Mr. Chairman;
Excellencies;
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Let me begin by thanking our hosts, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for organizing this symposium and providing a forum for discussion of this very important topic. I am sure I speak for everyone present when I say how much I am looking forward to some stimulating debate.
Mr. Chairman:
Ms. DiSano has presented a comprehensive overview of the key concerns relating to energy and sustainable development. I applaud her diplomacy in avoiding some of the more contentious issues and hope she will forgive me for being more provocative!
My views on energy and sustainable development come from a very different perspective to those already heard– that of a practitioner of development. They are the views of my institution – the OPEC Fund for International Development – and those of the 120 or so partner countries that we work with day in, day out to effect socio-economic progress and growth.
I would like to begin by making a bold statement: When it comes to the issue of energy and sustainable development, there are two diverse agendas – that of the developed world and that of the developing world. At the heart of the matter lies climate change. And while no-one can deny that the environment and its protection is a common, global challenge, it is nevertheless a challenge that flags different priorities for different countries. That’s not to say, however, that the two positions cannot be reconciled.
Mr. Chairman:
As a practitioner of development, my allegiance lies with the developing countries, where one-half of humanity continues to live without basic needs. We cannot and should not hide from the sobering statistics: around 800 million people in the developing world are chronically undernourished, and one child dies of hunger every five seconds [source: FAO].
Within this context, it should be easy to understand the notion of differing priorities when it comes to the issues surrounding energy and sustainable development. While the developed world preoccupies itself with the thorny problem of energy use and its impact on the environment, for developing countries the challenge is to increase access to the affordable, modern energy services that they need to fuel their development and feed their hungry.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that energy and human development are inextricably linked. Put simply – energy is development. Without energy, there can be no economic development and without economic development no poverty reduction. It goes without saying, therefore, that combating energy poverty is crucial for achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, an initiative that the entire global community has signed up to. Here, at least, there is a point of convergence.
Mr. Chairman:
Much has been debated about energy use and sustainability being incompatible concepts. I would like to argue, however, that it is entirely possible to reconcile the energy needs of development with the sustainable use of the planet’s resources.
Let us look at some facts:
There can be no denying that the poorer countries are more susceptible to natural disasters such as floods, droughts, desertification and so on. But their environmental problems go even deeper. In the developing world, one person in three relies on traditional forms of energy - including firewood, dung and plant residue - for everyday living. This practice is killing local environments, through soil erosion, deforestation and water pollution. Worse still, it is also killing people – an estimated 1.5 million die every year from inhaling biomass smoke.
So, what are the possible solutions when it comes to energy poverty?
Renewables, such as wind and solar energy, geothermics and biomass, certainly have a role to play in the energy mix, but only as sustainable local solutions. The use of biofuels – a much-hyped form of energy - can only ever be a partial solution to the problem. Turning arable land over to the mass production of biofuels would inevitably cause a major food crisis. Consider this: Filling the 25-gallon tank of an SUV with biofuel requires 450 pounds of corn, which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year. Moreover, even if the entire corn crop of the United States were used to make biofuel, it would only replace 12 per cent of current US gasoline use, which stands at around nine million barrels per day.
Given this clear conflict between food production and energy production, it should come as no surprise that even ministers of developed countries are calling for caution over biofuels, among them the Environment Minister of the Netherlands. OFID is also concerned, and is looking into the matter with other organizations.
Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to repeat what I said at UNCSD-15 in New York: From our experience, there is no one-size-fits-all energy mix model to satisfy the basic energy needs of the poor. The developing countries need an energy mix that ensures reliability, affordability and, of course, sustainability. Given the relative disadvantages and limitations of other available options, the supporting pillar of this mix has to be diversified liquid and gaseous fossil fuels.
Mr Chairman:
It is the opinion of OFID and its partner countries that the issue of climate change and the prominence it is accorded on the global agenda has eclipsed the most urgent challenge facing our planet today – that of poverty and human misery. This shift in emphasis is a grave cause for concern, and one shared by OPEC Member Countries. Indeed, at OPEC’s Second Summit in Caracas, Venezuela, in September 2000, the Heads of State and Government described poverty as “the biggest environmental tragedy” confronting the world. Seven years later, their view is unchanged, and OPEC Member States remain committed, individually and collectively, to helping to meet the development needs of the low-income countries.
It should be remembered that OPEC countries are themselves not particularly rich, and I shall quote a few statistics to illustrate this point: OPEC countries’ average GDP per capita is one-tenth of that of the OECD countries; their combined GDP is about three-quarters that of Italy; and, their total exports are only 60 per cent of those of Germany. Nevertheless, together OPEC countries provide something in the region of US$4 billion every year in development assistance, the second highest amount after the OECD. This sum is given through a number of channels, including the multilateral and bilateral aid agencies of OPEC countries, of which OFID is one. For its part, OFID is set to increase its annual commitments to US$1 billion from 2008, effectively doubling its effort. A substantial portion of this will fund energy sector development.
Mr. Chairman:
While OPEC countries are doing their bit to combat poverty, questions have to be asked about the commitment – or perhaps lack thereof - of the industrialized nations, who continue to be found wanting. It is time, is it not, that the G-8 countries lived up to their 2005 pledge to double aid to Africa. Generous increases in ODA – to the target level of 0.7% of GNI - are also long overdue from the vast majority of developed countries. As Mr. Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank has said, “We need the G-8 and other developed countries to translate their words from Summit declarations into serious numbers.” OPEC nations, after all, have been delivering on their promises for over 40 years.
Thank you.