|
A COMPLETE SUMMARY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AFTER THE
CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING AS PRESS RELEASE SC/9000.

U.N.
SECURITY COUNCIL: SUMMARIES OF STATEMENTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENERGY, SECURITY
AND CLIMATE
|
Statements
Speaking
in her national capacity, the President of the Council, MARGARET BECKETT,
Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, opened today’s debate, saying
that, while there was some doubt about whether the Council was the right forum,
the Council’s responsibility was the maintenance of international peace and
security, and climate change exacerbated many threats, including conflict and
access to energy and food. There was also potential economic disruption,
which would inevitably have an impact on the world. The international
community needed to recognize that there was a security impact from climate
change, and begin to build a shared understanding of the relationship between
energy, security and climate. By holding today’s debate, the Council was
not seeking to pre-empt the authority of other bodies, including the General
Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and various subsidiary bodies and
agencies. The decisions that they came to, and action taken, in all those
bodies required the fullest possible understanding of the issues involved.
So, she very much looked forward to today’s debate.
JÁN KUBIŠ, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said that the complexity of the climate
system made it difficult to predict, but there was now an effective consensus
among the world’s leading scientists that there was a discernible human
influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide
and the increase in temperature. Now was time to consider the policy
dimensions of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change had already finalized a new report that assessed the current and future
impact of global warming and explored opportunities for proactively adapting to
them. The report concluded that many elements of the natural and physical
environment were already responding to the effects of humanity’s greenhouse
gas emissions.
Continuing, he said it was
important to underline the scale of the implications for the developing world.
It was fairly easy to appreciate the security, stability and health
problems that would arise in a world in which there was increasing pressure on
water availability, where there was a major loss of arable land, food shortages
and large-scale displacements of population due to flooding and other climate
change effects. The poorest countries would suffer most. Over the
coming decades, the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, small island States, low-lying
ecosystems and water resources, and agricultural production in certain regions
would be at particular risk.
Such threats and growing social
stress could only be properly addressed through international agreements and
their consistent implementation, he continued. Only concerted action by
Governments could successfully address the long-term challenges of fighting
climate change and stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere,
while avoiding severe global economic and political strains and sustaining
economic growth. The 1987 Montreal Protocol had shown how quickly a global
environmental problem could be reversed, once targets were agreed upon.
Slovakia was strongly engaged to work with the world’s industrial countries
and emerging economies to reach emission-reduction targets after the first phase
of the Kyoto Protocol ended in 2012. Emissions trading was one of the most
cost-effective ways of reducing carbon emissions, and the emission-trading
scheme in Europe was of great importance to overall targets in that respect.
A worldwide network of such schemes could accelerate positive effects.
It was also necessary to continue to support investments of new low-carbon
technologies, and there were ways to consider nuclear energy as a cleaner
choice. Those were some of the reasons Slovakia would follow the
respective decisions of the March European Council on energy that had
established binding European Union commitments on carbon dioxide emissions.
Security was only one of the
factors to be considered under the climate change overall agenda, he added, but,
in this case, it was well in line with Security Council resolution 1625 (2005)
to comprehensively address the root causes of armed conflict and political and
social crises. Notwithstanding what the other forums, including the
General Assembly, already dealt with, the Council was well positioned to
incorporate that new dimension of perception of threats into its considerations,
while still remaining within its mandate.
VITTORIO
CRAXI, Under-Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs of Italy, said the present debate would help
provide “food for thought on the right actions to take in the competent
fora”. Climate change had the potential of affecting not only the
environment, but also stability and security, especially when they coincided
with problems of an ethnic, cultural, political or economic character. For
example, territorial changes caused by a rise in sea levels might impinge on
disputes over borders or the division of maritime zones. Environmental
degradation related to climate change might drive entire populations away from
areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, South-East Asia and small
islands -- indeed, it had been estimated that, by 2010, such “population
shifts” might number 50 million people. Those conflicts and mass
exoduses would then contribute to an increase in poverty, which, in turn, would
increase pockets of discontent and recruitment by rebels or terrorists.
He noted
the relationship between climate change and energy consumption, which, he said,
was reflected in crisis situations between States. Indeed, the modern
lifestyle required huge amounts of energy, translating into a search for large
quantities of fossil fuels, which could produce geopolitical tensions and
“environmental unsustainability”. Common strategies were needed to
address risks related to climate change and the world’s current model of
economic growth. In the context of the United Nations, Member States
should strive to implement a system of multilateral environmental governance, as
referred to by the Secretary-General in his report on the recommendations of the
Panel on System-Wide Coherence. Indeed, Italy believed firmly in creating
a United Nations environmental organization.
