The Emerging Significance of the Environment

The speech made by the Dr. Palitha B. Kohona, Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at the felicitation Ceremony for Champika Ranawaka, Minister for Environment & Natural Resources held yesterday (5th December 2008) at the BMICH

by Dr. Palitha T.B. Kohona
Secretary/Foreign Affairs

(December 06, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It gives me great joy and pride to be here to felicitate the Hon. Patali Champika Ranawaka, again, on his election as the Chair of the Conference of the Parties to the Vienna Convention on the Ozone Layer. He richly deserves it, not only because of his extensive familiarity with the subject, but also because of his zeal, determination and commitment to work for the betterment of the environment. He has established his credentials within the country. Now he is being recognized globally. The fact that he is our environment minister is also a particular reason for my feelings of joy.

The environment has rapidly become a concern for politicians, policy-makers, economists, sociologists and diplomats. It is no longer an issue only for environmentalists. Today, no discussion on the environment can be concluded successfully without the involvement of politicians, policy-makers, economists, social analysts and even military strategists. It is the perennial favourite of journalists and commentators. Undoubtedly, it will continue to grow as a key issue on the political landscape, both domestically and internationally.

I myself have had a long standing relationship with the Vienna Convention on the Ozone Layer, having once been offered the Executive Director’s position in the Ozone Secretariat. But that is another story.

At this stage, let us take a peek into history. The first major conference on the environment took place in Stockholm in 1972. There were names that were well-known then, but which became famous later on – of those who participated in that Conference and established the environment as a critical issue on the global agenda. Gro Harlem Bruntland was one of them. She later became Prime Minister of Norway and also the Director-General of the WHO. There was Mustapha Tolba, who subsequently became the Executive Director of the UNEP. The list of well-known names was quite impressive. The Bruntland Commission issued the report “Our Common Future”. The awareness that was raised in Stockholm continued to be consolidated over the years.

A series of major environmental catastrophes around the world helped to focus public attention on the problems with the environment. The Minamata disaster highlighted the problem in Japan. We remember the Bhopal incident which caused over 2000 deaths – there are thousands who are still suffering from the after-effects of Bhopal. Chernobyl occurred around the same time. Vast areas of Ukraine became permanently uninhabitable following this accident. The Exxon Valdez accident caused irreparable damage to the pristine environment of Alaska. The Amoco Cadiz spill caused huge damage to the coastlines of France and Spain. The blatant dumping of large quantities of toxic waste in Nigeria in the 80s, previously the much publicized toxic fog in London which caused innumerable deaths and illnesses, the destruction of the forests and lakes in Northern Europe by acid rain, the wholesale depletion of fish stocks around the world, both due to over-fishing and also the pollution of the oceans, all contributed to arousing popular awareness. The collapse of the North Atlantic cod fishery is well documented and led to the famous “Cod Wars”.

With the general recognition by a substantial proportion of the population of developed countries of the growing threat to the environment, we witnessed two interesting developments. It must be emphasized that these developments occurred mainly in the developed West, in countries such as the United States, the Northern European countries, Australia and New Zealand. One was the rapid growth and increasing political impact of active non-governmental organizations, essentially focusing on the conservation and rehabilitation of the environment. Some were pragmatic and issue-focused in their orientation, others emphasized the need for strong global legal regimes. In time, some of these groups became International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). Organizations such as Green-Peace, the World Wildlife Fund, etc. come to mind. They became very well organized, well-researched, well-staffed, well-funded and they took on issues that were sometimes global in nature such as the preservation of the ozone layer, climate change and sea-land rise, biological diversity, hazardous wastes, etc. Some such as Greenpeace, boasted budgets bigger than those of many sovereign states.

