Transatlantic Symposium – Meeting the
Climate Challenge in the Arctic Region
Washington, D.C., 9 June 2005
Check against delivery
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me begin by saying that it was
a great pleasure to welcome Senator McCain, and some of his
colleagues, to Svalbard last August.
I sincerely hope that the visit
provided a positive impression of the unique qualities and
opportunities the High North has to offer. I also assume that it
gave us an even better understanding of the widely shared concern
about the global environmental challenges facing the Arctic in
particular.
Senator McCain’s strong commitment
to these issues is highly appreciated and we are delighted that he
is co-hosting this event.
Let me also add that Senator McCain
has a distinguished career in public service, and he has a record
for being outspoken, even though this has not always been equally
popular in all quarters. What I find particularly relevant for
today’s symposium is that he tabled the important Climate
Stewardship Act on 26 May, together with Senator Joe
Lieberman.
Today’s symposium is also about
climate, and the focus is the Arctic region.
Firstly, some facts on the ground
that are familiar to some of you, but maybe not to everyone.
The Arctic contains the largest
remaining wilderness area in the Northern Hemisphere. Thus, it has
a unique value for present and future generations.
Furthermore, the local populations
are highly dependent on its rich natural resources. These assets
need to be protected.
Global warming is now becoming the
most pressing item on the Arctic environmental agenda.
The Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment showed that climate change is taking place faster, and
that it will have greater impact, than was previously thought. Some
key figures in this respect show that:
The average temperature in the
Arctic has risen almost twice as fast as in the rest of the world
in the past few decades.
Glaciers throughout the Arctic are
melting. The average sea-ice cover in summer has declined by 15-30
per cent over the past 30 years. This decline is expected to
accelerate in the years to come, with devastating consequences for
polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and local people for whom some of
these animals are a primary food source.
These and other changes that are
visible in the Arctic provide an early indication of the
environmental and social significance of global warming.
We know that climate changes in the
Arctic will affect the global climate.
We also know that the poorest
countries with least resources and least ability to adapt are
likely to face the most dramatic consequences. During the course of
this century, more than 100 000 people in developing countries
could become “climate refugees” as a result of the rise in sea
level.
Many regions will experience more
extreme weather conditions. Desertification will continue.
Climate-related diseases will become more common. Vital industries
such as fisheries and oil and gas production will be affected.
The picture is bleak. It is obvious
that governments must face these challenges, both at the national
level and at international level, through multilateral
co-operation.
Norway’s position is clear: we want
to start real negotiations about future climate commitments now.
And we want the post-Kyoto regime to be as comprehensive and
ambitious as possible.
A few weeks ago the Norwegian
Government presented in a white paper the opportunities and
challenges we are facing in the High North. The white paper has
been translated into English and is available for you here today.
Next Wednesday the Norwegian parliament will debate this issue.
The backdrop is that profound
changes have taken place in the High North since the Cold War. What
used to be a theatre of competing strategic interests has become
one of the most peaceful corners of Europe.
Confrontation has been replaced by
a common concern about the challenges we face in the Arctic.
Security policy issues have receded
into the background, and the definition of security has become much
wider. Issues relating to the environment and resource management
have moved to the foreground of the political agenda.
Political stability and sustainable
development are the main goals of the Norwegian Government’s policy
for the High North. The white paper describes how the Government
will seek to safeguard Norwegian foreign policy interests in the
North, maintain political stability and resolve cross-border issues
through bilateral and multilateral co-operation.
It discusses the opportunities
provided by increased economic activity in the area, and the
challenges this poses, in particular with regard to the fragile
environment.
Norwegian policy in the High North
rests on two main pillars:
Firstly, we want to further develop
and strengthen the constructive co-operation with our neighbouring
country Russia, both at the bilateral level and through regional
forums, such as the Barents Council and the Arctic Council.
Secondly, we want to intensify our
dialogue particularly with the United States and key partner
countries – like Canada, Germany, France and the United Kingdom -
on High North issues - in order to promote a common understanding
of the complexity of the situation.