He said the European Union had
recently committed to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 and by
30 per cent in the event that a post-Kyoto international agreement was reached.
Targets were being set to increase energy efficiency, renewable energy and use
of biofuel. Italy played an active role on environmental questions within
the “Group of Eight” framework, and planned to hold a national conference on
climate in September.
JOHAN
VERBEKE ( Belgium) said the recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change reaffirmed the scope of the phenomenon and the urgency with
which it needed to be addressed. The international community must address
the issue in an integrated manner, which dealt with the need to promote growth,
while, at the same time, protecting the environment and reducing fossil fuel
consumption. It was clear that climate change and global warming raised
the risks of non-military threats, including, among others, sea-level rise,
degradation of biodiversity, displacement of populations and crop depletion.
They also increased the risk that fragile States would relapse into conflict or
civil war. He added that it was also apparent that climate change most
adversely affected those countries and peoples that were already struggling to
achieve sustainable development.
It was
necessary to broaden the scope of common thinking about security threats, he
said. That would lead to the development of clear, agreed and effective
policy frameworks to address climate change and energy use. There were
several steps that the United Nations could take. Along with guiding
reinvigorated global policy discussions and negotiations, the Secretary-General
must be encouraged to use his office to generate political will to recognize not
only the issue of climate change, but the security dimensions of the phenomenon.
The Organization could also
back efforts to ensure the capacity to prevent and manage climate risks could be
strengthened and at national levels, he continued. States had everything
to gain from close dialogue with civil society, which was today a crucial
driving force for raising awareness about climate change. The picture
drawn by experts was alarming, even dire. Nevertheless, there was a window
of opportunity to act, but not much time. Only a new spirit of political
courage and dedication would “allow us to live up to our responsibility of
collective security”.
L.K.
CHRISTIAN ( Ghana) commended the United Kingdom for holding the current
debate, and said it was his country’s fervent hope that the “repeated
alarm” about the threats posed by climate change, especially to regions that
were already struggling with chronic instability, would “lead to action that
is timely, concerted and sustainable”. For its part, the African Union
was collaborating on climate issues with the United Nations Economic Commission
for Africa (ECA), the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and
the International Council for Science. At a session of the assembly of
Heads of State and Government of the African Union in January, the supportive
efforts of development partners were acknowledged in an action plan entitled
“Climate Information for Development Needs: An Action Plan for Africa”.
He said
the issue of climate change in Africa should be framed in terms of how to combat
the phenomenon without compromising the targeted 8 per cent growth rate needed
to reduce poverty. To do so, it was important to consider the following:
What sorts of compromises would developing countries be obliged to make, in line
with the emergent international consensus on energy, security and climate
change? Would they be politically sustainable within already fragile
States? In light of the “unfinished business of the Kyoto Protocol”,
in what direction should the partnership between developed and developing
countries move towards?
He said that, with global
energy consumption estimated to grow by 70 per cent by 2030, the acquisition and
protection of energy supplies was of strategic importance to nations. The
Gulf of Guinea Commission, comprised of oil-rich countries in West and Central
Africa, had been working to ensure that potential maritime border disputes were
peacefully resolved, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea. That peaceful approach was exemplified in the dispute between
Nigeria and Cameroon, which had been brokered by the United Nations. Yet,
sharp increases in temperature, which might have a hand in worsening drought and
flooding, led to food shortages, the spread of disease and the displacement of
people. The expanding Sahara desert had brought with it some cross-border
problems -- for example, there were credible reports of nomadic Fulani cattle
herdsmen arming themselves with sophisticated assault rifles to confront local
farming communities, who had become impatient with the roaming cattle. It
was important that, from time to time, the Council evaluate the dangers of such
confrontations. The deadly competition over resources in Africa could not
be glossed over; be they over water, shrinking grazing land or the inequitable
distribution of oil.
BASILE IKOUEBE ( Congo)
said that climate change represented one of the major challenges today. He
shared the concerns of the “Group of 77” developing countries with regard to
the functions of various bodies of the United Nations when it came to issues of
sustainable development. There was a need, however, for an urgent
response, and the Security Council was well placed to help the international
community become aware of the threat posed by climate change. Congo
also supported the Secretary-General’s call for urgent action.
He said that the report
published in Brussels on 6 April was unequivocal regarding the threats and
clearly indicated that the areas most affected would include the Arctic,
sub-Saharan Africa, small island developing States, low-lying and coastal areas.
