GLOBAL ETHICS FOR THE THIRD MILLENNIUM:
a series of interviews with outstanding personalities
 
Interviews by Patricia Morales
Globus Institute, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
 
Maurice Strong: From the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (1972) to the Earth Charter (2000)

Download the word document --->here
 
Q.        You have played a key role in the world community by increasing awareness of the need for global sustainable development since the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. Could you explain the influence of this Conference?
 
A.        The UN conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 was in fact the catalyst for a proliferation of international agreements. Some of them hard law, but most particularly soft law agreements. Of course, the conference itself produced the Stockholm Declaration of Principles, which has had some very important implications. For example, the principle that affirms the sovereignty of nations over their natural resources, but at the same time their responsibility to ensure that, in developing their resources, they do not infringe on the environment of others. That has had a significant effect and has given rise to national legislation in some countries. Stockholm was also followed by the establishment of the UNEP with its headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. One of the UNEP's principal functions has been to facilitate and promote the development of further international environmental agreements. Although the ozone problem was not a big issue in Stockholm, and was in fact primarily related to concerns at that time about supersonic transport and aeroplanes, it was nevertheless on the agenda and led to a series of subsequent events, promoted by UNEP, that eventually gave rise to the Montreal protocol calling for the complete phasing out of ozone depleting substances. So, the Stockholm conference really has had a continuing impact on the process of developing international environmental law. Of course, the climate change convention was also a direct product of the UNEP. When I was executive director, we called together a group of leading world scientists on the climate change issue. On the basis of that, UNEP, under the leadership of my successor, Mustafa Tolba, really led the progress that resulted finally in the climate change convention.
 
Q.        Could you explain the complementary nature of the documents on environmental issues?
 
A.            Essentially, the Stockholm conference made clear that environmental issues are very closely linked. For example, ozone depletion and climate change result from changes in the composition of the atmosphere, which affect its ozone content, but also affect climate. These are very closely linked. Negotiation on biodiversity, also initiated by the UNEP, culminated in the agreement on biodiversity at Rio. This issue is also very closely related to climate change, because the biological resources tropical forests in particular provide the sinks which absorb and store carbon dioxide, and have a critical role in maintaining the balance between how reserves on Earth and emissions into the atmosphere change the filtering quality of the atmosphere. So, there are linkages in all of these programs.
 
Q.        What do you think about global sovereignty on these issues ?
 
A.        Well, sovereignty is not a question of black or white. In principle, each nation is sovereign in the sense that it is not subordinate to any higher authority. The ultimate authority for its decisions is vested in that country's government and political system. However, the environmental issue particularly demonstrates that the nature of our Earth is not one of many separate little sovereignties. The Earth is an integrated system, which transcends the artificial sovereignties that human beings have imposed on it by their creation of nation-states. Consequently, the human concept of national sovereignty is in conflict with the reality that the exercising of effective sovereignty in a global system cannot be done by any one nation. The only way they can exercise national sovereignty to deal with global issues like the oceans, the atmosphere, and climate change is by acting in cooperation with other nations. So, it depends on how you deal with it. I have always presented it as an exercise of national sovereignty to work cooperatively with others in areas where it cannot be exercised alone. That is not neces sarily in conflict with the principle of national sovereignty, but it recognises the reality that, in many cases where issues transcend national borders, as they do in the environmental field, it is not possible for a nation, however powerful, to deal with these on the basis of its exercise of national sovereignty in traditional terms. It has to join with others. But it joins voluntarily, as an exercise of national sovereignty. There is no supreme global authority that can impose a transcending sovereignty. But there is a way of reconciling these two concepts when it is not possible for the traditional notion of nation sovereignty to deal with global issues. There is in that sense a global sovereignty.
 
Q.        Can you describe the evolution of the relationship between human rights, environment, and development from Stockholm (1972) to the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992?
 
