Statement by H.E. Dr Kaire Munionganda Mbuende, Ambassador & Permanent Representative of the Republic of Namibia to the United Nations at the Open Debate on the relationship between Energy, Security and Climate Security Council, New York, 17 April, 2007 Mr President, 1. At the outset, allow me on behalf of my delegation to extend to you our felicitations on your assumption of the Presidency of the Council for this month. At the same time I also congratulate Ambassador Khumalo and the entire delegation of South Africa for the excellent work done during the past month. 2. My delegation recognises that threats to peace and security emanate from different sources. Poverty and unemployment can give rise to instability that threatens peace and security. Underdevelopment and global economic imbalances can create tensions among nations that could threaten international peace and security. 3. Non-traditional threats to peace and security, however, can best be addressed through appropriate organs charged with the responsibility to take remedial actions in a particular area. The Charter of the Untied Nations recognises the link between social and economic development or rather lack thereof and peace and security. It was against this background that ECOSOC was created with the view to addressing them. Threats to peace and security that emanate from social and economic factors can best be addressed through investments in economic development. By the same token, threats to international peace and security emanating from climate change and global warming can best be addressed through interventions in the environmental arena. There are indeed a host of instruments designed to deal with the environment before it gets out of hand or to stop further deterioration. 4. My delegation would like to move beyond the debate of the legitimacy of the current debate in Security Council by making a distinction between the realm of reflections and the arena of action. We recognise that there are different dimensions to a subject and it can be tackled from different angles. However, actions must be taken in the appropriate organs. 5. We are taking part in this debate today because of the seriousness with which we view the phenomenon of climate change. This is not an academic exercise but rather a matter of life or death for Namibia. 6. Humanity and the developing countries in particular have been subjected to what could be described as low intensity biological or chemical warfare. The greenhouse gasses are destroying plants, animals and human beings. 7. A large part of Namibia is today subjected to frequent droughts while another part is flooded at the same time. The combined effect of drought and floods has had tremendous impact on our biodiversity. Namibia has two deserts, the Namib in the west and the Kalahari in the east. These deserts are spreading, claiming more and more of range and agricultural land and rendering it inhabitable. Namibia is also both a coastal and mountainous country, which is further making our lives more precarious. Rising sea levels as a result of climate change could culminate in the flooding of coastal areas. It is indeed hard to contemplate what might happen if the area is to be flooded. It will be difficult for the loose sand on which coastal towns are built to withstand the force of floods. Another characteristic of climate change that is becoming evident in Namibia is the spread of malaria to areas hitherto considered free of the disease. Historically, this disease was prevalent in the northern and north-eastern parts of the country only because the central and southern parts had colder temperatures. However, with the change in temperatures, malaria-carrying mosquitoes have extended their range and are found nearly everywhere in the country and spreading the disease. Meanwhile, our fight against malaria is hindered by the high costs of medicines. Our attempts to produce cheaper generics have been met with resistance as multinationals pharmaceutical companies invoke their intellectual property right. The impact of climate change on health is further exacerbated by the fact that some plants that were used for traditional medicinal purposes are likely to be extinct. 8. Mr President, we cannot talk about climate change in a casual manner and it cannot be business as usual. The cause of the problem is known. Those who are responsible for the problem are also known. Now is the time to hold them accountable for their action. They should not be allowed to get away with impunity. 9. There is a need to take drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The economic argument that it will be costly cannot hold water. For the continuation of the status quo is also costly to those who suffer the consequences of global warming without being responsible for it. We are encouraged by the steps that some industrialised countries are taking. Is it not too little and too late? Every step to curb emissions is important. 10. We should also recognise that the gasses that have been released into the atmosphere over the years are sufficient to cause natural disasters. It is not enough to curb emissions. Steps must be taken to help developing countries to adapt to the new environment. 11. Climate adaptation will be a costly exercise for Namibia. The people of Namibia like many developing countries are depended on natural resources. Natural resources are being destroyed by the combination of droughts, feldfires and floods. More than 70 percent of the people of Namibia depend directly and indirectly on agriculture. The solutions which are being suggested by some experts that poor region/reliant on unpredictable rainfall should be encouraged to shift people out of farming and into urban areas is in the short to medium term are not sustainable given the existing high rate of unemployment in the urban areas. 12. Namibia is faced with these challenges at a time when official Development Assistance to our country has been declining steadily from US$110 per capita in the 1990s to US$60 per capita in 2005. In addition, the number of bilateral donors active in Namibia also declined from 22 in the 1990s to 17 in 2006. There are also indications that three of these might be leaving the country in 2008. 13. Namibia had placed high hopes in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. The two instruments contain a number of commitments by State Parties. If fully honoured, they could have assisted us tremendously in our endeavours to reverse this ruinous phenomenon. Firstly, the two instruments have placed the issue of climate change into its right context by stating that “the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries”, which are responsible for two-thirds of the total emissions. This recognition of the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption on the part of industrialised countries was also accompanied by a commitment to “protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. The “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countries, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change” like Namibia, were also to be assisted to meet “the costs of adaptation to those adverse effects”. Developed countries have in this regard committed themselves to providing new and additional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing countries in not only complying with their obligations under the said instruments but also in mitigating the effects of climate change. The transfer of technology and skills to developing countries to enable them to cope with the effects of climate change is also a commitment made in both the Convention and the Protocol. In other words, developed countries were supposed to provide developing countries, like Namibia with the means to protect themselves from the consequences of climate, a kind of some life vest to shield themselves. 14. Mr President, It saddens us that despite elaborate paragraphs and wording in both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, what we have been witnessing is the continuation of a business as usual attitude. Indeed, as developing countries, we are facing what I dare to call an unprovoked war being waged on us by developed countries. In fact what we see happening is a concrete example of the proverbial “discarding one’s dirty water in the back yard of one’s neighbour”. Developed countries continue to pay lip service to reducing the levels of greenhouse gases emissions. They do not care because most of them, being far from the equator, do not only experience fewer effects of climate change but they are also better able to withstand them. They continue to emphasise the possible effects on their economies if they were to reduce the levels of emissions as if the lives of our people are less important than the profits of their companies. Meanwhile, we are witnessing that the world’s richest countries which, as has been repeatedly scientifically shown, contributed by far the most to the atmospheric changes linked to global warming, are already spending billions of dollars to limit their own risks from its worst consequences, such as drought and rising seas. They are barricading themselves in their fortresses while we are appealing for help outside. 15. Despite longstanding treaty commitments to help poor countries deal with warming, the industrial powers are spending just peanuts on ways to limit climate and coastal hazards in the world’s most vulnerable regions compared to what they are spending on securing their own continued survival. How many more conventions and protocols does the international community require before any serious action will be taken to address the issues of climate change in earnest? Kyoto-2 will probably come and go and so would three and four while our peoples and countries are rendered more and more vulnerable. What we need is real action now and not mere debates that do not produce any concrete results. In this regard, my delegation suggests that the General Assembly consider establishing a mechanism to be charged with governance of climate change. We have in mind a mechanism that will supervise compliance of State Parties with the provisions of the instruments they have acceded to and the fulfilment of the commitments contained therein. (This suggestion is more appropriate in the GA or in the Commission on Sustainable Development than making it to the Council.) 16. Allow me Mr President to make use of this opportunity to express our gratitude to those few developed countries that have been and continue to support our development efforts, including the fight against the effects of climate change. I thank you.