It also stated that the poorest would suffer the most. The irony
would be that the poor would be paying for the excess consumption and carefree
attitude of the rich. Africa was concerned about climate change, and a
recent summit in Addis Ababa had addressed that issue. Congo was
already facing the challenges of climate change. For the first time in
history, men and women would fight for food, energy and water, but, this time,
at a larger scale and with disastrous effects that would dwarf the conflicts of
the past.
It was useful that the main
body of the United Nations in charge of security sought to galvanize universal
awareness of the issues involved, he continued. He expected the Council to
sound an alarm bell, but details and strategies needed to be elaborated
elsewhere. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol set the framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
For their part, seeking to protect the second greatest forest mass after
the Amazon forest, several African countries had adopted a partnership to
promote sustainable management of the Congo Basin. That was a huge
initiative, which brought together several bilateral and multilateral partners
and sought maximum participation. He hoped there would be greater
commitment from the international community regarding climate change, and that
would be expressed at the conference to be held in Bali in December. The
International Panel on Climate Change had pointed out that conflicts might
develop for water resources and that climate change could lead to an increase in
migration, if adequate adaptation measures were not adopted and included in
long-term strategies. The Council should shape the necessary awareness for
urgent action.
NASSIR
ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER ( Qatar) said that climate change had become an
urgent and pressing reality that left the global community with one option:
international collective action to alleviate its repercussions and dire
consequences for the planet. An optimal and effective solution to the
problem could only be reached through an approach that would address climate
change in the context of sustainable development. As the subject of
climate was part and parcel of development, the processes to address it must
begin with the developing countries.
To that end, he recalled two
important elements of the 1992 Rio Declaration: those who brought about climate
change in the first place, alone bore the financial burden of the damage done;
and the development process must neither be sacrificed nor compromised due to
climate change. He said that it was noteworthy that the negotiations on
the Kyoto Protocol had completely overlooked the subject of development, which
had led to a failure to effectively address the issue. The inability to
produce a single comprehensive report on the twin questions of climate change
and sustainable development was indicative of that failure.
Any successful solution to the
climate change problem must emerge as a part of an integrated approach to
sustainable development, he continued. He posed a series of questions that
the international community must ask itself, including what the impact of
population density, income levels, energy and carbon concentration was. The
answer to those and other questions -- questions that could not be raised in the
Council -- would require in-depth and detailed studies, which must precede the
formulation of precise policies or recommendations.
Much had been said and written
about the threats emanating from climate change and, as the picture was becoming
clearer, the question could not be addressed by debates limited exclusively to
the Security Council. “We need mechanisms capable of enforcing their
resolutions, provided that they are of wider representation,” he said.
He added that Qatar did not believe that the Council was the optimal mechanism
to address the question of climate change, because the power line-up in the
15-nation body lacked balance. What was needed was a specialized,
competent and expanded membership forum like the Commission on Sustainable
Development, the Economic and Social Council and, first and foremost, the
General Assembly.
ALEJANDRO
D. WOLFF ( United States) said climate change presented serious
challenges. Under the presidency of the United Kingdom two years ago, the
Group of Eight leaders meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, had emphasized that
energy, security, climate change and sustainable development were fundamentally
linked. In consultations with development partners, the Group of Eight
leaders had committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve the global
environment and enhance energy security in ways that promoted human development.
For its part, the United States was, among other things, working with
Brazil to advance biofuels and leading the global efforts for the commercial
deployment of near-zero-emission coal technology through $1.65 billion in tax
credits. At home, the United States was on track to meet its goal of
reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of its economy by 18 per cent from 2002 to
2012.
He went on to say that the Bush
Administration had pledged some $500 million to the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) over the next four years, the largest contribution of any country, to help
developing countries address climate change issues. The most effective way
to bolster security and stability was to increase the capacity of States to
govern themselves effectively. States that could govern themselves
effectively could anticipate and manage change. He said that successful
development strategies focused on education, rule of law, human freedom and
economic opportunity. The international community had joined together in
recognizing that at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development.
He said that well-governed
countries grew and prospered. Economic growth provided the resources, in
both developed and developing countries, to address energy and environmental
challenges associated with climate change. He said that the United States
had a long history of extending help so that people could live in democratic
societies with robust economies and strong and stable Governments. It
continued to support working with freedom-loving people everywhere to face the
future with confidence and determination.