A.        The Stockholm conference resulted from a very active civil society movement and some strong evidence in the scientific community that the same processes of industrialization and urbanization that had produced such great wealth for the industrialized world were also now giving rise to significant negative impacts on health, resources, and urban life. It was also evident that many of these negative impacts disproportionately affected the poor and the deprived, and that the benefits of the wealth creation process were largely going to the more privileged, both at the global level, with industrialized countries enjoying most of the benefits, and at the individual level within countries where those who enjoyed the main benefits of in dustrialization were in the minority, and those who had to accept the costs often were the majority of people, who were less privileged. So, there was a human rights dimension in the environmental issue from the start, just because the processes, which have created environmental problems, have created disproportional impacts in terms of distribution of costs and benefits. Thus, the equity issue emerged as an important one. It was particularly manifest at Stockholm, where developing countries insisted that they should not carry the cost of environmental damage that had been inflicted largely by the industrialized countries; that their own development cannot be subject to constraints because of this; and that, while it was not specifically described by most as an human rights issue, it was indeed inherently an human rights issue. It is a question of equity in the course of the industrialization and modernization of the world. There is a tremendous disproportion between how benefits and costs have to be born. I regard that and have always pointed to it as a human rights issue. In each case, there is normally a human rights dimension at a specific level of the project because again it is a question of who is the project benefiting.
 
Q.        The real problem is the tension of interests.
 
A.        Oh, yes, that is in fact the real question because in every one of these situations you have to work out a solution, which addresses the different interests. In the beginning, industrialization and urbanization were considered progress. Those who were doing it were considered to be those who were building a good future for society. Therefore, environmentalists were originally looked at as people who were negative, who were stopping things. Of course, it is true that they were stopping things, or at least they were slowing them down. But one of the reasons they were slowing them down is precisely because progress was in fact creating real dichotomies in society, actually accentuating the risks and the differences between rich and poor. Now this is much more generally appreciated. But there is a process in which the distribution of the costs and the benefits is examined before the project goes ahead. That does not mean that the processes are perfect by any means. But at least, in the more industrialized countries, this has been written into law. There are regulations that require a public hearing, for example, or require procedures which have to be undertaken before the project is approved. Unfortunately, in many developing countries those processes are presently not very well-developed. Or, governments in many developing countries are understandably so anxious to develop that they are sometimes not in a position to enforce environmental and social conditions. But international financial institutions like the World Bank and the other development banks and development agencies now impose certain requirements as a condition of financing. More and more, the developing countries themselves are examining these projects. And I have seen situations, for example in India, where local people protest against a chemical plant. Local people who are very poor and need jobs, and yet realize that their health is being undermined, and that their children's lives are being undermined, and that the air and water are being poisoned by these plants. Now there is a much greater awareness that although some big projects bring benefits, they also bring costs. It is important to try and work out suitable ways of balancing these various factors in advance.
 
Q.        Do you believe that there is a mutual support between the empowerment of people and environmental protection?
 
A.            Absolutely. People power is the ultimate. That is, of course, basically the principle on which the Earth Council was formed in Rio. The Earth Council, like many other non-governmental organizations, tries to empower people at the grassroots level and help them to have a voice in the decisions that affect their lives. That is why we work with National Councils for Sustainable Development and with local NGOs. Those NGOs at the grassroots level, particularly in developing countries, have a voice, but it is usually not strong enough. So, by linking them with each other through the National Council and through global initiatives like Rio Plus Five and the Earth Charter, we help to give them a sense of solidarity and reinforce their own efforts. In the final analysis, that is the only way you can get the right kind of recon ciliation between the conflicting pressures that development entails.
 
