PRESS CONFERENCE BY SWEDEN'S ENVIRONMENT MINISTER ON BEHALF OF EUROPEAN UNION

PRESS CONFERENCE BY SWEDEN'S ENVIRONMENT MINISTER ON BEHALF OF EUROPEAN UNION

Unfortunately, the approach to international environmental governance, particularly following the historic Rio Conference, had been too fragmented to address the serious environmental challenges triggered by the world’s rapidly globalizing economy, Kjell Larsson, Swedish Minister for the Environment representing the European Union, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference yesterday.

Mr. Larsson briefed reporters on the first United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ministerial Meeting on International Environmental Governance, which took place today as part of the ninth session of the Commission on Sustainable Development.  With issues such as climate control and natural resource protection high on the Commission’s agenda, particularly during the run-up to the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, the inputs of the UNEP Ministers would be critical to promoting the coherent implementation of the environmental dimension of sustainable development.  Mr. Larsson added that strong environmental governance would be essential to tackle other important issues, such as the diffuse spreading of chemicals in goods, unsustainable consumption and production patterns, and natural resource exploitation, particularly in poor countries.

At the inaugural meeting of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Switzerland last May, UNEP’s Governing Council decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental ministerial group to undertake a comprehensive, policy-oriented assessment of existing institutional weaknesses, as well as review future needs and options for strengthening international environmental governance.  Mr. Larsson said that today’s ministerial meeting at Headquarters had highlighted the need to aim for a system of global environmental governance that enabled all countries to participate equally, and ensured the legitimacy of international decisions on broad environmental issues.

Summarizing the European Union’s position on international environmental governance, Mr. Larsson said it was of the utmost importance to strengthen UNEP’s role as the lead body charged with setting the environmental global agenda.  Also, the international community should ensure stable, adequate and predictable funding for UNEP.  Sadly, that was not the case today, as fewer that six small countries provided the bulk of UNEP’s funding.  The Union also felt that there was an urgent need for strengthened cooperation between the myriad environmental conventions and their secretariats.  Indeed, harmonizing the nearly 200 existing environmental conventions and their respective monitoring bodies would not only lead to better implementation, but might enhance the efficiency of all international environmental activities.

The Union believed that environmental concerns were integral to all policy areas, he said.  It was important to ensure the participation of all stakeholders, including civil society, industry and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global environmental issues.  International development cooperation, including technology transfer and capacity-building, was also important.  Such cooperation was particularly crucial for developing countries to take an active part in global environmental initiatives.

Mr. Larsson then briefly summarized the European Union’s position on climate change.  He said the Union remained very much in support of the Kyoto process -–

begun in 1997 and elaborated in a Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that seeks to have developed countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  The Union was determined to do its utmost to ensure agreement at the upcoming sixth Conference of the Parties (COP-6) to the Climate Change Convention in Bonn.  Mr. Larsson added that bilateral meetings this week had intensified, and all participants seemed to agree that now was the time to work towards consensus on the issue of climate change.  The Union continued to support the work of the COP-6 President, Jan Pronk of the Netherlands, and welcomed his working paper as a good basis for future discussions and negotiations.  Union member States were also committed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in 2002.

Several correspondents wondered why, in his discussion of the Kyoto process, Mr. Larsson had made no reference to the United States Government’s apparent reticence to comply with the requirements of the Protocol.  “I’m getting a bit tired of talking about the United State’s position on this”, Mr. Larsson said.  “I will say now, as I’ve said in the past, that we are very critical of their apparent withdrawal from the Kyoto process and refusal to ratify the Protocol.”  No one country had the right to avoid its international obligations on the issue of climate change, he continued.  That was particularly true of the Unites States, which was responsible for some 25 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions.  “We would like very much for the United States to come back to the table on this very difficult but important issue”, he added.

Asked what would he do to try and change the minds of representatives of the United States Government, Mr. Larsson said that he had met with Christine Todd-Whittman, head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, among others, to reiterate the Union’s eagerness to discuss that country’s specific concerns.  Those representatives had agreed to “intensify” talks in the near future.  He added, however, that even though representatives of the Japanese Government had noted that there might be a way to reinvigorate United States’ participation in the process, he was not hopeful that the United States would return to negotiations any time soon.

A correspondent said that the general mood hovering over discussions so far this week appeared to be one of “United States bashing”, and asked if that really was the case.  “We haven’t spent any time bashing the United States”, Mr. Larsson responded, “but we do have an obligation to express our opinion about the country’s withdrawal from the Kyoto process”.  While he had no idea of what the United States final proposal would be, Mr. Larsson said that he was aware that its major concerns included the economic problems that might occur from implementing the Protocol’s provisions and the fact that it did not include firm, quantitative commitments on the part of developing countries. 

Mr. Larsson stressed that, whatever the Bush Administration’s position, the Kyoto process was not “dead in the water”.  Indeed, the positive comments on the need to address climate change made this week, including in many discussions held in the margins of the current session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, proved that the process and the Protocol were “alive and kicking”.  He understood the general feeling that that the Protocol would be much stronger with the participation of the United States.  “But if we can’t get that”, he said, “we have to do our best to ensure that the Protocol is still as strong as possible”.

* *** *