JEAN-MARC
DE LA SABLIČRE ( France) saluted the United Kingdom presidency for
having planned today’s debate. Climate change was among the main threats
to the future of humankind. It was a basic threat, whose consequences were
already affecting the world. Its possible impact on international peace
and security had been outlined in a useful concept paper presented by the United
Kingdom. The awareness of the problem was growing, but it had not yet been
translated into concerted action to reduce the damage. The Security
Council was certainly not the main -- and the only forum -- to address the
issue. The Framework Convention on Climate Change clearly played a central
role. However, the Council could not ignore the threats to peace and
security caused by climate change. Everyone had a role to play. All
the climate change threats were real and would affect security among nations.
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change had issued its report that included scientifically corroborated
conclusions, he continued. On 6 April, the Panel had concluded that
climate change phenomena would cause extreme natural disasters, lead to serious
food crises and increase health dangers, because of the changes in the
ecosystems. There was convincing evidence of the dangers. Clearly,
depletion of resources could increase competition for food, energy and water.
Other dangers included the loss of arable land, natural disasters and a
rise in water levels, which could lead to an increase in the number of refugees
and cause uncontrollable migratory flows. No one was immune, but the
impact would be greater where accompanied by pre-existing vulnerability. The
most vulnerable countries would pay the highest price, because of their low
capacity to respond. The situation required decisive, urgent collective
action to mitigate climate change and reduce its consequences to a tolerable
level. The cost of failure to act was infinitely greater than the cost of
taking action.
The
issue fell within the Security Council’s mandate to prevent conflicts, he
said. Thus, it was the duty of the Council to consider what could be done
in terms of preventive diplomacy. The Secretary-General could reach out to
areas where climate change could have an impact on peace. The consequences
of climate change should be mainstreamed in risk analysis by the Secretariat.
The Council, in its efforts to resolve conflicts, must also integrate the
depletion of resources dimension. That was already an important factor for
conflict in Africa. Conflict prevention meant mobilization of all
instruments in support of the efforts of developing countries. The Council
might promote integration of the security, environmental, social and other
dimensions of the issue, since poverty and environmental degradation could no
longer be considered isolated threats. Recognizing the importance of the
issue, France had also proposed creation of a United Nations organ devoted to
the environment, in addition to UNEP. Also, the international community
could not win the battle against climate change, unless it implemented existing
instruments.
LIU ZHENMIN ( China)
said that the international community was fully aware that climate change would
affect national economic and social development, and was related to the
sustainable development of human society. China was, therefore, ready and
willing to discuss with other countries how to reinforce international
cooperation and jointly respond to climate change. The issue could have
certain security implications, but, generally speaking, it was, in essence, an
issue of sustainable development. The Framework Convention on Climate
Change had laid down the fundamental principles for the international
community’s response to climate change. The Kyoto Protocol had set up
targets for developed countries -- limited, but measurable -- for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The Conference of the parties of the Convention,
the Commission on Sustainable Development and UNEP were all involved in related
discussions and actions. To effectively respond to climate change, it was
necessary to follow the principle of “common, but differentiated,
responsibilities” set forth in the Convention, respect existing arrangements,
strengthen cooperation and encourage more action.
Climate change solutions
required the concerted effort of the international community, he continued.
Discussing the issue in the Security Council would not help countries in
their efforts, and it would be hard for the Council to assist developing
countries affected by climate change to find more effective adaptations. Discussions
on climate change should be conducted within the framework that allowed
participation by all parties. The developing countries believed that the
Security Council did not have expertise and did not allow extensive
participation in decision-making. It would not help produce widely
acceptable proposals. Discussions in today’s meeting should be regarded
as an exception, with neither outcome documents, nor follow-up actions.
The
Chinese Government attached great importance to climate change, he added. As a
developing country, China had formulated its national sustainable development
strategy as early as 15 years ago. It was now formulating a national
response strategy for climate change. China would continue to
vigorously implement its sustainable development strategy and make its
contribution to addressing climate change in its own way. He supported
conducting full and pragmatic discussions on related issues within the
mechanisms of the Climate Change Convention. China also favoured
international cooperation on clean development. At the end of this month,
discussions on climate change would be conducted at the fifteenth session of the
Commission on Sustainable Development. He looked forward to working with
other countries for climate change solutions.
BAN KI-MOON, United Nations
Secretary-General, said that, throughout human history, people and countries had
fought over natural resources. From livestock, watering holes and fertile
land, to trade routes, fish stocks, spices, sugar, oil, gold and other precious
commodities. War had too often been the means to secure possession of
scarce resources. Even today, the uninterrupted supply of fuel and
minerals was a key element of geopolitical considerations.
