My thanks to my dear colleague Steffi Lemke for hosting the second Berlin Forum on Chemicals and Sustainability. My thanks also to the participants for their efforts to pursue a just transition towards a pollution-free planet. And for accelerating the momentum ahead of the expected adoption of an ambitious new global chemicals instrument at the fifth session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) later this month.
Friends,
Back in 1972, around the time of the Stockholm Conference, pollution was the most-visible and most-concerning issue of the day. This was the time of bubbling rivers and acid rain. Today, we understand that humanity faces a wider range of interlinked threats through the triple planetary crisis: the crisis of climate change, the crisis of nature and biodiversity loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste.
Climate change and nature and biodiversity loss have become the highest profile crises, and the focus of national and international action. But this is not a zero-sum game. The intensification of these two crises have not diminished the pollution and waste crisis, which is itself growing more intense – and, as I said before, closely linked to the other two crises. The unsustainable management of chemicals across the life cycle, right from when they are manufactured, is central to the issue.
Chemicals do bring great benefits to humanity. They are essential building blocks for medicines, consumer products, food and more. But the flip side is that hazardous and often long-lived chemicals are polluting our air, water, land and bodies. You know the issues and the numbers. More than two million people dying each year from direct chemical pollution. The illnesses and productivity losses. The grave harm to ecosystems and other species.
You also know the economic case for sustainable chemicals and waste management. Yes, the global chemical industry is a behemoth. It exceeded US$ 5 trillion in 2017 and is expected to double by 2030, driven by global megatrends. Some people are making a lot of money. But with these profits come damage and costs – particularly for the poorest and most-vulnerable who are exposed to chemical pollution.
UNEP’s Global Chemicals Outlook showed that when health and environment impacts are considered, the costs of current practices outweigh the benefits. So, it is on nations, the international community, and the industry itself to retain and expand the benefits of chemicals while ensuring they do not cause harm.
Friends,
While the growth in the industry is creating problems, it is also creating opportunities to advance sustainable consumption, production and product innovation. The kind of innovation UNEP has been calling for as the world negotiates a deal to end plastic pollution. In that regard, chemists, manufacturers and process engineers must get creative, now, to design out harmful and unnecessary plastics. The same applies across the wider chemicals industry, where investments in green and sustainable chemistry are sorely lacking.
Change requires ambitious and widespread action by all sectors where chemicals are used intensively, such as agriculture, construction and manufacturing. Governments are critical to create the policy environment and incentivize industry to adapt their business practices. And we must support the 100 countries that do not have basic legal systems and institutional capacities to enable the safe management of chemicals.
We are seeing progress. At the fifth UN Environment Assembly, member states agreed to establish a Science Policy Panel for chemicals, waste and the prevention of pollution. This panel will be key to informing the highest priority issues for the new chemicals instrument. And, of course, we have seen increased political traction and momentum towards the setting of this new instrument in three weeks’ time. This instrument will be critical to the just transition. We must get it right.
The new instrument should be clear on what governments need to do to create the policy and regulatory environment to shift business practices. Be clear on what the industry and its financial backers must do. Be inclusive, in line with modern multilateralism, to bring in civil society, indigenous groups, local communities, workers, consumers and youth. And, as ever with such agreements, the framework must be clear on how it will unlock funding and investment opportunities.
This means realigning incentives in high-impact economic sectors to maximize innovation, reduce negative impacts and end the long-lasting legacies of chemical pollution. This means voluntary industry initiatives, to be reflected in the new framework and applied across manufacturing and supply chains. This means repurposing subsidies in agriculture to enable food productivity, food safety, worker safety, and human and environmental health.
This also means leveraging innovations in financing. Sustainable public procurement. Using public budgets to leverage changes in the private sector. Extended producer responsibility. Green bonds. And more.
Friends,
We should be able to feed ourselves. Clothe ourselves. Live in our homes. Go to our workplaces. Walk, run and swim in nature. All without fear of sickening and dying from inappropriate chemical exposure. This is the world we must create.
And let me remind you of the role that green and sustainable chemistry can play in dampening the whole triple planetary crisis. Safe chemicals and products can boost the fight against climate change and nature loss – including by helping to achieve the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework. They can increase reuse and recycling in a circular economy. And they can contribute to wider development goals.
I thank you for your efforts so far, and urge all parties involved to create a strong and ambitious instrument in Bonn. One that creates the conditions for a just transition to a greener and more sustainable chemicals industry. And, ultimately, helps to bring about a pollution-free world.
