Speech at Oslo Roundtable Conference on Sustainable Production

The United Nations Development Programme recently conducted an opinion poll among the poorest people of Gambia. The question asked was "What does poverty mean to you". The answers revealed that what haunted people more than anything else was the spectre of starvation.

Some years ago another opinion poll was made in a Western country. The question was: What do you consider as being the gravest threat to society, ignorance or apathy? A middle class suburban male responded: "I don't know and I don't care.

These two answers illustrate a world of difference and indifference. These are perhaps the two main challenges of today.

Since January 1994, when we held the first symposium on sustainable human activity here in Oslo, the world has further increased its consumption of nonrenewable energy, produced billions of tonns of waste, lost 10 million hectar agricultural land, logged 3,5 billion cubicmeters forest - equivalent to half of Norway's surface, and lost 30 000 spieces. All this while the world economy increased by amounts corresponding to the entire economy of South America.

More than twothirds of this increase in production and consumption was generated by only 18 per cent of the world's population. During the same year the remaining 82 per cent of the worlds population grew by one hundred million.

This situation is not equitable, it is unsustainable, and we need to overcome public indifference to gather support for the change which is needed. However daunting the task may be, this conference has been called for just that reason. How best to deal with compelling global needs.

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations this year, we will recall its great achievements. The integration of scores of new member states, peacekeeping operations, the promotion and protection of human rights, the bringing of relief and assistance to millions of destitute people - all of these bear witness to how the UN has harnessed the best of humanity and civilization. This is all part of the history of the UN so far - a history which also includes protracted stalemates, abuses, bureaucracy and empty rhetoric.

The Commission on Sustainable Development was created in an effort to deal politically with the entire agenda emerging from the Rio Conference. Our consumption patterns, one of the root causes of unsustainability, have at last entered the UN agenda. Will the UN be able to act on the problem? We would fail abysmally should the answer be no. What is required is a much more powerful voice on the part of the CSD.

The next session of the CSD will be extremely important. The expectations at the time of its creation have not been met. Although its deliberations have been necessary, interesting, and forwardlooking, the CSD has not yet managed to influence policies or to coordinate the various UN bodies to the extent that Norway and many other countries had hoped.

The Security Council has in recent years witnessed an explosion of tasks. It has passed a series of very important resolutions, established relationships with regional organizations, and, despite its shortcomings, managed to work much more effectively than ever before in the history of the UN. But environment and development is still being dealt with by the UN in a hopelessly outdated way. Decisionmaking procedures are weak. The agenda is fragmented. The priorities are not sufficiently clear.

We live in a world which, in the words of the Secretary-General Boutros Ghali, is still not fully understood. A great many reports have enhanced our understanding of pressing problems. We have adopted workprogrammes and plans of action, - even socalled priority programms which have been acted on with a conspicuous lack of dynamism.

The task of this Conference is to offer the CSD a set of proposals for action and thus make the CSD a more effective tool for the UN and its members. Clearly defined agendas and clearcut priorities are essential for the CSD to be able to make clear decisions. If we fail in giving the CSD "teeth", it risks becoming irrelevant, ignorable, and arcane. This would be exact opposite of what we need in a year when so much will be said about the UN, its importance and its continued relevance.

The UN can never take on the task really to manage the global economy. This is neither feasible nor desirable. But the UN can pursue and define common standards and norms. It can mobilize resources for a strong international public sector, and help states to develop their social, environmental and economic policies.

But today, states are not any longer the sole and dominant international actor. Transnational corporations are now frequently much larger than the UN, and have an economy larger than that of many states. There is a shift in economic power away from governments, international institutions and even federal banks into boardrooms and to anonymous processes, stockmarkets and branches of industry. The speed and magnitude of these changes threaten our capacity to govern. We have to adapt international cooperation to our new global neighbourhood.

Other international actors which influence world affairs include the CNN, Reuter, and all the competing media networks. Multilateral processes must relate to business, NGOs, and media in a completely new way.

The current speed and scale of global change are unprecedented. The renewal that is now needed will take place in a setting of technological revolution, changing power structures and a profound change in the position of nation states.

The distinct contribution of the Oslo Roundtable will be to focus on the opportunities for environmental improvement by approaching the consumer, as individuals or consumers' organizations. Individuals have a prime environmental responsibility - as consumers, producers and voters and by how they influence or respond to trends, values and norms. Environmental change is a result of millions of individual lifestyle decisions.

