay the external costs of its impact on nature and society. This does not necessarily make companies less profitable. On the contrary, it may encourage business and industries to produce in ways that are both more cost effective and less damaging to nature.

Environmental regulations do not only make some harmful products unprofitable. They also open new markets for innovative businesses. Here in Germany, the prospects for export of the German ecology industry is enormous. More than 10.000 companies are providing ecological goods and services as well as environmentally-friendly products. By exporting goods and know-how, these companies not only assume responsibility for global environmental protection. They also make a significant contribution to boost Germany´s economic power.

As with environmental technology, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has moved from the fringe to become a mainstream business issue. Few will buy products from a company that causes harm to societies or pollutes the environment. In Norway, Norske Skog was alleged to produce paper from disputed timber logged in a protected forestry area. When the news reached Germany, the director of the Axel Springer Verlag travelled directly to Norway and asked for personal consultations and inspections. As a result, Norske Skog decided to temporarily halt timber purchases from the disputed area.

Today, hundreds of the largest corporations in the world are part of the CSR indices at two of the largest stock exchanges in the world, the New York and London Stock Exchanges. As an instrument for investors, these indices measure a company's environmental and social performance, turning the corporations into more responsible entities. As Henry Ford said: You cannot build your reputation on what you are going to do. Similar arrangements could also be made at the stock exchanges in Frankfurt as well as in Oslo.

Consumers should use their market power

Transparency is a powerful way of ensuring progress. In Gutenberg's time, the printing presses were used to print political tracts, leaflets and announcements. This became so common that laws of censorship were created to stop unauthorized views. This however, should not apply to processes and products affecting the environment.

Governments and industry should encourage open communication and performance views. They should adopt a policy of public information to name, fame and shame. This could take many forms; a scoreboard or an index. Consumers have a right to know how their purchases will affect them. They have a right to choose not to buy if they become aware that their purchases will harm themselves, others or the environment.

Ladies and Gentlemen;

Every voice must be heard. Some, however, have no voice at all, simply because they are not there – the marginalized and the unborn. When we debate the environment, future generations are not only absent – they are also the ones whose lives are touched by the decisions we make.

It is my conviction that we need to think much more seriously – and constructively – about voice. About how we give voice to the voiceless. Decisions that endanger natural resources, wildlife, or fragile ecosystems cannot be taken anew. We have to think in terms of the precautionary principle: we have to err on the side of safety. So much is at stake, and so much is irreversible. We cannot gamble with the living environment of our future generations.

The moveable types invented by Gutenberg here in Mainz set knowledge free. The printing press became a key to dissemination of knowledge and information. And with it, the power that derives from knowledge, the power to influence, to bring about change, was shifted away from the selected few to the many.

As students, you shape the history of the future. A history, which just like a river, can take the way as it will. But with knowledge and information, you have the power to navigate, to choose direction and make the passage smooth. By taking the right decisions, to bring about change towards a peaceful and sustainable development, future generations will honour you for having begun the voyage.

I thank you for your attention.