Photo by Vadim Kantor
Denmark's former environment minister, Svend Auken, discusses a range of environmental issues, from Kyoto to CEE's role in the Environment for Europe process
By Pavel Antonov
Looking at the melting glaciers of Greenland, how would you evaluate Kyoto and the global effort to prevent climate change so far?
I am very critical of the Kyoto Protocol because it has not resulted in a real reduction [of emissions]. In the EU, if you discount the effect of deindustrialisation in East Germany and the rest of CEE, actual emission levels are rising, not falling. The US is now 20-25 percent above 1990 [levels], but was supposed to reduce them by 7 percent. And if you look at China, India and other places with responsibility for the climate, [emissions] are just going up. When we made Kyoto, emissions were increasing by 1 percent each year, but we knew this was bad and that we had to stabilise and reduce them. But since Kyoto, after 2000, our emissions have increased instead by 3 percent; so in fact we are not really addressing the problem successfully.
Kyoto has far too many complexities, far too many loopholes, and far too many avenues for creative bookkeeping instead of real reductions. If the whole approach is limited to emissions trading, joint [implementation] projects and clean development initiatives, Kyoto ends up being a sort of credit-taking marketplace where the money is deciding what should be done. The pressure for technological innovation is not strong enough in developed countries. All the control systems are very, very complex. In order to make things acceptable for industry, governments tend to give out huge production quotas for free. So many quotes are allowed in Germany, for example, that it perpetuates the development of more coal power plants.
The danger I see now is that, while overcoming one basic flaw — which is that many countries like the US and the big emitters of the developing world are not included in Kyoto — the document will be further complicated and watered down. If that is the end result, we'd be better off doing nothing. However, if we truly believed that climate is a threat at least on the same level as terrorism or other big threats, then we would deal with it in a much more aggressive fashion. We would fix target reductions for each country, and find a way to mobilise the world community and enforce the rules. Make rules less complex, and with fewer loopholes. And persuade the Chinese, Indians and others to come on board by giving them a generous no-tariff agreement, access to our market, access to our technology, funds and resources, and in return they should accept targets for stabilisation or small increases. Measures like these are necessary.
Shouldn't biodiversity be brought back into the debate on climate solutions?
Biodiversity and deforestation should not be left out of the picture when dealing with climate change. Deforestation, which is happening in Brazil, Siberia and elsewhere, is in fact contributing to 22 percent of the world's climate change emissions. If you reduce forest areas rapidly, as the world is doing now, it has a tremendous effect on climate. Add to this the fact that 60 percent of all known species live in tropical rain forest [habitats].
What is the role played by Central and Eastern Europe in the European and global effort?
Unfortunately, the role of Central and Eastern European countries has changed a bit [for the worse]. When we were in Kyoto, CEE countries were our allies. Nowadays it seems as if the bookkeepers have taken over. Many of these countries find it unfair that they have to reduce [emissions], which is why they are taking the European Commission [to court]. From the climate point of view, I find it very sad that the CEE countries that used to be at the avant-garde are now on the negative side. It is so easy to be negative. What is important is to be positive and to find solutions together. The Poles are not providing leadership here; they are leading a very negative coalition in this respect. CEE governments have been among the best in international environmental agreements, so it is sad for me today to see the rest of Europe hamstrung by them.
Could the Environment for Europe ministerial process still serve as an open platform for holistic solutions to environment?
Environment for Europe was one of the most important processes after the fall of the Berlin Wall. There have been other pan-European processes, but none of them achieved similar importance. This is true not only in terms of political understanding and cooperation, but also in achieving concrete agreements. We have done so much in that respect! Transboundary air pollution, chemicals, the Aarhus Convention. The Economic Commission for Europe, which is arranging these meetings, has been the UN regional office that has achieved most results by far when it comes to environment protection. Due to the fact that the Soviet Union as such started in this process, important Central Asian states are there now. Although Environment for Europe does not have the importance it had before EU enlargement, it [still] has enormous relevance in giving us a forum for cooperating with the Caucasus and Central Asia. In environment terms this is fantastic. There has been an impression of insignificance, however, because EU countries say they are doing so much, while Caucasus and Central Asian countries feel rather desperate, and the Balkan states have so many other problems. But there is a good case for reinvigorating the process. Among my fondest memories are those of meeting colleagues from CEE in this cooperation: doing things like setting up projects and adapting legislation, but also putting money into implementing all of this. It has been an extraordinary experience. I very much hope that we succeed in taking up this huge task of Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasian states and Central Asian republics.
Aarhus is one of the success stories of this process. Could it be taken further to other regions of the world?
The Aarhus Convention is being implemented now in national legislation all over the EU. It has, however, created a lot of difficulties in interpretation and enforcement and so forth, not least in countries like Austria and Germany. There have been a lot of legal problems. Implementing the convention inside the EU has been both a success and a failure. There is success in greatly improving access to information.
Some of the public consultation instruments have been improved and the European Commission is now convinced that it has to get people's opinions before it takes positions. But when it comes to legal review and compliance instruments the EU still has a long way to go. [This is why] people joke that if the EU applied for membership in the European Union it would not be accepted as a member — as it is not democratic enough! But [Aarhus] is moving in the right direction. There are other areas that could benefit from the freedom of access that we have in the field of environmental information.
The [United Nations Environment Programme] has done a remarkable job of promoting the Aarhus Convention. I hope it becomes adopted by Asian, Latin American, and even North American and African nations. I welcome all efforts in this direction. The good thing about the UN system is that any countries who decide can be part of it. You don't need to find 20 partners in Latin America. You can do it all by yourself.
Aarhus set a pioneering example in the strategic uses of information technology back in the time when internet was not so well known to governments, especially in Eastern Europe. Whose vision made this possible?
No doubt, the Aarhus Convention has been the international agreement that adhered to the fundamentals of the global electronic community. It came at the same time [as the popular usage of internet].
When we drafted and negotiated [the convention], we already had people who were thinking a lot about the enormous potential of electronic communication. We tried to make Aarhus not a top-down process, but a bottom-up process involving NGOs, media, people — throughout all of the former communist countries. Very often, the only way to reach them was through the net. That wasn't a coincidence, as the net played a big part. What else could we have done? We supported building of websites, framing, and internet usage. We did not want the convention to be [owned by] only a few Western governments; we wanted it to be something thoroughly controlled by East European countries — and not only by governments. We also wanted civil society to be involved. The internet was there from day one.