The second interesting phenomenon was the gradual infiltration of the political spectrum by environmental issues. Again, you find this phenomenon occurring in the developed West in the first instance. In the developing world, the environment at that stage, was not a major issue, politically speaking, mainly because there were other more pressing needs to be addressed, such as adequate food, adequate shelter, potable water, over-population, etc. Once the political elements of Western societies became conscious of the need to deal with environmental issues and influenced by it, it was only a matter of time before they were converted to global issues. It is a fact of life that once the developed world becomes seized of an issue, it is only a short time before it becomes an issue for the entire world, whether it is human rights, disarmament, or the environment.

There were good reasons for this heightened concern for the environment in developed countries. The increase in headline-grabbing accidents was important. Furthermore, the depletion of the ozone layer was affecting fair-skinned people of European stock more than the rest of the world. Skin cancer became a major health issue in Australia and in the United States. Naturally, the need to repair the depleted ozone layer became a priority for these countries. Global warming was beginning to impact on fisheries, agriculture and weather patterns in the developed North. Unusual winters, extraordinarily hot and dry summers and hurricanes in the Caribbean were beginning to affect people’s health and their vacations. The conservation of biological diversity, although it attracted the attention of some activists in the developed North, didn’t seem to attract the same focus, because it was more of a problem for developing countries.

It was also an era of youth idealism that was reacting to the conservative governments in control of most Western countries. A key initiative for addressing these problems was taken in the context of the United Nations in the late 80’s when the UN agreed to convene a conference of Heads of States in Rio in 1992. Originally, the draft Resolution that proposed this conference dealt only with environmental issues. Subsequently, due to the efforts of developing countries, it was amended to include development as well. The Rio Conference was billed as a Summit on the environment and development. In the debates that preceded the Rio Conference, a number of critical compacts were negotiated – one was the Rio Declaration and the other was Agenda 21. The Rio Declaration which was later adopted by consensus, incorporated a number of basic principles applicable to all countries in their efforts to deal with environmental problems. Agenda 21 was a detailed document that provided for specific measures to address particular areas of the environment. In the process of negotiating the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21, we also witnessed the development of a number of important principles. The precautionary principle, the sustainable development principle, the common but differentiated responsibility principle, are amongst these. The international community also negotiated two seminal conventions which were opened for signature at Rio. One was the UN Convention on Climate Change and the other was the Biological Diversity Convention. The negotiations that preceded the adoption of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 and these two Conventions amply illustrate the transition of the discussion on the environment from the technical environmental area to the economic/political/policy areas. Each one of these documents was seriously contested and minutely discussed before they were adopted.

At this point, we also note the emergence of another factor in this process, which was the entry of the developing countries into centre stage. As the discussion of the environment progressed, it was soon recognized that no solution to an environmental problem could be sustained unless developing countries also participated in the process of searching for solutions and implementing them. It was necessary for developing countries also to be committed to achieving the same goals. For example, whatever that was done in the developed North to reduce emissions levels in order to address climate change and global warming would have little or no impact, unless the fast-industrializing countries of the developing world were also brought into the equation. Similarly, ozone depletion and the issue of skin cancer could not be addressed properly, unless developing countries also were party to the regulatory framework. This was a major challenge. The developed world that had adopted environmentally-harmful development models in their rush to prosperity and in the process, ravaged the environment, was now seeking to continue its prosperous life-styles, while seeking ways to redress the damage that had already been done. The developing world would not come to the party, unless they were permitted to continue their development efforts and of course, here was the conflict. As Ambassador Das Gupta of India said in an oft-quoted statement during the final round of negotiations on the Climate Change Convention, “For the first time, the developing world has something to negotiate with. Either we are assisted in our efforts to address the common environmental problem, or we will simply watch the environment deteriorate further. Today, we either swim together – or sink together”.

Reflecting the urgency of the situation, developing countries were financially assisted to participate in the negotiations that preceded Rio. The conflict that arose from this obvious discordance in goals, could be solved only in one way. The developing countries needed modern technology, which was available, but costly, to adopt a development model that was different from the one that was adopted by the developed countries a century earlier and which devastated the environment. If this did not happen, the developing world could have continued to use environmentally-harmful technologies, borrowed from the West, so that their own aspirations to development and more creature comforts could be satisfied in the first instance.

