Resilience 2008 – High Level Policy Dialogue

Check against delivery

Ladies and gentlemen,

Recently, we have witnessed unrest and protests in countries like Haiti, Côte d'Ivoire, the Philippines and Egypt over the steep increase in food prices. The World Bank estimates that there has been an 80% increase in three years.

You may ask why I am mentioning this in in connection with disaster risk reduction and climate challenges.

I am doing so because one of the reasons for the increase in food prices is arguably the increase in demand for biofuel, which has led to a reduction in the area available for food production. Biofuel has been developed as a response to the challenge of climate change. But might it turn out to undermine our efforts to alleviate hunger? Might it lead to deforestation? And even to fuel conflict by intensifying instability and the vulnerability of weak states?

This is a vivid illustration of the challenge we are facing: to seek solutions that are sustainable and that take into consideration different needs of different people in different situations – across the globe.

Dear friends,

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this morning’s session of your high-level policy discussion.

Many of the themes of this conference are on the agenda when the Nordic foreign ministers come together for their regular meetings such as the one I will be attending here in Stockholm today.

The success of Nordic cooperation is to a great extent a result of the multifaceted, informal contacts between our countries. And the open and constructive Nordic exchange of ideas and viewpoints will doubtless be very valuable also in this particular field.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity today to focus on some of the challenges we face as policy makers. And I would like to do so by sharing with you some insights from the recent Oslo Policy Forum on “Changing the Way We Develop: Dealing with disasters and climate change” –  in which I believe several of you who are present here today participated.

The conference was jointly organised by UNDP, ProVention and Norway in February and provided us with three important insights that might also be relevant for this conference.

Perhaps the best way to start is by summarising the keynote address delivered by Professor Jeffrey Sachs. 

His message was clear and simple: we have to fulfil our promises on development – on poverty reduction and the Millennium Development Goals.

If we do not – if we renege on our aid commitments and do not ensure that the development and climate agendas come together – we will not achieve an agreement on climate change mitigation and adaptation in Copenhagen next year. It is that simple – and that challenging.

And we need to have the developing countries on board – because they are producing an increasing share of the world’s greenhouse gases.

* * *
 

To go back to the conference itself, the first insight I would like to share with you is that we need to reduce the widespread distrust in the South regarding the climate change agenda through our actions on the ground – on poverty alleviation, on health, on food security. Otherwise, the zero-sum-view of the world – that climate change will only lead to a diversion of development aid – will scuttle an agreement in Copenhagen.

Furthermore, we know that achievement of the Millennium Development Goals is already jeopardised by current levels of disaster risk. Climate change is fundamentally altering the landscape of risk as we know it – causing more heatwaves, floods, droughts and hurricanes, as well as rising sea levels – in terms of both frequency and intensity.

Vulnerability to these hazards is also on the increase, due to factors like persistent poverty, poorly planned urban development, environmental degradation and population growth.

The process of determining priorities and modalities for climate change adaptation is under way. And this work is urgent. We cannot choose between adapting to climate change, alleviating poverty and reducing disaster risks. The three areas are profoundly interrelated.

But in order to influence this process, those working with development, disaster risk reduction and resilience need to communicate with the climate experts. To borrow a phrase from the conference: they need to get on the climate change adaptation bus.

This bus will be the main vehicle for building local resilience in the years ahead, and will have the greatest resources. But these two communities – the development community and the climate change community – belong to different cultures and different ministries. They do not speak the same language – and most importantly, they hardly speak to each other.

Let me give you a concrete example. The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs believes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should undertake an assessment and prepare a special report on the humanitarian consequences of climate change. In addition, we would like to host a scoping meeting in connection with such a report. In order for this proposal to be presented formally to the IPCC, we will need to persuade the head of the Norwegian delegation  – who may well work for the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority – that it is a good idea. Which – to he or she – may not be self-evident.

It is unlikely that these negotiators will listen to arguments from outside the climate change discourse if these arguments are not phrased in terms of mechanisms and concepts they are familiar with. Simply claiming that disaster risk reduction is complementary to adaptation will most probably not influence the process of preparing for the climate summit in Copenhagen. It will not in itself convince those that need to be convinced.

So, this was the second main insight from the discussions in Oslo: we need to increase the mutual understanding between climate change experts, the development world and ongoing risk reduction initiatives.

Finally, I would like to stress that we now have an opportunity to take advantage of this early phase to consider how disaster risk reduction can be dealt with in an integrated manner. We need to look at how we jointly approach governments and promote change. 

So far there is no clear, agreed methodology. (To some, the disaster risk reduction community seems to be behind the times in terms of transcending the “project disease.”)

On the other hand, National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) have been a useful means of introducing climate change adaptation into national debates. But they are only a small start.

Neither the advocates of disaster risk reduction nor those promoting greater investment in climate change adaptation have been able to convince ministries of finance to earmark sufficient resources.

And the ownership of this agenda by these ministries is at the heart of genuine change. Uncertainties remain about the costs of climate change adaptation. The underlying challenge is to ensure that these uncertainties do not become an excuse for paralysis, but rather a spur to action and learning.

The third insight that I would like to share with you is that national level has to be seen through the lense of local level. Existing national development plans in conjunction with related local development plans must be our starting point. Ownership by national as well as local decision makers is necessary to ensure that climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction are jointly integrated at national level.

* * *

To conclude, let me just say that there is clearly a need for swift and constructive action on development, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation on the road from Bali to Copenhagen – and beyond.

In order to achieve this goal, we need active international diplomacy and a better integrated approach.

According to Jeffrey Sachs, we are talking about a “miracle” in international diplomacy over the next 18 months.

And on top of that, a good dose of hard work.

Thank you.