Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

Good afternoon.

I have been a regular visitor to New Zealand over the years.

I was first here in the 1950s, as a seaman on New Zealand Shipping Company Liner MV Rangatata. It is extraordinary to think that a journey which then took four weeks can now be covered in twenty four hours! That is one of the many ways in which our world has changed over the years. As we move towards a global village and greater inter-dependence, many national policies are increasingly influenced by global agreements which require global consensus.

My last visit to New Zealand was in 1997 in the run up to the Kyoto climate change negotiations. I already had a long history of involvement with the environment – dating back to a long early morning swim in the Thames in the 1980s to protest against Mrs Thatcher’s policy of dumping nuclear waste into the seas.

But I want to make it clear that I am first and foremost a politician, not an environmental expert.

It is from that political perspective – the perspective of a political negotiator – that I want to reflect on some of the changes we are seeing in the world today, where global solutions are required and where the pace of change has quickened.

I am particularly interested in climate change where global problems require global solutions which can only be achieved by global consensus.

Think for a moment about the history of international environmental discussions. We have come a long way in a relatively short time. And the pace of change is increasing.

As you know, the first "Earth Summit" in Stockholm was held 30 years ago in 1972. It agreed that we had to liberate ourselves from "the destructive forces of mass poverty, racial prejudice and economic injustice.

Stockholm recognised that decisions taken in one country affected the environment in another.

It identified the key areas of environmental degradation that are now so familiar to us today.

But remember:

• it took 15 years to get from Stockholm to the Montreal Protocol on the protection of the ozone layer; and

• it took two whole decades to get from Stockholm to the second "Earth Summit" in Rio in 1992.

Rio was an historic occasion bringing together world leaders from across the globe and putting in place agreements on:

• Climate change
• Biodiversity
• Forests
• And sustainable development

Rio also made the additional link between poverty and the environment. That strikes a chord on a personal level because the environment is about social justice as well as sustainability.

So it took 20 years to get from Stockholm to Rio. But in the 10 years since Rio the pace of change has increased.

The Montreal Protocol on protection of the ozone layer has gone from strength to strength – largely because we have been able to marry environmental demands with technical progress and commercial incentives through the development of replacements for CFCs in aerosols and fridges.

I ask you to recall also that it was initially opposed by industrial voices. But those voices discovered ways of producing more efficient and less environmentally damaging products from which they are now profiting.

On climate change we have moved from the Rio voluntary agreement to the Kyoto legally binding agreement.

There is no doubt that climate change is the most serious environmental threat to mankind today. It is an issue that we all take seriously – none more so than the UK and New Zealand governments.

And I would like to pay tribute here to the role that New Zealand has played – both under this Government and its predecessor – in the development of the Kyoto protocol.

Simon Upton, your Environment Minister in the previous National Party Administration, was a very active contributor to the historic agreement at Kyoto. He was a voice of moderation and sense in what became known as the Umbrella Group, and the UK and New Zealand worked closely together in forging consensus between the European Union and our other OECD colleagues.

More recently Pete Hodgson, your Minister for Engergy, Science and Technology, has been very influential in meetings at The Hague, Bonn and Marrakesh.

He played a pivotal role in getting global agreement on the rules for sinks, which are of course of vital interest to New Zealand. He has also been active in convincing industry and others in New Zealand of the challenges and opportunities provided by climate change and the Kyoto Protocol.

Kyoto set a target of 5% reductions overall for developed countries. But within that each country’s individual target recognised their different circumstances.

Europe has a target of 8% overall but under the "European bubble" targets differ from minus 28% for Luxembourg and minus 21% for Germany to plus 27% for Portugal. The United Kingdom’s target is minus 12.5%.

New Zealand’s target is 0% and like other countries you are now developing a programme to meet that target. Like us, you are on course to ratify the protocol next year.

Of course there are debates in New Zealand and elsewhere about Kyoto.

I have seen the reports on the study by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and the rather critical leader in the New Zealand Herald this morning.

Pete Hodgson has said that the analytical limitations of the National Institute Report means its conclusions should be read with caution. He points out that it assumes that New Zealand’s present level of energy efficiency cannot be improved. That surely is an assumption that any business wanting to be more economically efficient would not accept.

Even the Herald leader does not question the fact that man made climate change is happening. It simply argues that because the trend is "glacial" we do not need to rush in yet.

If we had listened to the same argument on the Montreal Protocol we would not have reversed the hole in the ozone layer. Using it now as an excuse for doing nothing on climate change is the modern equivalent of continuing to argue that the earth is flat. The threat of climate change demands we take the first step of Kyoto now.

