GLOBE 2002

                                                                       VANCOUVER

                                                                        15 March 2002


                PEOPLE, PLANET, PROSPERITY: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE SUMMIT

Introduction

Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen

I am particularly pleased to be here today because I believe the business community is absolutely vital in our fight to improve the environment, promote world trade and tackle poverty.

It is only by working in partnership – industry, Governments and NGOs – that we can tackle some of the problems facing the world today.

Events like this, drawing together business people from around the world, make the most of the benefits of globalisation and demonstrate the strength of the global community.

We are here today to discuss the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Rio 10 years on or as South Africa has called it – people, planet and prosperity.

The UK attaches great importance to the Summit. My Prime Minister, Tony Blair will attend the Summit and has called on other world leaders to do so as well. He has asked me to chair a cross-Government Ministerial committee to prepare the UK position for it.

First I’d like to say something about the context of the Summit.

Globalisation

The international community is at a turning point.

Since the tragedy of September 11th we have had to face new and unprecedented challenges. We have seen what terrorism has done to generations living in poverty and despair. Their properties, their schools, their faith in themselves, their environments all pillaged. Whole generations injured.

What is special about the human race is that we can do something about it – if we choose to do so.

The alliance we have forged against terrorism has shown that in the new global economy, all of us, the richest countries and the poorest, are linked by common interests and needs especially for security.

There is growing agreement that we must work together to fight both terrorism and the causes of terrorism – and in that I include poverty and despair as well as religious and political divisions.

We must do so because it is right but also because it is in our interests.

I believe globalisation – or the rise of the global community – provides us with a great opportunity to create a more peaceful and secure world.

We need to capture the same energy, commitment and political will that the world has shown in tackling global terrorism and direct it to deal with global poverty.

Some critics say that globalisation is a force for evil. They believe it marginalises and exploits the weak for the benefit of the strong of which there is some evidence.

At the G8 in Genoa and the WTO conference in Seattle anti-globalisation protestors made their views clear.

If it is their intention to repeat it at the G8 meeting in Kananaskis - although they’d better bring a compass and a stout pair of walking boots!

But in reality there is a lot of common ground.

They, like us, want action against global poverty.

They, like us, want to see a fairer and more just global community.

They, like us, want to see the environment protected.

The difference is that we believe that can only be achieved by global consensus. By making globalisation work for good.

But like it or not, globalisation is here to stay. The question is not whether we want it but how it is managed, what values drive it and how we make sure that everyone benefits.

Managed badly it will bring political instability, environmental degradation, social exclusion, growing inequality between nations and increasing resentment, particularly in developing countries.

But managed well, it can lift millions out of poverty and be a force for social justice.

It has already brought many benefits. Since 1970:

- life expectancy in developing countries has increased by almost 10 years;

- Child mortality has almost halved; and

- the proportion of illiterate people has reduced by a quarter.

In the last ten years alone the number of extreme poor has declined by nearly 20 million – so there has been some universal progress, but it has passed by millions of others who have been excluded from these benefits.

A billion people still live on less than a dollar a day and the same number have no access to safe drinking water. Just imagine – one sixth of the world’s population living on less than the cost of a bag of sweets a day to a child in a developed country. One child dying every 10 seconds from water borne disease – since I began this speech 20 children have died simply because they lack clean water.

One in five children never go to school and almost one billion adults can’t read or write. They don’t have the very skills that could enable them to escape from poverty.

Preventable diseases kill 7 million children every year and in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe half of all 15 year olds are expected to die of AIDS. Just think – half the children in your local school dying because of preventable diseases.

Yes, we have difficulties from global changes in developed countries. But they are not on the same scale as developing countries.

So, this is an unacceptable situation for any civilised society. We need to take action now to reduce global inequality.

As Kofi Annan said recently – “poor people in poor countries are not looking for a hand out. What they want is a hand up”.

Globalisation creates the opportunity for us to provide that hand up.

But progress will depend on political will, and on the commitment of governments and peoples across the world.

The History of Global Consensus shows us that the search for global solutions is not new.

