Sustainable Development: Norway and the European Union

From the right:Political Adviser Jo Stein Moen (Standing), Senior Research Scientist Oluf Langhelle (Rogalandsforskning), Professor William Lafferty (ProSus), Professor James Meadowcroft (University of Sheffield) and Ambassador & Head of Delegation for the Delegation of the European Commission in Norway, Mr. Gerhard Sabathil.

Let me start by saying that I am very thankful for this opportunity to give comments to THE book "Implementing Sustainable Development: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies", edited by professor. William Lafferty from ProSus and professor James Meadowcroft from the University of Sheffield, both present here today. I am aldso thankful for the opportunity to take part in this important discussion (- In English...)"

In the Inaugural adress (Tiltredelseserklæringen) by the Government til the Storting on the 22 ^nd> of March last year, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg stated (and I quote); "Norway should play a pioneering role in environmental policy." Norway as an environmental forerunner is a goal for this government.

Let me use this opportunity to assure you that the present government views sustainable development as a fundamental, overriding objective - something which is much more fundamental than green cosmetics to hide "business as usual" – policies. What we are talking about is really solidarity - with people in other parts of the world as well as with future generations by leaving them a rich and healthy environment.

Regarding Mr. Langhelles remarks about the not-yet-built gas power plants here in Norway; let me just say that this topic is important, but I propose we can discuss these not-yet-built gas power plants some other time. In Norwegian, for example.

I have read the chapter by Mr. Langhelle, "Norway: Reluctantly Carrying the Torch" as well as a couple of other interesting chapters. I would like to make some comments on the goal and vision of Norway as a "forerunner" that carries the torch – what I consider the main topic in Langhelle’s article.

Let me, however, first say a few words about national efforts to implement goals on sustainability and environmental protection and attempts to compare what is being done in different countries. Such comparisons are extremely difficult, both for methodological reasons, lack of data, different conditions between countries etc. Let me therefore already jump to one conclusion relevant for today’s discussion: I am quite certain that we will not be able to find any clear-cut answer to questions like " implementing sustainable development – who is the winner?" It all depends on which specific elements of sustainable development policies we are talking about.

However, I also have to say that any analyses will depend upon which examples being chosen and which aspects of present policies are emphasized. I consider Mr. Langhelle’s perspective to be a constructive and critical one. I would like to complement this perspective by giving some examples of why I feel Norway has nothing to be ashamed of. I would like to start off with climate and energy policies.

The government views the threats posed by climate change very seriously. We are strongly committed to fulfilling our international obligations to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. We acknowledge that this is a demanding task. Norway has a special composition of energy sources, industrial production and exports that constrains our policy options in this area. Nevertheless, Norway has been a pioneer in exploring and applying response measures domestically. We have for a number of years been at the forefront in introducing economic instruments, with a particular emphasis on curbing emissions to air. One example is the CO ₂ tax. Norway is one of the few countries that has introduced CO ₂ taxes, and the overall tax level on fossil fuels is considerably higher than in most other countries.

The Government is committed to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases and we are in the process of formulating a plan that would ensure we reach this goal. This will be presented in a White Paper on national emission cuts this spring.

Let me turn to biological diversity and the closely related topics of biotechnology and biosafety. Langhelle gives the Norwegian government some credit for playing a catalytic role in the early stages of the negotiations to develop the Convention on Biological Diversity. I think it can be safely said that we have continued to play a constructive role in this field right up to the present, both with regard to the environmental issues at stake and with regard to the concerns of developing countries. Norway played an important role as a bridgebuilder during the difficult negotiations on the Bio-Safety Protocol finalized in Nairobi last year. Norway built the "Compromise group" with Switzerland during the negotiations, and after a standstill that threatened the whole Protocol, contributed to real progress between the main parties; USA (and its so-called "Miami-group"), the European Union and the poor countries in G77.