Q.        Which events from 1992 to the present day have been relevant in achieving global awareness on sustainability?
 
A.        I think the most important ones have been the conventions that were agreed upon Rio as a result of the Earth Summit. The one on Climate Change has given rise to a whole series of subsequent meetings. The climate change convention at Rio was just a framework. From that framework, they have now developed a series of protocols, such as Kyoto, which is the most widely known because it was at Kyoto where they actually agreed on targets and timetables. As you know, it evoked a tremendous response in countries like the US and in developing countries such as China and India. Everyone realizes the problem, but there is this same issue that I was discussing earlier the question of equity. Who caused the problem? Who should pay for dealing with it? The developing countries clearly understand and appreciate that this is a global problem, which they share. So, they are not saying that they will not participate. But they are saying: "We are not the ones who caused the problem. We are not the ones who have the benefits from the processes of industrialization that gave rise to the climate change. We are willing to cooperate, but you are the ones, you industrialized countries are the ones that have to bear the costs and responsibilities." The developing countries are prepared to share these responsibilities. But one of the big unresolved questions is paradoxically that although the in dustrialized countries created the problem, the developing countries are going to produce more and more greenhouse gas emissions. China will likely overtake the US as the biggest single source. But on a per capita basis, the Chinese will be still contributing far less than the Americans. So, the succession of climate change convention meetings has been a very big product of the Rio experience and highlighted publicly. The controversy around these issues is the same kind of controversy we have had from the beginning of Stockholm and again at Rio. It is the question of equity. How can these responsibilities be shared? How can the costs be shared? How should the benefits be shared?
 
The Biodiversity Convention has a very similar history. Most of the world's biodiversity not all of it of course, but a high percentage is again in the developing world. That is one of their great assets. The question is why should developing countries, who have this richness of biodiversity, be prevented from developing it? And why should they have to bear the cost of preserving it when the whole world community benefits from that? Also now in the area of biotechnology, the biological resources of the developing world are an immense asset because they are the source of many of the genetic materials which are needed to replicate nature's processes and produce new chemicals, new medicines, and new substances that are good for all of humanity. Or at least, if not always good, then marketable and therefore of commercial importance. And there is also the question of intellectual property. If the substance has been developed by nature and comes from a developing country, and an international company comes in and takes it and maybe modifies it a little bit, should they then own it? Should they own it and therefore be able to charge everybody for it? Should not the developing country have some stake in this? This is again one of the unresolved controversies. So, there has been progress since Rio, but part of the progress was finding the differences rather than resolving them. The differences now are much more explicit, much clearer. They are now subject to negotiations in the convention forum, because each of the conventions the Biodiversity Convention, the Climate Change Convention, and the Desertification Convention have created a negotiating framework in which the issues are addressed. That is actually progress. It is progress towards a solution, but it is not a solution in itself.
 
Q.        When we talk about progress, we need to talk about the impact of science and technology around the world.
 
A.        Yes, there is also technology that has created some new dilemmas. Science has enabled us to manipulate our genetic resources, for example, which are the whole fundamental basis for life and for our economy. The big corporations undertake this research and learn how to modify a plant from a tropical forest and make it into a commercial product that has slight modifications from what the original product was. But should that entitle them to own it? Should everybody else have to pay for its use? We have this question in Basmati rice. There is a case where a cooperative has rights to a new strain of rice, which is said to be an improvement on the original. Does that mean that the poor people in Asia and other developing countries that have depended on this product for years can no longer use their own seeds and must now buy them? In other words, the real question is: "Is life itself for sale?" Have we reached the stage of commercializing where life itself is going to be owned, and the ingredients of life are going to be owned privately? Is that right? Are there not certain things that should be publicly debated? Certain things are more precious than just commercial ad vantage. We are hearing of the problems in Europe right now with genetically-modified foods. Now, there are some basic questions. "Is genetically-modified food bad?" "How should genetically-modified foods be regulated?" And again, "Should the benefits and costs be shared?" Nature produced these foods originally. But corporations then modified them a little bit by manipulating their genetic composition. Does that mean that they then own them? And if they do own them, should there be real restrictions on that ownership and real responsibilities to make sure that nobody is deprived of the benefits of these substances by being charged extortionate prices for them? There is a whole new generation of issues which is rising out of the changes in technology.
 