Just looking at sustainable development, the first Earth Summit took place thirty years ago in Stockholm. As I was reminded yesterday, Johannesburg could be called Stockholm plus 30 as much as Rio plus 10.

Stockholm focussed predominantly on the pollution issues of the industrialised North.

Twenty years later Rio brought world leaders together to put in place agreements on a wider range of issues including:

- climate change;
- biodiversity;
- forests;
- deserts; and
- Agenda 21 – about which more later.

But although Rio looked at a broad range of issues including sustainable development, follow-up action focused almost exclusively on the environment, and in particular climate change.

Action was also largely based on a voluntary approach. But since then we have moved on.

As soon as it became clear that the voluntary approach of Rio had failed to produce sufficient action on climate change, the international community took action.

The Kyoto Protocol, agreed in 1997, gave us the framework and began the process which is now resulting in statutory targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions for developed countries.

Of course the path has not always run smooth. I know there are still industrial sensitivities - here in Canada, in my own country, in almost all the parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
But in my experience too often the emphasis is on pain not gain. I hear some of the voices in Canada. There were critical voices in Britain also, as elsewhere.
But we sat down with business and worked things out. We introduced voluntary negotiated agreements, the climate change levy and domestic trading.

BP for example is reducing emissions by 10% while continuing to grow. European car manufacturers will voluntarily improve fuel efficiency by 20%. So we will meet our targets and have a better and more competitive industry as a result quite apart from the new industrial innovation that the climate change challenge brings.

I don’t want to intervene in the domestic debate in Canada. But whilst I appreciate the issues raised by your relationship with the US economy, David Anderson is probably right when he says that some of the figures being quoted as the effect on the Canadian economy of Kyoto ratification are pure fiction.

At the least the difference between some estimates clearly shows a great deal more talking and assessment is needed.

I know the US decision to take a different approach has caused great concern.

But we mustn’t allow these concerns to threaten what we have achieved. In the Kyoto Protocol we have a global agreement. I understand that some parts of the agreement may be difficult to accept but it is a carefully balanced package, and any attempts to undo certain elements of it could lead to a disastrous unravelling.

Against many expectations Kyoto has survived. And even the position in the United States is now more optimistic than it was 6 months ago.

President Bush’s recent announcement has many elements we can welcome as I made clear to Vice President Dick Cheney in our discussions in London on Monday – not least of which is the acceptance of the science of climate change which was rejected only six months ago.

The US has set itself targets and timetables. Although the target is voluntary, the US will review it and consider further steps if necessary – and the emissions registration scheme which they have established at least recognises that mandatory targets may follow in the future. And finally they will give more financial support to the GEF.

Naturally we wish the United States had gone further and we will continue to keep the pressure on them. But at least they are on board two trains on parallel tracks, going in the same direction, even though one is at a slower speed. There are many stations down the track, and we must look for opportunities for the 2 processes to converge in future.

It’s interesting to note on the voluntary front that even China with twice the rate of growth of the US has been able to reduce its emissions while US emissions have continued to rise.

Let’s not forget that Kyoto recognised different targets for different countries. For Canada it was a 6% cut on 1990 levels. For Britain it is a 12.5% cut within the European “bubble” – which divides up the overall EU target between the fifteen Member States. I am pleased to say that our UK programme aims at a 20% cut, over half of which has already been achieved.

The next and most important step for all of us is to ratify Kyoto – even without the US – and bring it into effect.

The Path to Johannesburg

The Kyoto Protocol is, I believe, the major achievement of the Rio Earth Summit.

But now we are turning our attention to the other elements of Rio which will be addressed in Johannesburg in September.
The Johannesburg Summit will build on the important series of international conferences that have taken place in the twelve months since September 11th .

In November last year the World Trade Organisation Conference in Doha opened the door to increased world trade and greater prosperity for all.

It emphasised the special needs and interests of developing countries. It paved the way for greatly improved market access for least developed countries. And it focused on giving the poorest a greater share of the benefits of globalisation.

Problems will naturally arise as we take the Doha agreement forward. The recent US announcement on steel imports is a case in point. But we will overcome obstacles of this kind.