Things
were easier at times of plenty, when all could share in the abundance, even if
to different degrees. “But, when resources are scarce -- whether energy,
water or arable land -- our fragile ecosystems become strained, as do the coping
mechanisms of groups and individuals,” he said, adding: “This can lead to a
breakdown of established codes of conduct, and even outright conflict.”
In a series of reports on
conflict prevention, he said that former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi
Annan had pointed to the threats emanating from environmental degradation and
resource scarcity. Quoting from the latest of the reports, he said:
“Environmental degradation has the potential to destabilize already
conflict-prone regions, especially when compounded by inequitable access or
politicization of access to scarce resources. I urge Member States to
renew their efforts to agree on ways that allow all of us to live sustainably
within the planet’s means.”
Mr. Ban
said he wanted to renew and amplify that call. Compared to the cost of
conflict and its consequences, the cost of prevention was far lower -- in
financial terms, but, most importantly, in the cost of human lives and life
quality. He added that he firmly believed that, today, all countries
recognized that climate change, in particular, required a long-term global
response, in line with the latest scientific findings and compatible with
economic and social development.
According to the most recent
assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the planet’s
warming was unequivocal, its impact was clearly noticeable and it was beyond
doubt that human activities had been contributing considerably to it, he went
on. Adverse effects were already being felt in many areas, including
agriculture and food security; oceans and coastal areas; biodiversity and
ecosystems; water resources; human health; human settlements; energy, transport
and industry; and in extreme weather events.
“Projected
changes in the earth’s climate are, thus, not only an environmental concern.
They can also have serious social and economic implications, and -- as the
Council points up today -- issues of energy and climate change can have
implications for peace and security,” he said. That was especially true
in vulnerable regions that faced multiple stresses at the same time --
pre-existing conflict, poverty, unequal access to resources, weak institutions,
food insecurity and incidence of diseases, such as HIV/AIDS.
By example, he asked the
Council members to consider some scenarios – “all alarming, though not
alarmist” -- among others, the adverse effects of changing weather patterns,
such as floods and droughts, and related economic costs, including compensation
for lost land, could risk polarizing society and marginalizing communities.
That, in turn, could weaken the institutional capacity of States to
resolve conflict through peaceful and democratic means, to ensure social
cohesion and to safeguard human rights.
Offering another sobering
scenario, he asked the Council to consider that migration, driven by factors
such as climate change, could deepen tensions and conflicts, particularly in
regions with large numbers of internally displaced persons and refugees. Further,
scarce resources, especially water and food, could help transform peaceful
competition into violence. “Limited or threatened access to energy is
already known to be a powerful driver of conflict. Our changing planet
risks making it more so,” he said.
While
those were only possible scenarios, the international community could not sit
back and watch to see whether they turned into reality. The entire
multilateral machinery needed to come together to prevent it from becoming so,
he said. “We must focus more clearly on the benefits of early action,”
he said. “The resources of civil society and the private sector must be
brought in. And this Council has a role to play in working with other
competent intergovernmental bodies to address the possible root causes of
conflict discussed today.”
BEZLAN
ISHAN JENIE (Indonesia) supported the position of the Non-Aligned
Movement and said that, while his delegation could agree with the objectives of
today’s debate, it believed that the issue was being addressed effectively in
other fora, including the Commission on Sustainable Development, which would
deliberate on the issue of energy and climate change at its fifteenth session.
Future threats to security posed by climate change must be avoided and he called
on all States to adhere to the Rio principles, especially the principle of
common but differentiated responsibility, the “Agenda 21”, the Johannesburg
Plan of Implementation, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Developed countries should immediately
fulfil their commitments, particularly with regard to means of implementation.
Without that, the adverse impact on the environment would not only continue, but
also increase poverty and impede economic development -- an issue closely linked
to potential security threats.
Realizing the formidable
challenges of energy and climate change, the international community should
seize the opportunity to reach a global consensus on ways to adapt and mitigate
climate change in the relevant fora, he added. The upcoming session of the
Commission on Sustainable Development and the thirteenth Conference of the
Parties of the Climate Change Convention in Bali in December were two very
important forums in which the issue of climate change and energy should be
deliberated. The success of those meetings would contribute to creating a
conducive environment that could prevent the potential negative effects of
climate change on security.
ALBERTO ARIAS ( Panama)
said that there was a broadly recognized link between the availability of clean
reliable energy and the ability of peoples to achieve sustainable development.