Q.        You return to a moral perspective on science and technology.
 
A.        They are also issues of equity and human rights, issues of fairness in distribution of costs and benefits. But they are now becoming much more complicated and much more specific. As we move into the twenty-first century, the process of reconciling this is going to be a very major source of societal conflict and challenge. That is why the Earth Charter is so important: finally, society will resolve these issues based on the values of society, based on the fundamental principles that motivate the behavior of people in the societies in which they live. That is why I attach so much importance to the Earth Charter. Because while it is true that every people have their own ethical principles, their own value systems, and their own religious backgrounds, there are certain universal principles which we must all embrace for our common good to enable us to survive. I was just saying that the immense developments in science and technology, particularly in the field of biotechnology and genetic manipulation, really puts these traditional questions of equity, human rights, and fairness in a much more complicated and controversial framework. The twenty-first century is going to confront us with some very major challenges to reconcile these differences. That is why I believe these differences, while they are technical and legal in their manifestations, are rooted in our value system. We are ultimately motivated by our real values, which motivate us as individuals, and which motivate societies collectively, that will determine how they act in the technical and legal field. That is why I believe that the fundamental issue is a moral and ethical one, and that we should look for legal and technical solutions. If the technical and legal processes are not guided by fundamental values and ethical principles, we will be kind of working in a completely anarchistic system where the strong will always prevail and will be not subject to any real constraint or discipline or societal responsibility.
 
Q.        Your work has been essential in approaching ecology and economy throughout the world. Could you describe the connection between ecology and economy in the notion of human and sustainable development?
 
A.        A connection is inevitable. It is through our economic life that we affect and impact on the environment. It is therefore only through changes in our economic life that we can modify and improve our influences on the environment and make sure that they are not negative. So, my own approach, from the beginning when I was preparing the Stockholm conference, was to point out that environment and economy are two sides of the same coin. You can only assure good development, a good environment, by the way in which you manage your economic development. The environment is both an ingredient of development and a resource for it, because environment is a starting point. The natural capital of development is the starting point for development. And then it is modified through the processes of development. What is then produced is a modified environment, which should be better for human beings than the starting point. In other words, the environment is at the beginning and end of most equations. It is the starting point in development and it is the result of development. Much of our experience in the past shows that if we do not manage the economy within an environmental or sustainable development framework, the product of development will be a negative one for the environment. Instead of creating an improved environment, it will create an environment that is less healthy, less enjoyable, and one in which nature is destroyed and undermined, and living conditions are negatively impacted. Again the differences between the beneficiaries and the victims of the process are accentuated.
 
Thus, there is an absolutely intrinsic link between environment and the economy. That is what we mean by sustainable development. Sustainable development is simply development that in fact produces a net benefit for not just in economic terms but in a balancing of the economic, social, and environmental factors of development. Development affects social life, the conditions under which we live. It affects relationships between people. It effects economic relationships and social relationships. So, you have to bring these into a balance. That is where people's participation and the value system comes in. In making these balances you have to invoke your values. What do you consider most important? If you just consider economic development and you don't care about the moral question, then you don't care about the differences in equity that it creates. Of course, you will make those choices. But if you care about the social effects, if you care about equity, if you care about human rights, if you care about the total benefits to society, then you make your trade-off in balancing these things. That is what sustainable development is all about. It is to develop a fair, equitable, and positive balance between the economic, environmental, and social factors of development.
 
Q.        Do you believe that there is a good understanding of ecological issues in the business sector?
 
A.        There is a better understanding than there was. When I began preparing the Stockholm conference, business people were apathetic and even hostile. They saw this as a threat to business. The general reaction of business was apathetic, disinterested and, in some cases, actively hostile. There was a tremendous change after Rio. A Swiss industrialist, Stephen Schmid-Heinz, mobilized the business community in cooperation with the International Chamber of Commerce and created the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. This includes over 120 chief executives of some of the leading corporations in the world. There are, of course, many other corporations. Nevertheless, it shows that there is now much greater awareness. Much of that awareness has been developed among top business leaders. That is a good beginning, but we still have a long way to go. Even those who are not yet committed to the importance of ecological issues increasingly have to recognize that importance, partly because public concern has been translated into regulation. In addition to following regulations, environmental groups are watching what companies are doing and pointing out problems, or pointing out areas where they feel that corporations are acting wrongly. There is a public mood which business cannot ignore. There are both positive and negative reasons for this. Now that the positive reasons are growing, more and more business people are realizing that the environmental revolution is a continuing one that is creating some problems, but also creating a whole new generation of opportunities.
 
