PRESS CONFERENCE BY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Joke Waller-Hunter, Environment Director of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing this morning that with the right policies, adjusted to tackle the new generation of environmental problems, economic growth and environmental improvements could be achieved at the same time.

Joining Ms. Waller-Hunter as she presented the “Environmental Outlook”, a 20-year projection of OECD environmental problems, was Helen Mountford, Counsellor at the OECD Environment Directorate and one of the principal authors of the report.

Ms. Waller-Hunter said that a major change could be seen in the character of environmental problems.  In addition to an accumulation of pollutants in ecosystems, there was also serious degradation in the quality and stocks of renewable resources, such as water and soil.  As an economic organization, the OECD felt it could no longer separate economic activity from environmental thinking, as if someone else was taking care of the environment, and felt the need to produce such a report.

The report considered the main factors that drove environmental pressures, such as population, continued economic growth, further mobilization of trade and investment, new technologies and consumption patterns, she said.  In examining the broad picture, there could be no absolute separation of environmental degradation from economic growth.  Regarding the link between environment and health, it was determined that 6 per cent of health problems in the OECD countries were due to environmental pressures.

She stated that in examining various environmental problems, the report used a system of traffic lights to classify them.  The “green light” signalled pressures that were decreasing or conditions in the state of the environment for which the future outlook to 2020 looked positive.  The “yellow light” signalled areas of uncertainty or potential problems.  The “red light” signalled pressures on the environment or issues for which recent trends had been negative and were expected to continue to 2020.

Focusing on the “red lights”, Ms. Waller-Hunter noted that it was no longer the big industrial point sources that caused the problems, but mainly what was called “diffused” sources -– agriculture, transport and household consumption.  In the OECD countries, there was a continuous significant pressure on the environment resulting from agriculture.  Over-fishing was another major pressure on ecosystems in the OECD.  One quarter of the world’s fisheries were already exhausted, over-fished or recovering from over-fishing, and 50 per cent of the fish stocks were fully exploited. 

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, she said that projections suggested an energy use increase of 35 per cent up to 2020.  The increase of those emissions from OECD countries was expected to be around 33 per cent in the same period.

Also, serious increases were forecast for both road and air transport, leading to increased pressures on climate change and urban air quality. In addition, a 43 per cent increase in municipal waste generation was expected in the OECD countries by 2020.

She went on to say that the state of the environment resulting from those environmental pressures also contained several “red light” issues.  Among them were the negative impact on global biodiversity from increasing pollution and land use changes.  Also, the quality of groundwater was under serious threat and expected to decline in the OECD countries due to agricultural runoff. Furthermore, urban air quality and related health problems were expected to increase.

There were no “red lights” when it came to the responses to environmental pressures, but rather a number of promising responses, which were categorized as “green lights”, she noted.  In some OECD countries, there was an increase in “green” purchasing and “green” agriculture, as well as a rapid increase in organic agriculture.  An increase in the efficient use of energy and resources per capita could also be seen.

There were also a number of areas where the societal responses were still classified under “yellow lights”, she continued.  They related mainly to the introduction and use of new technologies.  While the potential of biotechnology was huge, since its impact on human health and the environment was still uncertain it was classified under a “yellow light”. 

The message from the Outlook was “slightly optimistic” despite all the “red lights”, she said.  The report identified policy packages for tackling the worst environmental problems, with a preference for the use of market-based economic instruments, such as the further introduction of environmental taxes and the removal of subsidies that had a negative impact on the environment.

However, she continued, they must be combined with other policies, regulations, voluntary agreements, technological incentives and information-based instruments, such as eco-labelling.  It was determined that the existing environmental institutions, both at the national and international levels, needed to adapt to support successful policy design, monitoring and enforcement.  Further partnerships between governments, civil society, business, trade unions, consumer groups, environmental organizations and others were also important.

She added that when the environment ministers of the OECD meet in Paris on 16 May, they were expected to adopt an environmental strategy up to 2010, in which a number of the suggestions made in the Outlook would be incorporated to adequately counter existing threats.  Following that, on 17 May, they would meet with the finance ministers of the OECD to determine how to implement the necessary measures. 

In response to questions on the Kyoto Protocol, Ms. Waller-Hunter said that work on sustainable development confirmed that climate change was a serious problem, which must be combated through short-term and long-term action.  The mitigation of the emissions caused by human activities was essential.  The role of

the OECD in that regard was to provide a platform to its member States -– 30 of the world’s most industrialized nations –- to help bridge the differences among them. 

The analysis done on the economic implications of the Kyoto Protocol showed that the costs of its implementation would be 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), she continued.  If all the greenhouse gases were included in the estimates, as opposed to carbon dioxide alone, the costs would decrease by

20-30 per cent.  What the OECD had done was to provide such analysis to its members, so that they might take informed decisions on the matter. 

Asked if the Kyoto Protocol was “dead” without the participation of the United States, she responded that what was important was that the problem of climate change be tackled.  In theory, the Protocol could be implemented and enter into force without the United States.  To effectively deal with the issue, however, all countries -– beginning with the industrialized countries and followed by the developing countries -- must take action to combat climate change.  If all industrialized countries were committed to the same targets, then implementation would be easier than when some countries did not participate.

On whether it could be left up to businesses to address the threats, she stated that the effectiveness of voluntary agreements would be limited if they were not related to concrete targets and the process was not transparent.  On the other hand, commitments on the part of the industry were significant and a number of companies were serious about being transparent in the implementation of voluntary agreements.

* *** *