But, it was clear that the international community still needed to further
study the impact of socio-economic growth on global warming, as well as on
international peace and security. The answers should be pursued at all
levels, with a view towards integrated and synergistic approaches. All
United Nations organs should debate the impacts of climate change, in accordance
with their respective mandates.
The
Council had, from time to time, held debates on issues that fell under the
competence of other bodies. The Council’s debates served to raise
awareness of issues that were at the top of the global agenda. There was
no doubt that there were some security concerns attendant with the climate
change phenomenon, including the effects of land and resource degradation that
led to crop depletion and food insecurity. Those and other issues needed
to be addressed urgently and head on. Indeed, it was the very gradual
build-up of the effects of climate change that made dealing with the phenomenon
such a pressing matter, for, in the words of T. S. Eliot: “This is how the
world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.”
DUMISANI KUMALO ( South
Africa) underscored that today’s debate did not fall within the mandate of
the Council and would be better addressed in other forums. Adopted in
1992, the Rio principles included the principle of common but differentiated
responsibility, which was fundamental to any debate on climate change. The
World Summit in Johannesburg had reaffirmed that principle and assigned the
General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Sustainable
Development and UNEP, as well as the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto
Protocol, with the responsibility of following up on climate change and
sustainable development.
Recent reports by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had reconfirmed that Africa was one of
the vulnerable continents because of multiple stresses and low capacity, he
continued. Some of the impacts for Africa included the fact that, by 2020,
between 75 million and 250 million people were projected to suffer exposure to
an increase in water stress due to climate change. Agricultural
production, including access to food, was expected to be severely compromised.
Other issues included decreasing fisheries and resources of lakes, as well as a
projected sea-level rise, which would affect low-lying areas.
The costs
of adapting could amount to some 5 to 10 per cent of gross domestic product
(GDP), he said. Clearly, an inequitable global response, where the largest
emitters in the developed world did not shoulder their respective
responsibilities to mitigate and assist others to adapt, could contribute to
instability and exacerbate conflict potential. Developed countries should
take the lead in funding the adaptation activities. All countries should
meet their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The world was relatively
unprepared to deal with disasters, and the vulnerable countries could not bear
the brunt of the costs. A new focus was needed on predicting, preventing
and handling climate-related disasters. The Climate Change Convention and
Kyoto were in place, and he looked forward to the Bali meeting later this year.
He added that all countries
should honour the existing instruments, in order to avoid future disasters.
The issues discussed here were, first and foremost, developmental in nature, and
would be best dealt with by the General Assembly. The mandate of the
Council did not deal with such matters. It was vital for all Member States
to promote sustainable development, especially the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities, and fully implement Agenda 21. South
Africa attached great importance to the reassurance by the United Kingdom that
today’s meeting would not result in any outcome or summary. He also
hoped that the discussions would not in any way elevate the issue of climate or
environment to being an agenda item of the Council.

~~~~~
MaximsNews.com, An Independent Voice from the
U.N., provides commentary and analysis from
leading world figures: King Abdullah II
(Jordan), HRH Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid Al-Hussein
(Jordan), Sir Brian Urquhart, Hans Blix, Amb.
Richard Holbrooke, Anwar Ibrahim, Bianca Jagger,
Dr. Nafis Sadik, Shashi Tharoor, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Noeleen Heyzer, Kerry
Kennedy, Ian Williams, Stephen Schlesinger, Sen.
Timothy E. Wirth, Marc Morial, Amb. Jayantha
Dhanapala (Sri Lanka), Amb. Pierre Schori
(Sweden), Amb. William H. Luers, Susan Roosevelt
Weld, Rory Kennedy, Mehri
Madarshahi, J. Michael Adams, Gloria Feldt,
Jeffrey Laurenti, Rodney D. Smith, Ashley
Bommer, Rory
O'Connor, Genevieve Stamper, Max Stamper and
others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MaximsNews Network® LLC is a Global News Network reaching over 30,000 in the International Community. It is associated with MediaChannel.org and Globalvision News Network, global news and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 135 countries.
MaximsNews®LLC is in partnership with the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund.
Established in 1999.
The views expressed are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of MaximsNews®
LLC.
MaximsNews.com
U.N. ® LLC News for the United Nations and the International Community -
www.MaximsNews.com
| MaximsNews@MaximsNews.com |
Please
contact us about Republishing:
Syndication@MaximsNews.com ©Copyrights 1999 - 2007, MaximsNews® LLC. All rights
reserved.
|