The first time that this issue was addressed head-on was during the 1990 London Meeting to review the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention on the Ozone Layer. During that meeting, after much hard, horse-trading, it was agreed that developed countries would eliminate the use of substance harmful to the ozone layer. Developing countries which were allowed a grace period, were to be provided with modern ozone-friendly technologies as they reached for comforts such as air-conditioning, aerosols, etc. For this, resources would be made available from a facility that would be funded essentially from the industrialized countries, and the World Bank. In return, the developing world made a commitment to adopt only ozone-friendly technologies in the future. An Ozone Secretariat would monitor implementation and assist wherever possible. This bargain worked. We know that the ozone hole that had begun to appear over the Antarctica in the 90s has begun to close-up. In fact, it could be said that this is the most successful international environmental convention out of the many that have been concluded. In this context, Minister Champika Ranawaka has a very critical responsibility, guiding the Conference of the Parties and continuing the good work that began over 17 years ago and ensuring that the ozone layer is replenished to the full. It was originally estimated that the ozone layer would take till the year 2050 to be repaired if the provisions of the Vienna Convention and its Montreal Protocol were fully complied with. However, now we believe that this goal would be achieved much earlier, because the compliance rate under the Convention is extremely good. In fact, Sri Lanka is one of its model compliers.

The heady days of Rio in 1992 are a distant memory. The armies of environmental NGOs, bloated government delegations and excited UN bureaucrats who cobbled together the Rio Convention, Agenda 21, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, have mostly moved on. The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC aroused similar passions five years later. Some of the most committed remain to deal with the continuing challenge of halting or, if possible, reversing the inexorable progression of global warming and climate change and consequent sea level rise; the decimation of biological diversity and a range of other issues. As polar bears enter the list of endangered mammals due to the melting of their hitherto frozen habitat, others have joined to man the environmental barricades. Over the years, over 300 environment-related agreements have been concluded by the international community. In addition to the global agreements, a number of regional compacts have been concluded, including by SAARC. Many a convention-based Secretariat has been established.

Over the years, the fact of climate change, largely induced by human activity, has been accepted by the international community, and even by the majority of the original skeptics. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is now quite categoric about the impact of human activity on the climate and its reports have increased their tone of urgency. Unfortunately, while the nature of the problem is understood, there are widespread and almost irreconcilable differences on how to deal with this threat. While overwhelming agreement exists that climate change is caused largely as a result of human activity, the world of humans continues to spew-out Green House Gasses (GHG), and the planet has warmed to a level never experienced before. It is estimated that an increase of the global temperature by 2˚celcius, would melt the summer ice in the Arctic, cause high glaciers to disappear and increase sea levels by a devastating 2 – 3 meters.

The emergence of the environment as an international issue had a number of implications. First and foremost, the apparent unity of purpose amongst developed countries collapsed, especially with regard to the Climate Change Convention. The Europeans, on the one hand, having adopted a global approach, were insistent on a solution through emissions limits. The United States of America, on the other, after having signed the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, refused to ratify. Australia also refused to join the Kyoto Protocol for 17 years. Their basic argument was that a solution through emissions limits was economically unviable and could not be sustained. Contrary to the understanding reached in 1992, they also insisted on commitments from developing countries on emissions levels. It was also continued to argue that climate change due to human activity was not scientifically proven. Australia changed its position just last year, but the United States is still to come on board. However, it is anticipated that the new administration of Barak Obama will adopt a more enlightened approach to this issue. And almost on every issue, except the Ozone Convention, the developed world did not seem to have a consolidated position, thus making negotiations difficult. The developing countries, which in 1992, were not considered to be major contributors to environmental degradation and climate change, have to everybody’s surprise, assumed a prominent role. China and India combined, now produce approximately 40 percent of the world’s product and are rapidly increasing their GHG emissions levels. China may soon overtake the United States as the key emitter of GHGs. Although on a per-capita basis, it still lags, trailing far behind. There are also other countries like Brazil, which have developed faster than anticipated. Although in 1992, developing countries were not required to make commitments with regard to Green House Gasses, now it becomes an issue. The interests of developing countries are not the same. Small Island States threatened by sea-level rise, formed their own grouping. Of course, the environment issue cannot be addressed simply on an environmental basis. The problem contains enormous economic implications, social repercussions and political consequences.

