Minister of Foreign AffairsJan Petersen

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.