Not to do so is to betray our responsibilities to our own future and our children’s future. That message is being recognised the world over, including in Europe and Japan who have said since Marrakesh that they are preparing for ratification.

In any case I question the assumption that the speed of climate change is "glacial". On the contrary it is increasing as the climate lurches from one extreme event to another in different parts of the world.

Only last year, in Britain we suffered the worst floods and storms we had seen since the 17^th century. It was what I have described as a "wake-up call". We have just experienced our warmest October since 1659 when records began.

People the world over are experiencing floods, storms, droughts and desertification like they have never seen before.

Here in New Zealand you have seen:

• glaciers retreat in the Southern Alps,

• an increase in droughts associated with more frequent and more intense El Nino events

• and over the last decade you have seen the highest recorded annual temperatures.

And even your sunny summer seems to come later as I have discovered on this visit! I am told Wellington is less windy. What more proof do you need!

You have also seen worrying damage to the Antarctic ice caps and the same can be seen all over the world. For example, I was struck by the fact that there was no snow on Mount Fuji when I visited Japan in the run up to Kyoto.

Where ever I go there is a growing recognition that climate change is taking place – an uneasiness that something is not right and out of natural balance. That is shared by leaders around the world as well as millions of ordinary people. And it is true in the developing world, just as much as in the developed world.

My experience of China and India – two G77 countries in which I take a particular interest and involvement – is that they are making significant efforts to improve the environment. Smog, air and river pollution are a matter of growing public concern.

My discussions with Premier Zhu Rongji and Prime Minister Vajpayee show that the importance of the environment is recognised at the highest levels and acted upon even though they have no legally binding Kyoto emission targets.

Between 1996 and 1999 Chinese carbon dioxide emissions fell by 6.5% despite 25% economic growth. Comparable figures for the US show a rise in carbon dioxide emissions of 5% with 13% economic growth.

In China they have halved carbon dioxide emissions per GDP and emissions per capita are still only 20% of developed countries.

They have also closed down thousands of factories for pollution offences.

In India the High Court is working – with amazing success – to ban diesel buses and diesel motor rickshaws in Delhi. And the Indian government has introduced a comprehensive range of environmental policies to tackle climate change.

The 1992 Rio Summit recognised the problem of climate change and called for united voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Some countries met their voluntary targets – and I am proud of what the UK has achieved and of our climate change programme which will bring about a 23% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.

However, those countries which did achieve their targets – the UK, Germany, Russia and countries of the former Soviet Union – were helped to a greater or lesser extent by major economic and political changes. In the UK we would have met our targets without the dash for gas – but the closure of the coal industry enabled us to exceed our targets.

World wide, therefore, voluntary targets were not enough. The vast majority of developed countries failed to match the rhetoric of Rio with action. That is why the Kyoto legal framework of targets is so important.

The remarkable thing, however, has been the speed of the international reaction to the failure to meet the voluntary targets set at Rio.

Barely five years after that voluntary agreement was reached we set new legally binding targets at Kyoto.

In Marrakesh this year we agreed the legal texts themselves and called on all countries to ratify by the end of 2002.

That is quite remarkable. We must not underestimate the achievement. It is a recognition by the global community of the threat posed by climate change.

And it has been achieved by consensus among more than 180 countries with only one casualty – the United States – to which I will return later.

That said, as with any global consensus the Kyoto agreement was inevitably a compromise to suit the needs of the three main international groupings:

• the G77 and China group of developing countries;

• the European Union; and

• the Umbrella Group of industrialised countries – the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway and Russia.

Achieving agreement between these three Groups was not always an easy process. There were great difficulties even within the European Group itself.

I also want to say a word about business.

At Kyoto the Global Climate Coalition of oil producing companies and large scale industries was hostile to any agreement. But over the last few years business has come on board and worked constructively to build agreement.

Without the engagement and support of business we cannot win the battle against climate change – that is something which I think the US realised before any of us.

Business has begun to see that our Kyoto targets can be achieved by ‘gain not pain’ by improving the environment at the same time as making money.

There are a range of incentives:

• emissions trading which allows countries and companies to sell their surplus reductions;

• sinks which give credit for absorbing greenhouse gasses in forests;

• the Clean Development Mechanism which allowed developed countries and their industries to invest in climate friendly projects in developing countries, for the benefit of both; and

• Joint Implementation, which allows industry to get credit for climate friendly investment in other developed countries.

That is not only good for the environment but also an opportunity for businesses to develop in a more sustainable way at the same time as making money.

