Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre gave the following speech when he opened the climate conference at the Carnegie Institution in Washington D.C.on November 1, 2005.
11/3/2005 :: Members of Congress,
Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is not commonplace for foreign ministers to practise the art of gate-crashing. But when Ambassador Vollebæk told me that my one-day visit to Washington would coincide with the first day of this conference on Climate, Oceans and Policies, the choice was simple.
I am very happy to have the opportunity to address you this morning and to wish you every success in your important work.
Let me share a personal reflection that links your focus on climate change and oceans, and in particular the Arctic region, with the everyday business of a newly appointed Norwegian Foreign Minister.
The first issue I had to deal with after my appointment was the incident involving a Russian trawler that had escaped seizure by the Norwegian Coast Guard on suspicion of serious violation of allowed quotas. Although the experienced commander of the coastguard vessel had experienced similar incidents before, the story hit the headlines in Norway and internationally. It became the issue of the week.
We had well established practices for handling the matter. The weather was such that the commander decided not to board the vessel. Instead it was escorted out of the area and into Russian territorial waters where it was brought into Murmansk and the matter was handed over to the police.
There was no real crisis. We had diplomatic channels to deal with the incident. I spoke with my Russian colleague, spending little time on this issue but more on international issues and the range of cooperation between Norway and Russia.
The press focused on the matter and its potential implications. My focus was not so much on the incident itself as on the need to strengthen the regime for fisheries control both quota controls and controls of trawling and other fishing gear.
Last week the Norwegian-Russian fisheries commission met for its annual deliberations and made significant progress on both these issues.
To sum up, this was an incident that had to be dealt with. We knew how to handle it. We knew our options and what actions to take. And we settled the issue.
* * * * * *
And while we did all this, the ice of the North Pole continued to melt.
Climate change is taking place at our doorsteps.
It is threatening living conditions for people living in the Arctic. Altering the ecological balance. Impairing living conditions for marine life. Challenging our ideas about the legal boundaries of the continental shelves. And raising new survival questions that we simply do not know how to answer, such as when my twelve-year old boy asks me if it is really true that the Gulf Stream may weaken and make family summers along the Norwegian coastline a memory of the past.
Yes, these are the survival issues that should occupy our attention. But we have few ready-made answers. We knew how to deal with the trawler; in contrast, we are still struggling to find ways of responding to these issues. We are unsure about our options and what action to take.
And indeed, the issues are profoundly different, in their origins and in their complexity. My feeling is that we excel at handling the small issues, the ones we know how to handle. We spend far less time on the really critical issues, the ones we really need to address.
That is why I am pleased to be with you this morning and to see that the best of research expertise in Norway and the United States has come together to address these critical issues and to narrow the gap between knowledge and political action, and I am pleased to note that this is taking place at such a respected venue as the Carnegie Institution.
To me, networks between researchers are among the best ways of expanding the bilateral relations between Norway and the United States. Research cooperation between our countries is very much alive and flourishing and we will do what we can to keep it that way.
The climate challenge is indeed global in character and global warming is without a doubt the most pressing item on the Arctic environmental agenda.
I am grateful for the vital role the United States has played in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) process. The US initiated the process and has both chaired it and made the largest scientific input. I hope that its findings will be taken up by the US political system and lead to action being taken.
The ice of the Arctic is melting. Open sea has already been observed around the North Pole in the summertime. The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet broke all records in 2002, and current estimates indicate that the ice sheet may disappear entirely.
What is happening in the Arctic is a sign of things to come in other parts of the world. When it comes to climate change, the Arctic really is a contemporary version of the canary in the mine shaft.
The assessment process is a landmark achievement, and I would like to applaud Bob Corell and his colleagues in the seven Arctic Council countries who have done an excellent job of putting together a synthesis of all the available knowledge on climate change and its consequences in the Arctic.
You are bridging the gap between knowledge and action. The assessment provides essential data on which governments can and should base their response to the challenges of climate change, individually and collectively.
As governments we need to make the public aware of the reality and the implications of Arctic climate change. As Arctic Council member states we have a responsibility to make the rest of the world aware of the findings. And we need to move forward and admit that climate change in the Arctic is a stark reminder of the need to move the Kyoto agenda one step further on. There are some real environmental issues to be dealt with, and there is a clear need for global solutions.