In 2002, the first Review Conference of the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 was held in Johannesburg, South Africa. The entire exercise was led by Mr. Nithin Desai, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations. Given the then-existing political climate, it was decided that it would be better to focus on technical issues. Accordingly, the 2002 Review Conference concentrated on issues such as water, sanitation etc. The whole question of addressing climate change or biological diversity in a holistic manner, was not raised.

The future poses a serious challenge. We need to be conscious of a number of factors in addressing the huge environmental issues that confront us. Climate change and global warming, sea-level rise, pollution of the oceans, devastation of fish-stocks, glacier-melt, desertification, loss of biological diversity, rapid loss of forest cover, etc. Due to the fact that developing countries did not develop to the same extent as the industrialized world, has given them an advantage with regard to environmental issues. Many tropical countries still possess vast forests. They are also the main repository of the globe’s biological diversity. There is a link between these assets possessed by developing countries and the key to addressing global environmental issues. The perennial questions of ensuring Third World development in an environmentally-sustainable manner has become critical. If the world is to progress, which means that the developing countries also progress while the developed world maintains an acceptable standard of living, there will have to be a re-alignment of resources and an adjustment in attitudes. Maybe, it is time again to look at these issues in the same way that negotiators of the Vienna Convention on the Ozone Layer and its Montreal Protocol approached their challenge in 1990. One lesson that we learnt from the Montreal Protocol is that it is much easier to deal with problems in a compartmentalized manner than in a global manner. The ozone depletion problem was an identified problem within the global framework of environmental issues and the world was ready to deploy its scientific knowledge and resources to address it. It was also critical that the developed world commit itself to deploying financial resources and modern technology to deal with this problem. And we have very positive results. The developing world, for its part, made a commitment to adopt a model that was different from the one which was followed by the developed world. We may look upon climate change in a similar manner also – I may not be popular for saying this, but a practical approach might be to compartmentalize the various aspects that contribute to global warming and consequently to climate change and address them separately. For example, tropical rain forests could be addressed on their own. Already there is a UN-sponsored dialogue with regard to tropical rain forests. It must be remembered that these forests are a resource which the developing world possesses. If the developing world is not to utilize these resources for its own developmental purposes, then a mechanism must be developed to provide appropriate compensation, and the compensation must come from those responsible for ravaging the environment in the first instance. Likewise, air travel, long distance haulage, road transportation, shipping etc., could be addressed as separate issues. Alternative energy must surely receive attention. Today, there are viable alternative technologies that could be employed around the world for the production of energy. We may not be able to eliminate the use of hydro-carbons and fossil fuel completely at this stage, but with additional resources being devoted to research and the adaptation of currently-existing technologies, we may be able to achieve much. Already, Brazil is dependent for over 70 percent of its energy requirements on methanol, produced from sugarcane, a renewable resource. Denmark produces approximately 40 percent of its energy from windmills. There are large wind farms scattered through Germany. Solar power is increasingly becoming a viable source of energy. In the case of countries like Sri Lanka, there is huge waste and over-utilization of energy. Sri Lanka is rapidly becoming a vehicle-oriented country. This is demonstrated by the fact that our roads are almost always clogged with vehicles, resulting in a huge waste of precious fuel. Perhaps, it energy is costed in a proper manner, this over-utilization of hydro-carbon-based energy might be reduced. This is true of many developed countries, countries such as the USA, Australia and Canada. The over-use of motor vehicles and road transportation systems is one of the key reasons for the high emissions levels in these countries. The developed world may have to re-examine the question of unmitigated dependency on non-renewable energy for almost every activity, whether it is the use of motor vehicles, heating, air-conditioning, elevator-usage, etc. There is also a move among a number of developing countries to place a carbon value on their forests. In New York, the Rainforest Coalition centered in Columbia University has attracted a number of rain-forest countries like Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Congo, Tanzania, etc. Their objective is to have rainforests accepted as an environmental asset and to allocate a carbon value to them which could then be traded in the same way that developed countries are allowed to trade on carbon emissions.