Having said something about business I must of course also acknowledge the hugely important but very different role played by NGOs.

The environmental NGOs have raised the profile of climate change with the public and made tackling climate change a political issue as well as common sense. I particularly recall the role they played at Kyoto where they helped clinch the historic deal by keeping the pressure on the politicians up until the last moment, but then recognising that Kyoto was a huge step forward for the environment.

Of course, the United States is still on the sidelines.

But I believe that in the wake of 11 September the US has recognised the benefits and necessity of global co-operation – whether fighting terrorism or on defence issues, global trade, finance or environmental agreements.

That is something which is felt the world over. The Marrakesh climate change agreement and Doha World Trade talks show that global consensus is still better than unilateral decision making.

I do not underestimate the importance of America’s refusal to accept Kyoto. But I believe it is not the end of the line. We must act together to bring the US back on board.

Don’t forget it was the first President Bush who signed the Rio Convention in 1992 and the United States did not seek to block agreement at The Hague, Bonn or Marrakesh – although I think they were taken aback and did not expect the international community to press ahead towards ratification without the US.

Let us recognise that America was also the architect of major parts of the Kyoto agreement.

Although that was spearheaded by Vice President Gore – to whom I pay tribute – the Kyoto mechanisms owed much to longstanding co-operation between business and government as is illustrated by US sulphur emissions trading.

The US is still reviewing its position on climate change. It accepted very tough targets at Kyoto – the headline 7% reduction in emissions was in reality a reduction by 30% against projections.

That, though, was under the previous Administration – a fact of political reality which should be recognised when we look forward to future participation in the process by the Americans.

The new Administration’s assessment was that it couldn’t meet the targets set by President Clinton and Vice President Gore without considerable damage to its economy. They also felt that all countries should be involved.

It is a fact that President Bush made a political decision to reject Kyoto.

We can’t turn the clock back on that, but now the review is underway and when it is concluded we can hopefully enter in to a debate. I am in any case sure the review will come up with concrete proposals to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions – some of which are already underway.

And I am hopeful that we can deal with some of the US objections – just as I am hopeful that in the medium term some of the richer developing countries will adopt targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t forget, the GDP of the Philippines is higher than that of Portugal.

To use an analogy, the Kyoto train has left the station. There are plenty of stops where other passengers can get on board. I include the US and the richer developing countries among those passengers.

One opportunity is the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg – although climate change is only one part of the agenda together with issues such as poverty reduction, water resources and Africa.

But we also have a timetable built in to the Kyoto Protocol to review commitments in 2005 and 2010. There are plenty of opportunities for progress to be made, provided the political will exists.

Whilst we’ve tended to concentrate on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate, we should not underestimate its effects on other aspects of the environment – particularly in a world where the majority of the planet is covered by our great oceans.

The recent brilliant BBC television series the "Blue Planet" reminds us how vulnerable our oceans are.

As a seaman of 10 years and trained diver, my interest in the health of the oceans is just as important as the climate. In 1997 I dived off the Maldives to draw attention to the coral that was dying because of rising sea temperatures and sea levels which are attributed to climate change. I compared the coral to the canaries in the mines which are used to warn of dangerous gases. The death of the coral was a sign that something is going terribly wrong.

One of my first dives was in the Mediterranean but sadly it was not quite what I had imagined. Instead of the shoals of fish I expected,

I found a plastic coffee cup, an empty Coca-Cola can and the handle of an old roman wine vessel.

That is what pollution does to our seas.

As the famous French oceanographer Jacques Cousteau once said to me at a conference on pollution in the Mediterranean in the 1970s, the oceans are the lungs of the world.

And, of course, they are a global resource. If you pump industrial waste into one part of the sea, you’ll end up poisoning other parts. That is a fact of life and it’s something we should all recognise.

We’re starting to do something about direct pollution of our seas.

But we are still fishing out our oceans and destroying the abundance that has supported coastal communities since time began.

80% of the world’s population live in coastal areas. Many of those areas are very poor and people depend on fish as a cheap and abundant source of food.

We need to protect those stocks for local people using traditional fishing techniques.

It’s important to recognise that about 950 million people, mainly in developing countries, rely on fish as their main source of protein.

The commercial pressures – combined with technological advances – have taken a terrible toll. We are now even destroying our deep sea ocean life and sea beds.

We cannot continue as we are. We must take global action to stop this wanton, ignorant waste of our children’s birthright – indeed it is the responsibility of everyone of us to hand on this planet in a better state than we found it.

