IFPRI Home About Contact Careers Search  

Research 2020 Vision Countries Publications Datasets Library Events Media Learning  

IFPRI Publications 2020 Publications Search our Database Articles & Book Chapters Datasets Other Languages Order Form

IFPRI Forum interviews Achim Steiner on the environmental crisis facing the world and the solutions to that crisis.

FORUM: As you have assumed leadership of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), what do you consider to be the key environmental challenges the world is facing? Do you see any encouraging developments?

Achim Steiner: The environmental crisis and the environmental challenge of the 21st century circles around two central themes—improved and sustainable management of natural resources and overcoming the "market failures" that are the underlying cause of so many environmental problems, from the collapse of fisheries to human-induced climate change.

Part of the move toward improved management must begin at home. Thus one of the key tasks of my tenure at UNEP is to reform the organization in order to make it fit, relevant, and capable of fulfilling its mandate and the rising expectations of governments, the private sector, nongovernmental bodies, and individual citizens. It is among the requests also being made as a result of UN reform.

UNEP remains a small and modestly funded enterprise, yet within its current structure and resources there is a lot more it can do if its activities are more focused and delivery oriented. However, to fully and effectively meet the welter of challenges will require a strengthened body with additional resources. Whether it requires an upgrading to a full organization is at the center of a great deal of animated debate among governments and other interested parties.

Central to UNEP's work over my four-year tenure will be the nexus between environment and the economy. In the past the environment was perceived as something of a luxury—an issue to address when all other problems had been resolved. But there is now abundant evidence that the environment is at the very foundation of prosperity in both the North and South. We need to internalize the economic costs and opportunities of sustainability across governments, business, and other pertinent sectors of society.

If we can achieve this, I am convinced we can go a long way toward better management of nature-based resources so that prosperity and opportunity are available to all now and in future generations.

There are many encouraging developments one can mention. Within the UN system, for example, UNEP's relationship with sister organizations like the UN Development Programme, the UN Industrial Development Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the UN World Tourism Organization is beginning to flourish and flower.

In my travels, I also meet companies in both developed and developing countries that are looking to UNEP and the multilateral system for leadership and solutions as never before.

They recognize that in a globalized world where the consumer is king, reputations can be secured or lost by unsustainable practices. The UN, in partnership, can assist in developing norms, standards, and values that can help ensure the integrity of global markets.

A good example is biofuels. Some countries and energy companies are becoming concerned that they may face a consumer backlash if energy crops aggravate hunger and destruction of important ecosystems like tropical forests. A global market in biofuels needs economic standards but also needs environmental ground rules if it is to succeed and not become tarnished by differing sustainability standards.

FORUM: Last year was the sixth warmest year worldwide and 2007 is predicted to be even hotter. Do you think these trends will help persuade some wealthier countries to take a harder look at their greenhouse gas emissions and their participation in global protocols? If so, how might this affect developing countries' commitments on this score?

Achim Steiner: I believe the ultimate and most spectacular market failure of them all must be climate change.

Earlier this year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a body established by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)—published the first of four new reports. The 2,000 plus scientists involved have concluded with a 90 percent certainty that human beings are altering the climate. The best available evidence is that we have far less than a generation to act to avoid dangerous climate change. In other words, peg the temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Centigrade.

The momentum on this issue in 2007 gives real cause for optimism. In early March, the European Union agreed to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020—indeed by 30 per- cent if others follow.

Earlier in the year President Bush stated in his State of the Union address that climate change was a serious challenge and announced new fuel standards. Over 300 cities in the United States have or are setting emission reduction targets in the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol—the UN brokered greenhouse-gas-cutting treaty. Several U.S. states are also setting targets, including the very ambitious one announced in California.

Again, business and industry are urging action. In advance of the President's speech, ten of the biggest corporations in the United States, including Duke Power, Alcoa, and General Electric, called for emission caps.

The challenge is to develop a post-2012 landscape in which the current Kyoto Protocol is succeeded by a commitment to even deeper emission cuts—ones that put the world on track to reach the 60 to 80 percent cuts deemed necessary to stabilize the atmosphere.

The industrialized world has the responsibility to be the first mover. The vast majority of emissions in the atmosphere come from these countries. But this does not mean that developing countries cannot contribute. Indeed some already are. Brazil, for example, has, over the past three years, managed to voluntarily reduce deforestation in the Amazon by over 50 percent.

The litmus test will come later in the year in Bali, when governments meet for the next round of negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is vital that we bring all countries to a post-2012 agreement on emission reductions, but one that recognizes common but differentiated responsibilities.

FORUM: Environmental protection may enhance economic development and social equity in broad terms, but how can a poor farmer in the developing world be better included in the long-run benefits?

Achim Steiner: Overall, the global trading regime favors the rich over developing-world farmers. Improving market access to developed-country markets could go a long way toward liberating farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. So we urgently need to complete the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization.

There are other opportunities. Organic produce in countries like Germany and the United Kingdom are now multibillion Euro markets and a great deal of this is imported. Boosting organic certification in developing countries could play a positive economic role.

Biofuels have been mentioned. Brazil, for example, has pioneered using sugarcane to produce ethanol. It is now looking to transfer this know-how to farmers on continents like Africa. Other countries are looking at other crops like oils and a dryland one known as jatropha. These represent environmental and economic opportunities if, as mentioned, robust and recognized sustainability standards prevail.

Meanwhile, the World Agroforestry Centre, located next to UNEP's headquarters in Nairobi, is looking at how small-scale agroforestry farmers might be included in the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol.

A key and outstanding issue is a global Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) regime. This would allow local farmers and communities to gain financially from the genetic diversity they so often conserve if it is developed into a new crop or pharmaceutical. It is a complex issue, but one that needs urgent attention; and some new, creative, and collective thinking on how to take ABS forward under treaties like the UNEP Convention on Biological Diversity is now long overdue.

FORUM: How do you assess the often-discussed potential trade-offs between promotion of environmental protection and promotion of productivity- and growth-enhancing investments in water and agriculture in the developing world?

Achim Steiner: Quite frankly, I see few trade-offs if any in this realm. Sustainable agriculture and sustainable management of nature-based assets are not only compatible but a prerequisite for maintaining yields into a century where there will be soon nine billion mouths to feed.

Well over 50 percent of rainfall comes from precipitation originating from trees, shrubs, and other vegetation. In other words, without such ecosystems, agriculture and irrigation are simply not possible in many parts of the world.

Conversely, inefficient use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals not only harms human health, but can hit farmers' pockets. These inputs also contribute to pollution of water supplies and the growing phenomenon of marine dead zones—deoxygenated areas that can harm fish stocks. Perhaps this is not a problem for farmers, but it certainly is for developing- and developed-country fishermen.

Meanwhile, loss of biological diversity robs rich and poor farmers alike of the genetic diversity upon which the next generation of crops may depend.

So we must bury the myth that environmental sustainability and agricultural production are somehow at loggerheads—we must grasp the fundamental facts that sustainable development requires sustainable management of farmers' fields but also of the wider environment so that they coexist in more intelligent and mutually supportive ways.