One example is the Ruhr valley in Germany, which was the site of some of the big polluting industries: iron, steel, and coal. But today, the environmental industry itself, environmental services industries, industries based on environmental technologies, now produce more jobs in the Ruhr valley than their traditional industries. So, there are positive reasons for business to be interested in the environment. Of course, on the other side, there are reasons of self-defense. I mean defending themselves against the accusations that sometimes affect their customers. There are different reasons why corporations are concerned. Some are defensive reasons and others are more positive. But increasingly, even those who start out being concerned because of the problems being created in terms of public image end up looking at the positive side. After all, there has been progress, and while there are still problems there are some promising and hopeful developments in terms of the way in which the business community looks at the environment.
 
Q.        You mentioned the significance of the Earth Charter as a document for empowering people. It states that the eradication of poverty is an imperative. Could you explain this moral and environmental imperative?
 
A.        There is no question that the elimination of poverty is one of the most important challenges we are facing in the twenty-first century. This is, of course, on moral grounds, because this is the first civilization in history in which it is actually feasible to eradicate poverty. It is no longer a question of whether we can do it. We know we can do it. The question is, do we have the political will? Again, that goes back to values. We are the richest civilization in history. Science and technology and knowledge have made it possible for us to create unprecedented levels of wealth. What is happening in almost every society is that only a certain percentage of the population enjoys that wealth and others become the victims. The result is a growing dichotomy between the rich and the poor. In the United States, despite tremendous economic progress, the difference between the poor and the rich has grown dramatically. We have to ask ourselves what kind of a civilization this is, where we have the unprecedented ability to look after the needs of people and yet we allow large portions of the world's population to be left outside of the system, deprived of the benefits. Poverty is bad, but it much worse when you live in a society in which some are very rich.
 
In environmental terms, the poor are driven to destroy their environment. Poor farmers in Africa know it is not good to cut down all the trees and overwork the soil, but if they do it, it is because they have to live tomorrow. They have to have firewood and food and, in order to produce it, they very often have to destroy the very environmental resources on which their future and their children's future depend. So, it is a self-fulfilling cycle. Poverty is an enemy of environmental change. It is a source of environmental deterioration. And yet that same environmental deterioration is going to perpetuate the cycle of poverty. So, we have to break that cycle. The fact is that we know now we have the ability to do that. We have the knowledge; we have the resources. The real problem is motivation. That is why I believe that the ethical and moral principles that motivate us are the main issues we have to work on. One of the things that I hope will come out of the Earth Charter is an awareness that the elimination of poverty is a fundamental moral issue. The fact that we have such poverty today is an affront to the moral basis of our civilization. Poverty is no longer necessary. Poverty is a product of our neglect, of our irresponsibility, of our unwillingness to live up to our highest values. It used to be an almost inevitable condition, but that is not true today. It is now a moral issue.
 
Q.        What results has Agenda 21 produced since 1992, and what expectations do you have for Agenda 21 in the Third Millennium?
 
A.            Agenda 21 is a unique document, because every word of it was negotiated by governments. Of course, when you negotiate a document like that, it doesn't mean it is a great piece of literature. It has some inadequacies that are a product of the compromises that had to be made in negotiating the document at Rio. But, nevertheless, it is still the most comprehensive set of guidelines for the future of the human community that has ever been agreed on. The fact that it was agreed on by all the governments of the world, most of them headed by their Prime Minister or President, does not guarantee what governments will do. Frankly, the progress on the part of governments has not been very good, and there has even been some backsliding. Of course, governments have been influenced by it, but they have still not really integrated it into their national policies and actions. Particularly with respect to assistance to developing countries, they recognise the principle that the industrialized countries have been largely responsible for the environmental problems, and therefore the need to give additional assistance to developing countries to give them the possibility of moving along a sustainable pathway to development. But in fact, assistance to developing countries has actual ly decreased. So, this is perhaps the biggest source of disappointment.
 