This idea of a broader dialogue has
been well received here in Washington D.C. Norway and the US have
been involved in solving some of the serious problems in the High
North for a long time. I am referring here to our common efforts to
improve nuclear safety and security in Russia, where the work of
Senators Nunn and Lugar has served as a great inspiration to
many.
The nuclear clean-up task facing us
is enormous – and it is urgent. But there are other issues of
increasing urgency and global importance that we need to deal with.
And one of them is climate change.
The threats to the environment in
the High North constitute a global security issue that must be
addressed. No single country can deal with this on its own. Every
country will have to take on its share of the burden. International
solutions must be sought.
The industrialised countries bear
the main responsibility for causing climate change. But the
developing countries will pay the highest price when it comes to
its effects. This also makes climate change an issue of solidarity
and shared responsibility.
With a population of about 4
million people, human activities within the Arctic region do not
contribute significantly to global climate change. However, the
Arctic states, which include the USA, Canada, Russia and the five
Nordic countries, are responsible for about 40 per cent of global
greenhouse gas emissions. The Arctic states thus have a major role
to play in mitigating climate change in a global perspective.
In Norway we are ready to act. In
the near future we will complete the regulation of almost all
sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Norway by means of climate
policy instruments. These include green taxes, a special CO2 tax
and a national emissions trading system for greenhouse gases.
The Kyoto Protocol on climate
change, although it may have its limitations, is the only
international instrument available for addressing the problem
reasonably effectively. It was obvious to us that Norway should
ratify the protocol.
Let me add, however, that
fulfilling the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol is only the first
step towards coming to grips with the challenge of climate
change.
The alarming change in the Arctic
climate has reinforced the need for new, stronger commitments to
reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. We are therefore working
actively towards the establishment of a more comprehensive climate
regime beyond 2012.
Russia’s ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol and the G8 focus on climate issues during the UK
presidency offer hope that action within the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change will be forthcoming, especially
regarding commitments after 2012.
The draft McCain-Lieberman Climate
Stewardship Act is, I believe, an important step forward and I hope
it will be approved by the Senate. The US programmes for promoting
international partnerships for technological development are also
very positive.
Norway supports and participates in
several of these programmes. While we believe that technology
initiatives are essential, they can never replace agreements such
as the Kyoto Protocol.
I am grateful for the vital role
the United States has played in the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment (ACIA) process. The US initiated the process and has
both chaired and given the largest scientific input to it.
One of the most important results
of the co-operation in the Arctic Council has been the
documentation of the transboundary pollution that is carried
northwards by air and ocean currents and rivers. The Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) has produced thorough
documentation of the state of the Arctic environment, and this has
been presented to major emission countries. It has also developed a
common approach to achieving real reductions in emissions.
Norway will continue to be a
committed participant in the Arctic Council, and we will work
together to further strengthen the Council as the main body for
circumpolar co-operation. Norway is in favour of establishing a
permanent secretariat and a more reliable system for financing.
We are still in the early stages of
preparations for the Norwegian chairmanship of the Arctic Council
from the end of 2006, when we will take over from Russia. However,
it is no secret that climate issues have been high on our agenda in
the Council and that they will also be in focus during our
chairmanship.
The policy document from Reykjavik
is a good starting point. We would like to see an updated
assessment on climate change in the Arctic within 10 years. Norway
has established a secretariat at the Norwegian Polar Institute in
Tromsø for co-ordinating our national follow-up to the Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment.
Our chairmanship will coincide with
the International Polar Year in 2007-2008. We believe this
important event will enhance the international co-operation on
polar research both in Antarctica and in the Arctic.
In my view, governments now have to
start serious talks about the future, taking into account the many
ideas that have been presented by the research community. All
countries in the Arctic region bear a particular responsibility to
keep this issue high on the political agenda.
I would like to thank the
Environmental and Energy Study Institute and the Norwegian Embassy
for organising this seminar and the US Senate for hosting it. I
hope it will draw more attention to these vital issues that are of
such great concern to us all.
Thank you.