The Kyoto Protocol is vital. But it is only a first step. It deals with a mere third of all greenhouse gas emissions. Norway is hoping for a future climate regime with an even broader scope, incorporating all the major polluters. We will not hesitate to convey this to our partners. This is also an issue that belongs on our bilateral agenda and I will seize the opportunity to raise it when I meet US government officials later today.
We now need to follow up the work of the ACIA and to link it to research and data collection in connection with the International Polar Year 2007-2008 and work under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Arctic Council.
We will take an active part in the Polar Year, which I hope will bolster Norwegian research in the polar regions. We hope to make an important contribution to the international community by building and expanding expertise much needed for addressing viable policy options.
While I have this opportunity, let me also share with you a broader Norwegian perspective on the northern region closest to my country. In my Government’s policy platform we have placed the opportunities and challenges of the High North among the top priorities of our foreign policy in the years to come.
This region is familiar to most of you. But that familiarity is rather rare. Weather reports on most international TV channels cut Europe off at around the 60th parallel, thus including the three Nordic capitals of Oslo, Stockholm and Helsinki, but not much more.
When we pass the 65th parallel, when we pass the Arctic Circle, we enter the vast Barents region. One third of mainland Norway lies north of the Arctic Circle. Norwegian jurisdiction in the Arctic and Barents Seas covers an area six times the size of mainland Norway.
For decades this was a frozen region, literally and politically. This is where Norway and Russia meet, on land and in the Barents Sea. During the cold war it was the area where East met West, where NATO met the Warsaw Pact, where the balance of power relied on the number of intercontinental missiles and the operating scope of strategic and tactical submarines.
The military scenarios of confrontation and invasion are now collecting dust in the archives. And the concept of security is broadening. The strategic position of the area is gradually shifting from a military security perspective to a perspective more marked by energy security and sustainable resource management.
The Barents Sea contains vast natural resources – renewable and non-renewable. It is Europe’s largest fish pond. Norway and Russia have thus far been able to manage the Rolls Royce of fish –Northeast Arctic Cod – in a way that preserves its potential for future generations. It is absolutely critical that we are able to continue this policy.
The Barents Sea will also become an important source of energy for to Europe and North America. Perhaps as much as a quarter of the world’s undiscovered petroleum reserves may be located in the Arctic.
Politically this is a stable region. In the years to come the United States may well be looking to the High North for additional supplies of oil and gas.
Today Norway is the world’s third largest exporter of oil and produced the equivalent of 25 per cent of total Western European gas consumption in 2003. Only Russia produces and exports more.
We will pursue a comprehensive policy for the High North. An essential part of to this policy is the expansion of our good and constructive relations with Russia.
But we need to take a broader view. We will continue to engage close political allies to help back up a regime of peace, stability and predictability in the region. That will involve close political dialogue and involvement by our friends and partners on both sides of the Atlantic.
Opening up the Norwegian part of the Barents Sea for petroleum production will depend on a careful assessment of environmental risks and constraints. Operators on the Norwegian continental shelf have to abide by the world’s most stringent environmental regulations. By becoming involved in petroleum activities in the Barents Sea, Norwegian companies will help to set high standards for activities in this vulnerable region.
And as is the topic for this conference today, we need to fully understand the scope of climate change, its implications for activities in the North and our policy options.
Summing up, these are the main guidelines of our policy in the High North:
- We will continue to make our contribution to cooperation, stability and predictability in the region. We will take seriously the obligations that stem from our sovereignty.
- We will engage with Russia and our European and American partners to help secure the High North as a region of stability, prosperity and high environmental standards.
- We will continue to manage the living marine resources in a way that safeguards the interests of the fishing communities.
- We will combat any attempt to diminish valuable fish stocks through violations of clearly defined regulations.
- We will position ourselves in the technological and industrial forefront in the new era of oil and gas exploration that is starting in the Barents Sea.
- And we will do this in a way that takes due account of the needs of the vulnerable Arctic environment.
This is indeed a heavy agenda. It represents a challenge not only to governments, but also to scientists and researchers. We have different responsibilities. But one responsibility we do share; that of responding wisely to the survival issues of our times.
Your insight must lay the foundations for our policies. Bridging the gap is our common responsibility. This conference is one important step in that direction.
Thank you for your attention.