On the positive side, business has embraced Agenda 21. For example, the Earth Council has worked with the World Tourism and Travel Council, which is the world's largest single industry today, on an Agenda 21 for the tourism and travel industry. We have done the same with road transport working with the International Road Transport Union. So, a number of in dustries have actually adopted their own Agenda 21. Agreeing to do it and setting out guidelines for their own members is a very good start. Now, also perhaps most important is the fact that over three thousand cities and towns around the world have adopted their own local Agenda 21, based upon the global Agenda 21, because global issues cannot be solved at the global level. They have to have a global framework, a global context, but the real action is at the local level. The International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, which works very closely with the Earth Charter, has taken the lead in doing this. When communities are asked about the kind of community they we want to live in the twenty-first century, they then have to ask themselves how their community is connected with the world, and how it is connected with the rest of the environment. It helps people to relate their local interests and local concerns with the larger global picture. This is extremely encouraging I would hope that, in the twenty-first century, virtually every community will have its version of Agenda 21.
 
Q.        What would you like to modify in Agenda 21?
 
A.        I always made it very clear that from the beginning that Agenda 21 was a process. We must go further than Rio because we were very weak in some areas, for example, on the issue of energy. The OPEC countries insisted on watering down the provisions about energy use and about fossil fuels. The US was adamant about not having any clear provisions for reducing consumption. The US was not alone, however, but it is the biggest consumer country. So, Agenda 21 does not include that sufficiently. Largely due to the efforts of the Vatican, the parts of Agenda 21 dealing with population were also watered down. There were a number of paragraphs like that, where the provisions of Agenda 21 are not as strong as we hoped they would be. But you keep working on these and gradually you keep building on it. I made it very clear that Agenda 21 should be a continuing process. We learn and modify based on our ex perience. What cannot be agreed on today, we keep working on and can maybe get an agreement tomorrow. You can never do these things in one instance. Fundamental change does not come instantly; it is a process. Agenda 21 is an agenda for fundamental change in the twenty-first century. And therefore it is not a single instrument that has come down like the Ten Commandments. It is a framework, a set of guidelines for continuing action. It needs to be modified as we gain experience and we need to continue to search a new consensus around issues, that was not sufficiently dealt with at Rio.
 
Q.        The next question is about the key players involved in Agenda 21.
 
A.        In the final analysis, all power rests in the people, whether governments are formally democratic or not. It is people that ultimately count. "People" is simply another way of saying civil society. When we say civil society and we say governments, we are really talking about the same people, but people acting through governments create a certain formal structure. And civil society is the same people acting through other non-governmental instruments, professional organizations that we call NGOs. So, civil society is a very powerful expression of the diversity of peoples and the will of people. Civil society is by nature diverse; it does not speak with one voice. One of the virtues of civil society is the expression of diversity and variety. But then when civil society comes together on human rights issues and equity issues and sustainable development issues, they have a powerful impact. Business is also in one sense a part of civil society. But it is a very special part. They are the key engineers of our economic life. Then the business sector is by definition a key actor with respect to the environment and sustainable development.
 
I have already mentioned that there has been some significant progress now on the part of business, in terms of recognizing the impact of the environment on business and the need for more care to be taken with regard to their own environmental impact, but also with regard to the new generation of opportunities that the environment opens up. In fact, most major issues, sustainable development issues, are really resolved in an interaction between governments, people acting through their civil society organizations, and through business. The emergence of civil society today is just as important for society as the emergence of the nation-state in the last century. The three sectors of civil society, government, and business are the most impor tant. In the final analysis, civil society is not homogeneous governments do not act as a single institution in their decision-making unlike business, which has a very clear decision-making process. Civil society is far more diffuse. It contains so many different actors, and it does not act in an executive way. Rather, it acts with a pervasive influence on the executive decisions of both governments and business. So, there is tremendous interaction and it is through that interaction that decisions in society are made today.
 