Critical attention must be paid to the goods and services that people must have to meet their needs. Consumer goods should be ranked according to a scale of sustainability. Some goods can obviously be consumed in abundance whereas we must steadily reduce the consumption of those which are scarce. Practices that reduce the options of future generations must change. This was stated by the World Commission. It was stated at Rio. It was stated at last years conference here in Oslo. And changes happen. Cars use less petrol. Packaging has changed.

National governments have major responsibilities in terms of providing effective incentives, frameworks, infrastructure and information to enable consumers to make the right decisions. At last years conference I focused on the fact that economic policy must be reconciled with the laws and limitations of nature. But economic policymaking is far from the only means by which governments can influence the environment.

The public sector is also itself a major consumer. Through its market power it can help shape market conditions by applying environmental criteria and goals to their procurement policies. This should be systematically done both on the local and state level. By requiring suppliers to document the sustainability of their production methods, their product qualities, their consumer information and even their own suppliers, the activity of thousands of firms will change.

The incentive for governments to take environmental concerns into account in their economic policies is severely distorted by the fact that use of natural resources is often absent from their accounting. Clean air, living species, and freshwater are not part of the recorded wealth of nations. This must be changed to make it possible for governments to strike the right balance between different needs. I strongly support the work done by the UN and by the EU to enhance our methods for national resource accounting, a field which we started to develop in Norway in the 70-ies.

In Norway we have since the early 1990ies changed the burden of taxation away from labour and towards the environment. We have reduced payroll-taxes and increased carbon taxes. Our level of carbon taxes is one of the highest in the world. However, except for the other Nordic countries and the Netherlands, few other countries have followed suit.

A clear example of environmentally harmful taxation is when national coal production is subsidized and imported natural gas is subjected to taxes and duties. For a small and open economy there is a limit to how far we can go it alone. Thus international cooperation is essential, and one outcome of the Oslo Rountable is to explore how economic systems can be improved through economic instruments in general and changes in our tax system in particular.

The first conference of the parties under the Climate Convention will convene in Berlin two months from now. Climate change is a consumption problem. This problem is part and parcel of the economic life of states. The challenge is a global insurance problem, one which can not be solved through unilateralism , but by the whole international community working together.

China is likely to overtake the US as the main source of CO2-emission in 2020. It is not unlikely that China will double its use of coal in ten years, and its economy is likely to double every 8 years, according to the latest State of the World report. Policies for reducing greenhouse emissions in individual countries will therefore not have the desired effect unless great countries with huge economies, such as China, pursues a policy of reduction of greenhouse gases. We all know that unless China, the US and other major nations are in agreement about the what needs to be done and then go about doing it - our efforts will be discredited. People in all countries understand the dimension of this common task.

We are used to thinking of business as producers. But they are also probably the most important endusers in society. By integrating environmental criteria and goals into their purchasing policies, they can influence the use of environmental goods among their suppliers. The demand for ISO-sertification from suppliers or their environmental accounts, are already powerful tools used by many producers.

Business also plays important roles in helping society to explore the potential for recycling, remanufacturing, reconditioning and even the market of repairservices. Product durability and waste minimization should be important aspects of any business strategy.

Environmental concerns have already changed products and the processes used to make them. Environmental consciousness is part of a new way of competing. The trend is likely to increase and be a permanent source of structural change. There will be winners and losers and need for adjustment. Regulations can also undermine competitiveness if they are weaker than those of other nations. Business will be well advised to cooperate with governments in developing and facilitating the implementation of environmental policies. Good environmental policies will promote competitive industries, benefit consumers and the environment and provide new jobs.

Over the past 8 years, many international environmental agreements have been concluded . A lasting commitment to sustainable development calls for strong international environmental agreements. We need concrete commitments, followup systems which hold countries accountable, and dispute settlement procedures. But the needed dynamism will remain absent as long as decisionmaking procedures are too weak. All too often necessary measures have been watered down and clouded in the deceptive tranquillity which so often is prevalent where consensus is expected. We need more supranationality and more majority voting.

Not all differences are unjust. But the present differences between the rich and the poor are nothing short of appalling. National governments have the greatest responsibility, but the international community must be far more generous that what has been the case, and we in the rich countries should offer new partnerships to the developing world. The 20/20 compact is among the most promising initiatives in the field of sustainable development. It relates to consumption both in the recipient and in the donor country, redirecting funds towards basic human needs and basic public services.

I pointed at the outset to the differences and indifference that we must fight with the strength of our joint resolve. So much is at stake this year: The UN completes its first halfcentury of existence while its funds are being slashed. Words of congratulation will not restore the relevance and strength of the UN. Only countries, issues and decisions can do that. This conference owes the UN a solid, workable, readable and concrete set of proposals. The importance goes beyond the CSD. What is at stake, in 1995, is the quality of global governance.