Brussels, 30/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - Halving the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 is number one, and best known, of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which the European Union is working hard to achieve. A few days before the Millennium Documentary Film Festival on the Millennium Goals (MFF 2011), which begins in Brussels on 8 June, Achim Steiner, Under Secretary General of the United Nations and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) puts the spotlight on objective 7 - sustainable development - an equally fundamental issue. In an interview with AGENCE EUROPE, he explains what is at stake. (A.N.)
AE: Halting biodiversity loss is one of the imperatives if the objective of sustainable development is to be achieved. The world, just like the EU, missed its target for 2010, however. What is your assessment of the situation?
A.S. - I believe that our ability to understand what the implications of the loss of species, of biodiversity, of the ecosystem services that associate is far too slow. So we are destroying life on earth without knowing its value. We have this problem that biodiversity, what nature gives us everyday is , in a sense treated as of no economic value and therefore in our economic planning, the way we plan landscape, in the way we construct infrastructure, essentially it has no price. And I think this is one of the explanations why the economics of development has been so slow in appreciating the value of biodiversity.
But having said that I am actually in a sense also optimistic because if you look across the world today, in business, in communities, but also at national level, governments are beginning to address this issue far too slow and inadequately, I think, in terms of the strategic approach towards conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, but certainly there are many examples of how you change course. But if you ask me in 2011 what is the state of the world's approach to biodiversity: far behind where it should be.
A.E.: Do you think that there is greater awareness and a sense of the urgency?
A.S. - I think the sense of urgency is growing. If you see forest ecosystems being destroyed you realise that there are not just trees standing in a place but like the Amazon for example, the largest water pump on the planet or, in Central Africa, it is very often an example of how forests are part of the whole hydrological regime and fill economies.
In Kenya we have a Mau forest ecosystem that we made an economic analysis of last year. 140 000 ha of water represents 1,5 billion dollars in directly attributable services per annum for Kenya's economy. So I think it is that ability to open both the eyes of society but also of decision-makers, of economic planners what the value of biodiversity is, and what you would have to pay if it was not there. There is a growing sense of urgency but I am afraid in many parts of the world - and it is not just a matter of developing and developed countries - we still don't have the translation of that knowledge into the different policy approaches. This is a slow, invisible process of destroying nature that requires attention and must receive it among the young people and among all people all over the world, and I think that the strategic plan that the world adopted in Nagoya last year in the framework of the International Convention on biological diversity is a good demonstration of how governments have begun to realise that they have to change the pace of addressing this issue.
AE: What are the chances, do you think, of reaching a climate agreement in Durban?
A.S - We are all extremely concerned that ultimately to have a global economy to move together in a fair equitable way in addressing global warming is still an illusive goal. In Cancun we established the parameters of how we move forward, but let's be very frank: unless some dramatic steps are taken between now and the end of the year in Durban, we will face a very serious moment in which the world will look either at the opportunity of having a platform for developing a global shared approach, or whether we may lose the one platform we have today for keeping nations together. If, in Durban, there is a fundamental lack of vision and commitment, this will be for the international community a true moment of introspection on how else we will move forward.
AE: Do you feel the EU is right to opt for pragmatism by increasing the reduction goal from 20% to 30% subject to a comparable effort being made in other areas by 2020?
A.S. - The far more pragmatic view that Europe could be able to take today is: look, we are moving towards a carbon constraint world, we are moving into a world in which energy efficiency, new mobility concepts, new technologies, new energy systems, smart grids, renewable energy technologies are going to be the drivers of our economy. So, the far more pragmatic approach, right now, is not to sit and wait for others to move but rather to take advantage of Europe's capacity, documented by the Commission already, to move to a 30% emissions reduction. Rather than wondering what the US does or what China does, Europe should think: we have the technology, we have it in our reach to drive our own economic development in terms of new jobs, new industries, new energy diversification options; and to do this without necessarily having a major disadvantage. This is what I would call pragmatism in the face of an international impasse at the moment. To simply remain at the lowest or less ambitious target is not pragmatism, it is perhaps reluctance to act and, in the end, it may cost Europe more than the opportunity it has now. Europe is already able to meet its 2020 commitment of 20% right now. But it has not even implemented all the targets it said it would by 2020 . So if surely we are in a 20 to 30% range and the economies of scale and the advantage of actually going to the 30% level are as good as they have been shown to be, then the only question is how do you help those sectors and those industries that perhaps have a particular challenge in moving faster in terms of their energy foot print or their pollution foot print. If 27 Nations put measures in place to help those who perhaps have to bear a heavier burden be able to do so with the support of the others, that is pragmatism in my mind. But holding the whole European economy back because of a few sectors and enterprises or perhaps also countries that have very fossil fuel based infrastructure would actually be a disservice to Europe.
AE: The EU has made resource efficiency a priority of its 2020 strategy. In your view, can the roadmap being prepared by the Commission take the place of the environmental action programme?
A.S. - Resource efficiency is a means to an end and, as such, it is a very appropriate one. We know that the consumption of natural resources as currently happening on the planet and as projected to increase over the next 40 years - which essentially means a tripling almost of natural resource consumption - that is not a viable proposition. So there is a high premium on greater efficiency in resource use. We need to decouple economic growth from the quantity of resources used to sustain that growth. In that sense, Europe has a focus on resource efficiency that is very timely but certainly, I think, neither the EU nor the European Commission or we, at UNEP, would argue that this is the sole agenda. What we are trying to work towards is a more sustainable development path - 'the transition towards the green economy', which is less resource intensive, less carbon intensive, with less pollution, more resource efficiency, enabling us to maintain the natural capital and the ecological infrastructure of the planet as we grow to 9-9.5 billion people in the next 40 years.