We have international agreements in place for quotas and conservation. And I applaud the efforts of New Zealand which played a key role in establishing the UN’s Consultative Process on Oceans, precisely to address the need for global co-operation.

We now have an international action plan on illegal fishing under the FAO, but it is still all too often the case that rogue fishermen register under flags of convenience – countries which sell their flags for a few dollars - which allow ships to ignore international agreements and plunder the seas without any sanction against them.

I know that in New Zealand you have done a lot of work on this, in particular on estimating the costs to developing countries of rogue fishermen who fish out the high value species and leave devastation behind.

The international community – as we look ahead to the World Summit on Sustainable Development – must now look carefully at developing marine protected areas including in the high seas, in order to promote the conservation and sustainable use of our fish stocks.

We all depend on water. Not just the oceans, but fresh water. And the stresses created by the lack of clean water are a real and growing threat to peace and stability.

Countries build dams to hoard water. Millions of children grow up in terrible poverty because of the daily struggle to get enough fresh water to survive.

Like protecting our oceans, the supply of fresh water is a huge issue which requires global action to tackle it.

They are issues which the Rio + 10 Earth Summit in Johannesburg next year should tackle. They are global problems that require global alliances to achieve global solutions.

11^th September reminded us yet again of the importance of global alliances.

The world has successfully responded in a coalition against terrorism – and both New Zealand and Britain have played their part.

But I believe the new spirit of global co-operation can be used for good, as well as to fight evil.

It is the poor places, the places without food, fresh water and electricity that are the breeding grounds for terrorism. Tackle these issues and you are tackling some of the causes of terrorism.

It is with that in mind that I believe the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg next September has a major part to play. It is a great opportunity to create a global alliance for greater prosperity and social justice.

We need to win the peace as well as the war.

A great deal has already been done to prepare for Johannesburg. We need to see it in the context of other major international initiatives. I am thinking in particular in terms of a route map from the recent and successful Doha World Trade talks, through to the Finance for Development Conference in Monterrey in Mexico and then on to Johannesburg.

These three conferences are dealing with highly interrelated subjects.

Doha has set in place a new Trade Round which will open up markets and hold the promise of increased prosperity for developing countries. The success of Doha is, I think, a sign of the new spirit of global cooperation.

Monterrey will deal with the transfer of resources from developed to developing countries.

So Doha has put development on the trade agenda. Monterrey will put development on the finance agenda. Johannesburg will bring these together and ensure that development is sustainable and benefits all, in particular the world’s poor.

Our starting point is that one in five of the world’s population – two thirds of them women – live in abject poverty. It is unacceptable that more than one billion people around the world live on less than one dollar a day.

You will know that all major countries and international organisations have signed up to meet the millennium development goals so that by 2015:

• poverty will be cut by half;
• every child will get a primary education; and
• child mortality will be reduced by two thirds.

You may also have heard our Chancellor Gordon Brown making proposals to the IMF two weeks ago for a new global deal with opportunities and obligations for both developed and developing countries.

Some believe that globalisation is a force for evil which should be resisted.

In fact, globalisation means the growing interdependence and inter-connectedness of the modern world.

Particularly since the end of the Cold War the increased ease of movement of goods, capital, services and people is rapidly creating a single global economy.

The truth is that globalisation can work to the benefit of both developed and developing countries, leading to rising prosperity and social justice across the world.

If we don’t take action now to reduce global inequality, there’s a real danger that life for all of us – whether in developed or developing countries – will become unsustainable.

What we are setting ourselves is no easy task, but it is essential that world leaders get involved in the process.

With almost 200 countries in the world, there are 200 voices to be heard, all with their own priorities.

It is a huge challenge for we politicians to secure consensus on these major issues.

We need to negotiate the stepping stones from Doha to Monterrey to Johannesburg where leaders from around the world gather to revitalise the global effort for sustainable development.

One of my purposes in coming to New Zealand – and indeed in America where I’ve just come from and Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam where I go next – is to raise the profile amongst other issues of the Johannesburg Summit and to encourage political representation at the highest level.

I am delighted to hear that your Prime Minister Helen Clark will attend the Summit alongside Tony Blair.

We want Johannesburg to be about celebrating success on the road from Stockholm 30 years ago, and from Rio 10 years ago.

We must continue moving forward.

Let us hope that we can continue to secure agreements on sustainable development and the environment with ever greater speed and commitment.

Let us make that Summit our first big milestone in winning the peace and shaping a new world order.

It is the very least we need to do for our children and our children’s children - and to meet the obligation on all of us to pass on the world in a better state than we found it.

That can only be done by global consensus, global delivery and a global alliance.