News & Views

President of Hungary Addresses WSF

2007.11.09.

Excellencies! Ladies and Gentlemen!

It is significant and gratifying to see the World Science Forum opened by four heads of state voicing their opinions on ways science and politics can cooperate to meet their responsibilities to future generations. I would like to thank Messrs. President for accepting my invitation and honouring us with their presence. Their participation on this panel demonstrates that there are many European heads of state who are ready to express their commitment to protecting our environment – in the broad sense of the term – and we are justified in calling them "Green Presidents". These presidents epitomize the highest level of participation in the essential topic of discussion at this conference – the responsibility and tasks of the state in managing global challenges. This is why I would like to continue my efforts to work together with environmentally committed presidents to take a joint stance in support of the environment and the cause of sustainability.

Action is needed on all levels. Appreciating the efforts of individuals, NGOs, and research teams, we have to welcome the growth of corporate responsibility and the faint signs of improvement in consumer attitudes. Nevertheless, the state is the entity responsible for designing a uniform strategy that transcends the various interest-propelled actions, for setting mandatory regulations, and for establishing the institutions responsible for their implementation. The government needs to resolve the conflict between economic growth and current social demand on the one hand, and the demands and decision options of future generations on the other by taking very concrete measures. States cooperate within international bodies and shape regional strategies. They are also ultimately responsible for global cooperation within the framework of the United Nations and under international agreements. Unless states cooperate, we will not be able to carry out the radical paradigm shift so urgently necessary, a paradigm shift requiring the countries themselves to alter their outlooks and modus operandi.

The WSF is an excellent opportunity for science and politics to question one another.

In relations between science and politics, science has taken the initiative as far as the state of nature on Earth has been concerned – science even created the magic word of today's politics – Sustainable Development. By today, we appear to have reached consensus in getting politics to rely on science to point the way on environmental issues. The UN has become a consumer of science as IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) reports show, something that is also true for the EU and individual countries. And if there are scientific uncertainties, it is best that governments act according to the precautionary principle.

We have no shortage of policies, programmes or agreements based on scientific predictions. In fact, we have even seen the start of competition among green sectors of industry in our economies with countries and even regions competing to adjust. Based on personal observations as well as on media attention to the issue, the public considers climate change to be an issue that demands attention. In other words, the doubts and critique of old have shifted to general recognition of the hazardous situation. Despite that, the political difficulties appear to be unchanged: politics simply does not have the power to combat economic interests. The fourth Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4) report issued by UNEP last week cites shocking examples to illustrate how, despite an acceleration in efforts to safeguard, restore and sustain natural resources, the world has been unable to outpace the speed with which nature is being exploited. For example, given the current growth rate of ocean fishing, by 2050 the seas will be empty, where as the current growth rate of marine reserve areas would only provide adequate level of protection after 2085.

In this situation it counts as an achievement that some global players have resolved to take unilateral measures (to reduce emissions and seek alternative energy sources), as the EU has done this year. The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision affirming the principle of unilateral action. Another positive change has been that climate change is viewed as related to global social problems, to poverty in much of the world and to the development gap between nations.

The WSF is devoting a separate section to Accelerating Economies.

The GEO Yearbook speaks unambiguously of ecological and social decline. It must become clear that the fundamental consideration in every step taken towards economic and social development must be sustenance of ecological resources combined with the ascertainment that given the long term, each move will result in a fairer distribution of economic and ecological goods and services.

The individual countries must not narrow down our environment protection to the technical issues, for quite the contrary, the job needs an extraordinarily wide, horizontal approach. If a country honestly accepts the need for radical change, then in addition to regulating its economy to reflect this, it will have to be credible in supporting the argument that current production and consumption are unsustainable. It will have to demonstrate its belief that change is essential at all possible forums, from public education through the public media to setting an example by its own doings. The signs of climate change are far more obvious to residents of Europe than, for example, limited drinking water resources, soil deterioration, the decline in biodiversity, species extinction or even the problem of global population growth. But it is not enough to deal only with climate change.