And we will be not be deflected from the basic aim - greater prosperity for all, but more for those that need it most.

Next week the Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey will look at how we can fund sustainable development in the poorest countries.

The UK has played a leading role in this process since its inception. Our aid programme is very much focussed on lifting the poorest societies out of poverty and is being increased.

We will be seeking commitments to increase both the volume of aid and its effectiveness.

I welcome President Bush’s announcement of a $5bn increase in aid over three years.
This, along with the agreement by the EU this week to increase our aid, is a positive reflection of the need to increase the volume and effectiveness of aid substantially if we are to meet the Millennium Development Goals.

That is what our Chancellor, Gordon Brown, and our Minister for International Development, Clare Short, are calling for in their proposal for a major new International Development Trust Fund.

The Fund will help countries increase their capacity and long-term potential for growth.

In other words Monterrey will look at development for all. But, in particular, it will concentrate on providing more help for those that need it most.

Johannesburg should pull all these threads together - trade, finance, the environment - and will combine them in a way which will ensure that the world moves towards a fairer and more sustainable future.

I believe Johannesburg needs a strong political principle to guide it and say in a phrase what we hope to achieve. In Britain our approach to tackling poverty and social exclusion works on the principle of Progressive Universalism.

That means we must strive for progress for everybody but most not forget those that are worst off. The worst off need more help than the rest of us. So the principle – Progressive Universalism – means greater prosperity for everyone with more for those that need it most.

That same principle can, I believe, be applied in a global context.

It is the principle in Kyoto where we set different targets for developed countries.

It is the same principle that led Doha to break down trade barriers for all, but give greater market access to those that needed it most.

The same principle that we want to apply in Monterrey to ensure that everyone benefits from development aid but that those that need it most receive extra help.

Progressive Universalism will, I hope, provide the guiding principle that will make Johannesburg a success.

The Summit

So what should we – and you – be seeking from Johannesburg?

One thing is certain, now is not the time for new conventions or agreements. We have plenty of those.

As Kofi Annan said to me on his visit to London two weeks ago, Rio gave us the “what”, Johannesburg must give us the “how”.

Put another way, I think we could say that Rio was about “negotiation”, Johannesburg should be about “implementation”.

Now is the time to kick-start the process of delivery. To build on the momentum that already exists and take those next crucial steps towards our goal.

In the form of Agenda 21 the Rio Summit covered all the ground for sustainable development. But that all-embracing message has been lost by the emphasis that has been given to the environment.

Johannesburg should be about moving on from the environment to sustainable development as a whole. President Mbeki has summed that up in the theme for the Summit - People, Planet and Prosperity.

Agenda 21 has given us the framework within which to work.

The UN Millennium Conference has given us our targets in the Millennium Development Goals.

That process, and others like Kyoto, have given us our timescales, which will come together as we move into the next decade.

What Johannesburg must do is give us the way forward – what could become the Johannesburg Action Plan.

In 1998 I proposed the Buenos Aires Action Plan which put meat on the bones of Kyoto and provided for success at Marrakesh.

I believe a Johannesburg Action Plan should be the spring board to turn intentions into reality – a 21st Century action plan built upon Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals and provide for success in 2015.

The Detail

The Johannesburg Action Plan must set out the route map for delivering the Millennium Development Goals, so that by 2015:
- poverty will be cut in half;
- every child will get a primary education; and
- child mortality will be reduced by two thirds.

This is an enormous challenge. But it can be done if we focus our efforts on a small number of key priorities.

Everyone has slightly different ideas but I believe there are 4 fundamental areas which will help us achieve the Millennium Development Goals. These are:
- fresh water and oceans;
- sustainable energy;
- resource productivity; and
- education and capacity-building.

We have chosen these action areas not only because they are absolutely fundamental to sustainable development, but also because of the clear links between them, and the need for them to be pursued as a whole if they are to be successful.

The secret of making lasting improvements as opposed to cosmetic changes is to harness the talent and energy of people themselves.

For example, we must improve short-term access to priority resources like energy and water, but at the same time we need to:

- make sure the technology is appropriate to local situations and environments;

- train the people to use the technology;

- make sure we reduce waste and pollution; and

- make sure there is good governance to sustain continuing success and delivery.