From the very outset, at a time when the EU had not yet developed clear positions, we worked for a legally binding BioSafety Protocol with strong environmental safeguards and provisions that would benefit developing countries. We were also the first OECD country - in preparations for the Seattle meeting - to take a clear position against suggestions for WTO activities that would in effect undermine the biosafety negotiations. Since Langhelle is concerned with how positions internationally relate to measures at the national level, let me also mention that we have had a quite strict policy with regard to GMO release within Norway. This is another field where it can be quite safely said that EU policies have developed in the direction of our positions.

For environmental reasons – and in line with developing country positions – we have also maintained a restrictive view with regard to patenting of living material. This applies nationally as well as within the European context, and related to the TRIPs agreement under WTO. It is interesting to note that the internal EU debate on this issue is now picking up again in relation to the implementation of the EU directive on bio-patenting, and that more restrictive views on bio-patenting seem to be gaining ground within the EU.

Langhelle is critical to the way Local Agenda 21 was followed up in Norway the first years after Rio, but he writes that "All changed in 1996". The same point is made by Mr. Lafferty. In the book (on page 415) he says that "Once the Norwegian government grasped the broader implications of Local Agenda 21, it quickly moved to promote the idea as a key aspect of a renewed national strategy."

In the book "Implementing LA 21 in Europe" from 1999, edited by Mr. Lafferty, he uses four groups ( "roughly capturing the tempo and quantity of LA21 activity")in the chapter "The status of LA21 in Europe: A comparative overview", to divide European countries from each other, according to their LA21 efforts. There are four groups; "Early-and-many", "Later-and-many", "Later-and-few" and "Latest-and-least"….

Norway is placed together with Denmark and Finland the "Later-and-many"-group, the second best one. Norway was "a slow starter", but there was a shift to the better in Norway in 1996-67, when Thorbjørn Berntsen made LA 21 to what Lafferty describes as "a major framework". Sweden, United Kingdom and Netherlands were rated as nr.1, placed in the "Early-and-many"-group, Austria and Germany in the "Later-and-few"-group and Spain, France, Ireland and Italy in the "Latest-and-least"-group.

As a Norwegian politician representing the Government I don`t want to play a part in a competition here today; Who is the best in environmental efforts? (And I am a bit surprised that there seems to be those who want to turn this into such a competition. )

But since it already has been made a point in the presentations, that Norway – compared to other rich countries and EU – is falling behind in the environmental policy, I must make some remarks. The European Union is an important co-operation partner for Norway, and we have a broad and good co-operation with EU also on environmental issues. We are glad that the Swedish Presidency has Environment as one of three main priorities for their period.

In White Paper (Stortingsmelding) nr. 12 (2000-01), "Norway and the EU at the beginning of a new century", it is clearly stated that the government wants to co-operate, not compete with EU in environmental issues. I don`t want this discussion to turn into a classic Norwegian debate about EU membership. As you all know, EU membership is not on the agenda for the moment. At least not for the Government.

After having read Aftenposten this morning, where the journalist on the basis of this book claims that Sustainable Development is taken more seirously in the European Union than in this country, I must remind you of what the book really says about this. The following lines are from chapter 12, "Patterns of Governmental Engagement" which Lafferty himself wrote (together with Mr. Meadowcroft). In his presentation here today, Lafferty called this a "concluding chapter"; "Assessing the overall behaviour of the ten governments across the decade following the publication of the Brundtland report, it seems that there have been 3 types of reaction to the introduction of sustainable development." So there are 3 "divisions" or "leagues" among the countries in the Survey when it comes to "Overall behaviour" (..) "across the decade"

According to Mr. Lafferty (page 411) "The first response could be described as "Enthusiastic", "Extensive" and "Pioneering". We can read that "At the other extreme is a response which can be characterized as "Disinterested", "Sceptical" and "Disengaged"." And that "Between these poles lie a variety of reactions which can be described as generally "Supportive"- but also as "hesitant" and "uneven".

The conclutions from the book that we are here to present today are very interesting; In the book published today, Mr. Lafferty has placed Norway in the "Premier League", and as we can see below the figure; This is "Government responses to Sustainable Development 1987 – 98". According to the book Norway, Netherlands and Sweden – called "THE ENTHUSIASTS" in the book - (and I quote) "has consistently surfaced as relatively "leading-edge" throughout the preceding evaluation."

