.gif)
MenuSearch |
Somarelang Tikologo 9th Annual MeetingBjørn Førde The Chairperson of the Board of Trustees Somarelang Tikologo, Honourable Board Members, Members of the various specialist commities, The general membership of Somarelang Tikologo Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen I am honoured to have been asked to give the Keynote Address at this Annual Meeting, and I will use the opportunity to reflect a bit about the general state of affairs with regard to the environment, and also indicate to you how I see the role of UNDP. Ladies and gentlemen! Let me first provide a brief historical perspective! From the composition of the audience I can see that some of you are old enough to remember that some 30 years have now passed since the UN for the first time gathered the nations of the world to discuss the issue of environment and sustainable development. This was in Stockholm in 1972. I was a university student back then, very much involved in issues of global development. While the environment was slowly forcing its way on to the global agenda, it is also fair to say that issues of economic development and poverty were the primary focus at this point in time. I don’t think very many of us really understood back then how crucial the environment is to development in general, and more specifically how intrinsically linked to poverty and inequality the way we handle natural resources broadly speaking is. But this understanding increased exponentially during the 1970’ies and 80’ies for a number of reasons. In industrialized countries like my own, Denmark, a major reason was the fact that we were confronted with vivid examples of environmental collapse. Lakes died because they were being filled indiscriminately with the waste from an increasingly industrialized agricultural system. Examples of ground water resources being polluted by industrial chemicals grew. Food was being filled with leftovers from the medicines farmers were forced to fill their animals with, because the whole focus was on increased production. At the end of the day, society had to pay – through increased expenditures for hospitals because people got sick. And also through the costs related to cleaning up chemical dumps that we never knew about. It was therefore increasingly clear to more and more people that we were living in a system where the costs related to environmental destruction were very real, but at the same time ‘hidden’. The polluter did not pay, and this was seen as unacceptable and wrong by more and more people. In developing countries it also became clear to more and more of us that while the drive towards economic growth and development was of course necessary in order to improve livelihoods – create jobs, diversify the economy, enable countries to trade in the global market, etc. – this should not be done by compromising the livelihoods of future generations. Which is what was happening! Desertification was on the march due to unsustainable agricultural practices. Tropical forests were being cut down indiscriminately in order to provide consumers in the North with cheap products of hardwood. And we could mention numerous other examples. All of this provided a movement in civil society of ordinary people organizing themselves to change the development agenda. People focusing on the little things that matter to the environment in your local community, and scientists focusing on the big things that were happening to the global environment through global warming and changes in the climatic patterns. Bit by bit these concerns were also finding their way into the stubborn heads of political leaders and government bureaucrats. So when the UN Secretary General through the General Assembly in 1983 asked the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, to chair the commission that should prepare the background document for the 1992 Rio Conference on Environment and Development, the ground was more ‘fertile’ for defining a new way forward than ever before. Ladies and gentlemen! Personally I consider the Brundtland Commision report called ‘Our Common Future’ published in 1987 as one of the most important documents of our time. Among the many reports published by the UN system over the years, this has probably been read by more people than most other reports. In Denmark I personally worked on translating it into Danish, and it was published at the same time as the English version – with one of my own photographs on the cover, capturing the Masaais in the Ngorongoro in Tanzania, who have for centuries lived with nature in an environmentally sustainable manner. We can no doubt argue about a lot of the statements presented in the report, and many will argue that the report was not far-reaching enough. In particular the report did not really ‘solve’ the conflict between growth and the environment. This is an issue that we continue to struggle with, and at the end of the day I believe we will have to accept this as a constant issue of conflict, because we are unable to divource issues of sustainable development from self interest and making money. However, I do believe that the report still stands as a defining landmark in the evolution of a new development paradign. After Our Common Future and the Rio Conference it is no longer acceptable to define development without being concerned about future generations and the need for mankind to respect nature. The concept of sustainable development will forever be synonymous with Rio 1992. And I would like to believe that Somarelang Tikologo founded in 1993 is also a ‘child’ of Rio and the Brundtland thinking. This is also reflected in your mission statement: “To improve the quality of life of Botswana by promoting a clean and healthy environment and mobilizing members of the public to monitor, raise awareness and lobby for improvement of the environment.” Before the 1992 Conference in Rio I wrote a book called ‘Our Planet is Beautiful’. This was a text book for high school students, based on the Brundtland-Rio agenda, and it became a bestseller in Danish schools. I mention this because I believe that the efforts I have read about of Somarelang Tikologo pushing for environmental education through various programmes is an extremely important effort. The slogan coined in the 1980’ies of acting locally while thinking globally is extremely important. It needs to be maintained year after year, and it must be made a natural way of thinking among our young generations. So keep that up! Generally speaking I would also like to commend Somarelang Tikologo for being dedicated to protecting Botswana’s environment through your focus areas of Environmental Planning, Waste Management, and Resource Conservation. As I have tried to indicate, these are global challenges facing all nations, developing and developed alike. We need dedicated people like yourselves to continuously remind us to be mindful not to destroy the environment, the very basis of human sustenance. Ladies and gentlemen – let me then turn to the UN in Botswana, and to what UNDP is trying to do! Our point of departure is the Common Country Assesment from 2002, which defines the ‘stage’ for UN interventions. This is our analysis of the challenges facing the country, developed in cooperation with the stakeholders, government as well as civil society. And based on the CCA, the UN Development Assistance Framework identifies the areas of priority intervention, recognizing that we cannot get involved in everything. It will come as no surprise to you that HIV/AIDS and Poverty are two of the three priorities. And hopefully you will appreciate that the third priority is Environment. I am sure you are aware that all UN agencies residing in Botswana are involved in the war on HIV/AIDS. With regard to Poverty and Environment, UNDP is the primary agency, and we already have or are in the process of finalizing Program Support Documents in both of these areas with the Government of Botswana. Our focus in Environment is on what we call Capacity to Manage. It is UNDP’s objective to help countries adopt integrated approaches that focus on managing natural resources to improve the livelihoods of people. Priority is given to ‘preventive’ measures, as care is taken to ensure that actions taken to solve current crises do not interfere with the long-term sustainability of resources and the development process. In the programme that eneded last year, the interventions were based on the priorities identified in the National Conservation Strategy, while recognising existing interventions by the Government and donors. The priority areas of support were:
We know that not all the objectives of the previous program were achieved, at least not to the extent we would have liked to see. But I do believe it succeeded somewhat in driving the development of key environmental legislation, piloted community projects funded through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and supported capacity development for environmental conservation, monitoring the environment and helping Botswana fulfill its reporting requirements under global environmental conventions. The new program naturally builds on past experiences, but it has also been a strong wish on my side that we could have a program that focuses more clearly rather than spreading itself all over the place and thus running the risk of having very limited impact. So the focus is now on three dimensions, namely:
Implementation has been slow for reasons that I will not distract you with, but I hope that we are now coming on track. A Programme Implementation Unit situated in NCSA is being recruited and once in place, the team will start liaising with various stakeholders and compile a workplan. As those of you who have been involved in the process will know, a large part of the work is envisaged to be undertaken by NGOs in recognition of their unique experience in areas such as public education and awareness raising. UNDP is also implementing a number of thematic projects in partnership with the Global Environmental Facility. I want to express my concern about the limited participation we have had from NGOs in this area. The NGO-Modality of these projects has been highly underutilised in Botswana, and I would like to urge NGOs to engage with us to help Botswana deliver on Improved Environmental Management. I will also ask my staff to be more pro-active in this endeavour. At present, the GEF projects portfolio includes:
I do note with interest work that has been carried out by Somarelang Tikologo on Energy Saving techniques and the associated public education that went with it. That we can have electric gysers and still use fire-wood to heat our water for fear of running our power bill too high is indicative of how the market is failing us by not making available information on energy-saving designs and associated long-term savings. I trust that such ground-breaking work will continue for the benefit of consumers. Although it is not directly a UNDP program, it is very much a part of UNDP, so I want to sat a few words about what I consider to be an extremely important program: The GEF Small Grants Program. This program provides grants for community-based activities that seek to: reduce greenhouse gas emissions; protect biodiversity; protect international waters; reduce persistent organic pollution and combat desertification as it relates to the other problem areas. It demonstrates community-based approaches and strategies that could reduce threats to the global environment if replicated successfully, over time. Its underlying philosophy is that the projects should be sustainable and lead to a win-win situation for communities and the environment. A unique feature of the program is its decentralisation and incorporation of national and local structures and strategies in program implementation. It is the only program where the potential beneficiaries are involved in the appraisal of applications and formulation of a country strategy that adapts the program to the country situation. Since its inception in 1992, it has supported over fifty projects. These include:
It has also been involved in research. Studies on Phane and Mophane have provided a wealth of information about the conservation of mophane woodlands and phane worms, currently under threat from commercial harvesters. A Wildlife-Human Conflict in the Chobe Enclave study provides a better understanding of the correlation between the physical, ecological and social parameters that influence the conflict and its impact on communities. And a study on Wattled Cranes has generated regular information on the status of wattled cranes in the Okavango Delta. Ladies and gentlemen – let me close with a few words about the challenges we are together in finding answers to! Recently the Botswana MDG status report 2004 was published, with the title ‘Achievements, Future Challenges and Choices’. If you do not have it, we can make sure you get it. Not because you will necessarily find information you have not been aware of, but because it is set in the global context of the MDGs. Let me just clarify what the targets and indicators for Goal 7 says: Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources – with indicators about proportion of land covered by forest; protected biological diversity area, energy use per GDP; carbon dioxide emissions; and the use of solid fuels. Target 10. Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water - with one indicator about the population with access to sustainable water sources. Target 11. By 2020 to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers – with two indicators about urban population with access to sanitation, and households with access to secure tenure. In the Botswana report, we decided to focus on only three areas:
I think that maybe we are being too optimistic! It will take a lot of determination and coordination and cooperation among government and civil society institutions to achieve this. And it is necessary for Botswana, that we all know. What I can assure you is that UNDP will be an active partner in this process towards 2015 and 2016. We will do our best to make sure that the vision expressed in Vision 2016 becomes a reality: “By the year 2016, economic growth and development in Botswana will be sustainable. Renewable resources will be used at a rate that is in balance with their regeneration capacity. Non-renewable resources such as minerals will be used efficiently, and their depletion will be balanced by enhanced physical and labour capital. There will be a fully integrated approach towards conservation and development. The key natural resources and assets of the country will be equitably distributed between its people. Communities will be involved in the use and preservation of their environmental assets, and will benefit directly from their exploitation. The attitude towards natural resources will pay attention to a fair distribution between present and future generations. The wild life of Botswana will be managed for the sustainable benefit of the local communities, and the environment.” If we manage this, at the local level of Botswana, we will also have contributed to the global vision that started in Stockholm in 1972, was further deepened in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, was echoed by the Social Summit in Copenhagen in 1995, and confirmed in Johannesburg in 2002. The fact that Prof Wangari Maathai from the Green Belt Movement this year was chosen to receive the Nobel Peace Prize is proof that at least something is moving in the right direction. Having worked with her and supported her work when I was with civil society, I also know that it has been an uphill struggle since the start in 1977. What seems obvious and necessary to us may not be as obvious for others. We therefore have to be patient when we take the environmental agenda forward – although not too patient, because then we risk loosing the very environment we depend on for our livelihoods. Thank you for listening! |
 |
Botswana