In addition – and this is something my Prime Minister has given a great deal of attention to – we need to focus particular attention on Africa.

Africa is the poorest continent on earth. It suffers from some of the worst problems and it is a great challenge for the international community to help achieve what President Mbeki has called the African Renaissance at his inaugural speech which I was privileged to attend. So we are not asking for special favours for Africa. We are seeking to give Africa what it should get under the principle of Progressive Universalism.

Central to that – indeed central to tackling poverty everywhere – is the importance of good governance.

We need capable states. States which accept that they not only have rights, but also responsibilities. States with effective governments, healthy democracies, proper management of public finances, effective health and education services, fair law enforcement and a free media.

And they need to be backed up by a new global architecture that integrates poverty reduction, economic prosperity and the environment in a sustainable way that creates joined-up decision-making.

That doesn’t mean yet more institutions. It just means making the ones we have work together to deliver our vision of a fairer world.

That includes the UN institutions and the International Financial Institutions and I would like to pay tribute to the success of the recent reforms to UNEP governance which have been guided through by Klaus Toepfer and the Canadian Chair – David Anderson.

For too long development aid has been short-term, disjointed and dictated by a laissez-faire, market forces attitude which is neither progressive or universal.

There is no point in providing a well unless you give people the skills to maintain it. There is no point in building a school if there are no teachers.

Development must go beyond the simple provision of financial aid or infrastructure. It must take a comprehensive, holistic approach and involve businesses, NGOs and the community it seeks to help.

What Does it Mean for Businesses and NGOs

If anything, this is the true message of Johannesburg and it is the reason that your engagement in this process is so crucial.

Partnership is central to the Summit itself and future implementation – partnership between the public and private sectors and NGOs.

In the UK our NGO’s have played an enormously important role in preparations for Johannesburg and have made a real impact on our objectives and expectations – just as they played such an important role in the Kyoto negotiations.

The same is true of our business community.

Our priorities for Johannesburg are backed-up and complemented by five UK business initiatives for the Summit including:

- financial services;
- water and sanitation;
- sustainable tourism;
- forestry; and
- energy for greater sustainable development.

And what’s good for domestic businesses should also be good for international trade.

That is true for the Doha trade agreement and I hope we will build on it at the Monterrey finance conference, the G8 in Canada and Johannesburg.

If we could just halve trade protection across the globe, the wealth of developing countries would be boosted by around $150 billion a year. That could lift as many as 300 million people out of poverty.

And our Chancellor’s proposals for a Development Trust Fund could halve the proportion of those living on less than a dollar a day.

That has got to be good for trade and for business as well as for the environment and for people.

Conclusion

Before I close I would just like to reflect for a moment on the task the international community has set itself.

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

We need to take care how we negotiate the stepping stones from Doha to Monterrey to Johannesburg.

Johannesburg is about continuing the momentum. We are not looking for great declarations or earth-shattering ideas. We just want to keep moving forward, broadening the agenda from a purely environmental focus to true sustainability as set out in the Rio Summit Agenda 21.

Johannesburg should put in place the framework to help us meet the Millennium Development Goals. And it should be clear about the next steps so that we can define success for Johannesburg and not allow the Press to define failure for us instead. As my Prime Minister has said, this requires all world leaders to attend the Summit.

Let me be completely frank for a moment. We are experiencing a period of unparalleled global prosperity.
Never have so many people enjoyed the fruits of that prosperity. But at the same time there are billions suffering in poverty.

There is no great debate about how to tackle that poverty. We all know that we must help those who are suffering and that we can afford to do so. And we must do so if ‘globalisation’ is to be a force for good.

No previous generation has had the opportunity to do what we could – if we have the political will.

I believe we can build a global economy that leaves no one behind.

It’s about fairness.

It’s about social justice.

It’s about faith in simply humanity and respect for our fellow beings.

It’s about our people, our planet and our prosperity.

I believe this new century can give unprecedented peace and prosperity. Not only for the people of our planet but for their children and their children’s children. That opportunity is here now and it is our duty to seize it.