I would like to point out what this book (on page 414) calls "Common Features" for the "3 Sustainable Development Enthusiasts" Norway, Netherlands and Sweden:

1. Strong support for the UN, UN Environmental Program and UN Commission on Sustainable Development
2. UN development Aid target met (more that 0,7% of GNP)
3. Domestic and foreign policy stance is adjusted in conjunction with reception of Brundtland report
4. Pushers on climate change and biodiversity
5. Consistent efforts to develop new paradigm for environmental policy
6. Modest ecological tax reform
7. Emphasis on international diplomacy and solidarity with developing countries
8. Self-perception as leading states in sustainable development implementation

We can also read that Norway has " Launched international initiatives on sustainable production and consumption".

I think this indicates that Norway IS a forerunner in the international society.

Competitions and comparisions on environmental efforts between countries are interesting, but not always accurate. For example; even though I think Norway`s total environmental efforts can be compared with any other rich country in the world, I am not sure if Norway is the nr.1 - "The Worlds leading ECO-defender", which was the term used by Newsweek two weeks ago, based on a so-called "Pilot Environmental Sustainability Index" done by "Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy" and "Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University."

I would like to bring forward another interesting survey, where "outsiders" look into Norway`s total engagement on environment and management of natural resources: The report is "OECD Economic Surveys 1999" : "Sustainable Economic Growth - Natural resources and the environment". These 6 explicit quotes from OECD in Paris from 1999, also indicates that our environmental policy is a good one;

1. "Norway has traditionally held a leading position in the field of Sustainable Development" (page 14)
2. "Norway stands out for its valuable efforts to stimulate international cooperatoin on environmental and resource management policies" (page 16)
3. "Norway probably has the most extensive framework for environmental politicies of all countries in the world" (page 90)
4. "Norway has been one of the main proponents of putting climate change on the international agenda" (page 92)
5. "Norway was one of the five countries to implement a carbon tax to curb CO2-emissions" (page 93)
6. Norway stands out by its valuable efforts to stimulate international cooperation on global and transboundary environmental policies" (page 116)

This MUST NOT be misunderstood; The present Labour government is not 100% satisfied with all the results and progress made in the 90`s. Some things have worsened, some goals have not been fulfilled. And a lot can still be done. Therefore the Labour government will launch a lot of concrete and radical new environmental proposals this spring.

Heavy trends in this country must be turned and reversed. Especially when it comes to trends like the increase in private consumption, energy use and car traffic. But these trends are the same in Norway as in all other rich countries.

My point is: The total Norwegian environmental policy is not good enough, compared to what it ought to be - but Norway`s policy is rather good compared with other countries. And in the international society Norway actually plays an important role in areas such as peacekeeping, conflict resolution and bridgebuilding. This must and will continue. And as I stated early in my intervention, it is an explicit goal for the Labour government that Norway still should play a pioneering role in environmental policy.

Continued pressure from scientists, NGOs and media is necessary to get ecological safety on top of the agenda in the time to come.

In the forthcoming process towards the next World Summit - the Rio+10 meeting which will take place in South Africa in 2002 - we must all evaluate what happened after Rio. What did we manage, and what went wrong? Why did we not reach all our goals? The book presented here today is part of this important process. Governments, scientists, political parties, civil society and each and one of us must figure out how we can contribute to make the next ten years better for the environment and our common future.

• Thank you for your attention!

(The speach was given at the presentation of the book "Implementing Sustainable Development: Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies", edited by prof. W. Lafferty (ProSus) and prof. J. Meadowcroft (University of Sheffield). Both editors participated in the panel, together with scientist Oluf Langhelle (Rogalandsforskning), Ambassador Sabatihl from the European Union and Jo Stein Moen.)

From the left:Political Adviser Jo Stein Moen), Ambassador & Head of Delegation for the Delegation of the European Commission in Norway, Mr. Gerhard Sabathil, Professor James Meadowcroft (University of Sheffield), Professor William Lafferty (ProSus) and Senior Research Scientist Oluf Langhelle (Rogalandsforskning).