The European Union has imposed strict rules with regard to allowable catch-levels in European seas. Unfortunately, we find national fleets moving out of Europe and into waters elsewhere. They are the fleets that are responsible for ravaging fish-stocks in the waters belonging to the Third World. A world-wide regime on fishing will have wider political and economic implications. Traditional knowledge gleaned from communities may also need to be protected better. There is no proper regime for the protection of traditional knowledge at the moment. There are many instances where knowledge which had been used for millennia in developing countries has been taken over by Western pharmaceutical companies. A celebrated court case in India focused on the patenting of the active agent in Neem seeds, which we know as Kohomba. Basmati rice has also been genetically modified and patented in the US. It is called “Texmati”. We need to consider possible ways of protecting traditional knowledge in developing countries effectively.

There are some encouraging developments on this issue. Many of the environmental activists who were demonstrating on the streets or protesting against governments in the 80s and 90s have now grown-up. They are senior executives in the corporate world. They don’t to be converted to the environmental cause, because they grew up as part of the cause. In many developed countries, the environment is now part of the national agenda. It is also now part and parcel even of the philosophy of the conservative parties. In Europe, most political parties are pro-environment. In addition, there are many green parties which have become central to the political spectrum of Europe. Many corporations now consider it a badge of honour to be recognized as socially-responsible. The entire concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), is a reflection of this. CSR is good for business, it is good for the image of a company, and it is actively promoted by executives who have grown up during the heady days of environmental activism. Where companies lead, governments follow. An additional factor that has brought environmental consciousness to the fore, is the possibility of court action. In the US, in particular, environmental activists and environmental NGOs have taken corporations and cities before the courts for breach of environmental responsibility. IN the North-East of the USA, three States took the Federal Government to court in 2006 for lowering emissions standards. There are many other such instances. Court cases have been launched in places as far apart as Turkey, the UK and Belgium. The European Commission has, on occasion, prosecuted European companies for breaching environmental standards and has imposed emissions limits on over 10,000 companies. The possibility of being dragged before courts is not only costly for corporations, it is bad for their image. This has had a salutary effect on their behaviour. In addition, the World Bank also has through its International Finance Corporation (IFC), propounded the Equator Principles. The Equator Principles seek to ensure that when the IFC financing is provided for project development, such projects comply with certain basic standards. IFC endorsement of a project is also a sign for the private sector to join-in with financing. The fact that the IFC has propounded these standards has ensured private sector compliance with them when it comes to large developmental projects. World Bank assistance is preceded by environmental impact assessments. Many large companies have subscribed to the Equator Principles, the Citigroup which until recently had assets totaling over $ 95 Billion was one of the first major banks to subscribe to the Equator Principles. Since then, other banks and finance houses around the world have subscribed to these standards. Carbon trading is taking place in the European Community and in Chicago.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The challenge of dealing with the deterioration of the environment is enormous. There are many hopeful signs emerging from governments, as well as from the private sector. But, if we are to leave the environment, that we take for granted, to the next generation, we have to try much harder! Let us not forget that as Arahat Mahinda said 2300 years ago, “We are only the trustees of this world – which we must leave behind to others who come after us”. - Sri Lanka Guardian