However, the complexity of "environmental issues" goes beyond the interactions of society's economic and social spheres and encompasses more than the interplay of economic and social justice. I believe these challenges require us to reassess the place of humankind in our world. We speak of a natural environment, but we also are responsible for ourselves, for our own survival, and for the maintenance of our dignity. At the same time, external environmental circumstances are not the only reason we have reached a watershed. The combination of biology, medicine, nanotechnology, and information technology have turned the human being into a creature that can be manipulated, the same as our plants and livestock. This, too, requires us to re-assess the concepts of humanness. If we invest in knowledge and the future, the first question we need to ask is who are the people whose futures are being altered by our decisions and what are they like. Here, at the WSF, the need for cooperation between the natural and social sciences is clear. Based on the above, we hope it is also clear that we need to effect a paradigm shift, out of responsibility for future generations.

Finally, I would like to cite examples of what a state can do on local, regional, and global level within the framework of responsibility for the future.

On local level, meaning within its own territory, the state is responsible for adopting appropriate regulations and maintaining necessary institutions for the latter play a fundamental role. Permit me to give a few examples, focused on Hungary. The Hungarian Constitution states that citizens have the right to a healthy environment. The Constitutional Court has granted appropriate protection to that right, applying the principle of non-derogation. In other words, it does not permit any retreat from a status of environmental protection already attained, in which the measure is each concretely protected entity and not an abstract one covering the environment as a whole.

Another example focuses on institutions. Before the year is out, Hungary's parliament will have adopted legislation establishing a parliamentary commissioner responsible for future generations. This Ombudsman will be the spokesperson for future generations, the guardian of the order of values, and as such will be in charge of keeping us aware of the responsibilities currently under discussion at the WSF.

The state has additional means of exerting eco-consciousness, above and beyond legislation, institutions, education, and the public media. For instance, every central and local government can set examples by always choosing the product with the best ecological parameters in its public procurements. The EU spends 16 percent of its GDP on public procurements.

However, this also demonstrates that unsatisfactory government measures, in addition to the direct negative consequences, also can delay the necessary paradigm shift. I am sad to conclude, for instance, that Hungary is designing and constructing new power plants instead of concentrating on improving energy efficiency and on saving energy. In much the same way, it has given priority to highway construction over the railways. In complete harmony with the challenges to our human status – and, I believe, of particular interest to WSF – is that my university, the Pázmány Péter Catholic University working together with the Budapest School of Medicine, is about to start up Europe's first faculty of molecular bionics, which will include molecular biology, information technology, micro-nano-electromagnetism and optics as well as neurology, but will also focus on matters of ethics.

We already have spoken of positive EU measures. However, before the EU can present its plans to the third world and maintain its credibility in their eyes, it will have to demonstrate that it has the ability to assist new EU members in undergoing needed rapid economic development and improving living standards, while at the same time also reducing the EU's overall ecological footprint. The advantages and disadvantages brought into the EU by the new members are somewhat similar to those of the developing world: large, good quality, natural capital stocks and lower levels of consumption combined with the need and demand for rapid growth, mixed with polluted, depreciated industry, and governmental and social shortcomings. Using the differing ecological statuses of new and old members – in which the new are better – as the point of departure, the EU needs to calculate its own internal ecological debts and pay them, so that ecological service providers can – and should – spend the ensuing income on maintaining and enlarging natural resources. The EU should evolve its structural and cohesion funds in this spirit, in line with sustainability considerations.

Global sustainability cannot be achieved unless the non-OECD countries join in the efforts. However, the OECD states cannot expect them to cooperate unless they set credible examples. The other players and regions – such as North America, NAFTA, EFTA, and OECD – will have to do the same as the EU and prove by their practices that they are able to increase their own social capital – meaning better public health, education, culture, and quality of life – while maintaining or increasing their natural capital at the same time. This, of course implies that they will leave no unpaid ecological debt anywhere else in the world either.

Globalization only can benefit the world if powerful international environmental governance sets it on a path of sustainability and keeps it there. Therefore, I would like to reiterate what I said in September 2005 at the summit commemorating the 60th anniversary of the foundation of the United Nations. We need a UN-based world environment organization with powerful authorities.

The gap between raging development auguring the failure of sustainability and already initiated and accelerating actions to save our natural environment is growing. We will not have the power to overtake the unsustainable changes and turn things around unless we finally face the fact that we are running for our lives.