Emma Kari, Minister of Environment and Climate, Finland
Pekka Haavisto, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Finland
Bruno Oberle, Director General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature
We meet in the wake of the Stockholm+50 conference, which marked 50 years since the birth of the environmental movement. This movement – with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) at its heart – has achieved much.
From a few basic threads, the movement has woven a tapestry of multilateral environmental agreements that guide us on everything from protecting species to slowing global warming.
Perhaps the best example of success is the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This 1987 global deal fixed the hole in the ozone layer, through which deadly radiation was pouring. But other agreements have achieved much and can achieve much more. From the three Rio conventions on climate, biodiversity and land to deals on oceans, chemicals and species, we have a solid architecture in place to protect and repair our planet.
We have also seen the launch of scientific bodies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The phase-out of lead in petrol. A growing chorus for a human right to a healthy environment. And most recently, an agreement to create a global plastic pollution deal – which is now being shaped.
Significantly, this journey has made the triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste a top priority. Not just for those in the environmental space. For governments, for businesses, for investors and for the youth who are feeling increasingly anxious, and angry, about their future.
As Stockholm+50 shows, humanity understands that we must transform our societies and economies to protect the Earth, our only home. Humanity understands that we cannot pollute our way to development and clean up after. Humanity understands that a healthy environment drives sustainable development and poverty reduction.
So, yes, progress. But too much of this progress remains in the form of intangibles.
We can’t promise our way to prosperity. We need to act. The triple planetary crisis isn’t some kid in a playground disagreement, waiting for his friends to hold him back so he doesn’t have to fight. The triple crisis is coming at us now, swinging hard and strong.
The IPCC tells us that global warming has caused climate injustice and dangerous disruption to the natural world. Just look at what has happened in India and Pakistan. Temperatures around 50°C killed people. Closed schools. Caused birds to fall from the sky. I say that again, birds fell from the sky. If that is not apocalyptic, I don’t know what is.
The science on climate is unequivocal. It is going to get worse. There is a 50/50 chance that the world will, at least temporarily, hit 1.5°C of global warming in the next five years. The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction recently predicted that we will see one large-scale disaster every day by 2030 as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of such events.
Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, or IPBES, tells us that nature is in rapid decline. One million species face extinction. Primary tropical forests were destroyed in 2021 at the rate of ten football fields every minute. Without healthy nature, we will not meet the Sustainable Development Goals.
And scientists and researchers are telling us that pollution and waste is killing tens of millions of people each year. One in six deaths stem from pollution – from dirty air to toxic chemicals. Despite growing momentum on plastic pollution, 11 million tonnes of plastic waste are still tumbling into our oceans each year.
Friends, we don’t have another 50 years to get it right.
It is the next ten years that matter most. We must haul the triple planetary crisis back, get in front of it and block its way. We have so much to do, but please allow me to offer up five ideas on where action will be most impactful.
One, get real about the energy transition.
We cannot continue with fossil fuels, but we also must tackle energy poverty. The answer is to move to renewable energy, coupled with more energy efficiency and expanded energy access. Renewable energy costs are lower than fossil fuels costs, but we need good public policies and more investment to make markets move.
Two, embrace the circular economy.
The economist Kenneth Boulding pioneered the concept that we should think of the Earth as a spaceship with limited resources, so we therefore need to behave like astronauts – who cannot gobble down everything in sight and throw their trash around. We must move from linear to circular models, and tread more lightly, because – like an astronaut drifting through the void without an escape shuttle – we have nowhere else to go once this planet’s resources are exhausted.
Three, universally recognize the human right to a clean and healthy environment.
The right to a clean and healthy environment matters because it compels governments, businesses and institutions to respect, protect and fulfil that right. Enforcing this right could change so much – from reducing pollution to protecting environmental defenders and indigenous peoples from persecution.
Four, use digital technologies and open data to enable environmental sustainability.
Digital technologies can empower people, governments and businesses to make more sustainable choices by providing open and accessible environmental data and allowing consumers to make decisions based on the planetary footprint of products and services.
Five, create financial systems that are aligned with the health of the planet
Financial systems should only finance initiatives that benefit the planet, and by extension humanity. Central banks and regulators should have a planetary and climate stability mandate, because without planetary stability, you can’t have financial stability.
Friends, as the global organization through which nations can safeguard this planet, UNEP will throw everything it has at these transformations.
UNEP is changing to tackle the triple planetary crisis as a whole – moving towards expertise that connects the dots. UNEP is changing to be quicker on its feet and flexible enough to respond to emerging needs. UNEP is looking further forward so that the strong science it has always delivered will drive cutting-edge solutions.
The immediate areas of focus are clear.
UNEP is throwing itself behind the international negotiating committee on the plastic pollution deal – so that the world can have a strong, implementable agreement by the 2024 deadline.
UNEP is embracing the digital transformation to ensure that the time lag between science, policy and action shortens – including through initiatives such at the World Environment Situation Room.
UNEP is strengthening its science – particularly on chemicals. The new science-policy panel on chemicals and waste and pollution, agreed at UNEA 5.2, will be what IPBES is for biodiversity and the IPCC is for climate.
UNEP is looking to mainstream its long-standing work on disasters and conflicts – which we all know are growing as the environment degrades, bringing natural catastrophes and disputes over resources.
But to deliver on everything, we need to take a hard look at the UNEP we want versus the UNEP we can afford.
To be frank, UNEP has long operated on a shoestring budget – and the shoestring is becoming increasingly frayed. The founders of UNEP had imagined core funding of USD 100 million, which in today’s dollars would amount to USD 691 million. But last year, UNEP’s core funding stood at USD 78 million – or some 11 per cent of the original vision.
I could not even quantify by how much UNEP’s mandate has grown since 1972 – but I can tell you that demands on this organization have grown exponentially since the Paris Agreement. Funding has not kept up with the requests placed on this organization and the influence it now brings to bear on global economies.
There is only so long that UNEP can keep punching above its weight before its muscles tire. Staff are coping with incredible workloads and multiple mandates. Meanwhile, tightly earmarked funding is steering us towards addressing the symptoms rather than the root causes. And this why the funding equation must change if we are to deliver the kind of impact that future generations need.
First, we need a healthier Environment Fund that provides the backbone of our capacity to deliver on UNEP’s mandate.
Second, we need to pool softly earmarked resources to enable us to be laser focused on the systemic changes the triple planetary crisis require. This is why UNEP has established three thematic funds designed to back transformation rather than pet projects. These funds – Climate Stability, Living in Harmony with Nature and Towards a Pollution Free Planet – will allow Member States to back UNEP’s work on addressing the triple crisis in ways that support countries’ economies and deliver greater impact.
Friends,
So, yes, I am dreaming of a better-resourced UNEP that is far better equipped to deliver on tackling the triple planetary crisis. Because UNEP has already done so much, with so little. I know we can do so much more. And I know our Nordic friends can lead the way towards the UNEP we want.
Regardless, UNEP will marshal its science, its innovation, its commitment, experience and heart to drive the environmental movement forward. Why? Because the environment supports us all. So, we must support it.
Thank you.