Q.        Do you believe that the notion of "sustainable development" has received consensus in the multicultural world? Could you mention relevant cultural differences to understanding sustainability?
 
A.            Sustainable development is still a term that is not widely understood, even in Western culture. It is a concept that we have developed. In my view, it is not so important to sell sustainable development as a label. It is much better to talk about sustainable development in terms of real life issues rather than just to sell a label. Sustainable development is really just such an issue. When I talk to businessmen, for example, I suggest that they imagine that the Earth is a corporation, Earth Incorporated. Sustainable development is like running that corporation with depreciation, amortization, and maintenance accounts. If you do not take depreciation, amortization, and maintenance into account, it means that you are not main taining your assets. Therefore, you would be living off your capital and you might end up in liquidation. Now, for Earth Incorporated, sustainable development is just a matter of regenerating your capital, preserving your basic natural capital, and making sure that we are living off the income of our capital base, which includes nature's capital: what nature has given us as capital. And not undermining the capital itself. When we destroy natural resources and we do not replace them, for example, when we allow soil to be swept away, we are destroying our natural capital.
 
I don't really spend a lot of time trying to sell the term "sustainable development." I'm basically interested in helping farmers to make sure that their farming operations are in fact sustainable and helping communities; to make sure that, through their local Agenda 21, their commitments are going to be sustainable. "Sustainability" is something that has to be applied to a whole series of real life issues.
 
Q.        Could you explain your proposal that the Earth Charter would be a third pillar for the Third Millennium?
 
A.        It is certainly an important third pillar. The others are of course the UN Charter itself and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Earth Charter is important because it deals with a set of moral and ethical principles to guide the behavior of people and nations towards the Earth and towards each other. That is a fundamental requirement to sustain our civilization in the twenty-first century and beyond. Therefore it has, in my view, the potential to be ranked as a third pillar. Where will it get its authority? It will get its authority from the process itself, from the people. The UN Charter was put into place by governments as was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Earth Charter is a people's movement in the Anglo-saxon tradition, the Magna Carta of the people. And so the Earth Charter will draw its authority from the millions of people around the world who help to formulate and to support it.
 
Q.        The Earth Charter is a document for the people and by the people.
 
A.        Yes, that is right. But, as I explained earlier, people have the ultimate power. So, a people's Earth Charter will have an authority, which will require governments to at least accept it and perhaps even to establish a process for further negotiations. But the Earth Charter stands as an expression of the people's commitment. That people's commitment, I hope, will move governments. But as long as it has the authority of people, it will stand as a third pillar, whether or not governments embrace it formally. The Earth Charter is an expression of the ethical and moral principles of people around the world.
 
Q.        Do you see a tension between ecocentric and anthropocentric approaches to building a global ethics of sustainability?
 
A.        Well, the two are very closely related. If you look at an ecocentric approach, you could say, you want to preserve the integrity of the Earth. That it is more important than people. The Earth has existed for many years without people, and even if people disappear it will continue to exist in some form. But I don't think we can look at the ecocentric issues apart from the anthropocentric issues. The real point is that we are really the ones that are affecting the Earth now. Human numbers and the scale and intensity of human activities have reached the point where human beings are now the main agents of our future. What we do or fail to do is going to determine the future of our species, and the other forms of life on Earth. That means we are the main actors and have the main responsibilities. Therefore, the responsibility is concentrated in the anthropocentric approach. The question is, how much sense of responsibility should we feel to other forms of life? If you carry the anthropocentric approach to its extreme, you are saying that human beings should only work for the benefit of human beings. There are some who say that. A more enlightened approach, which I believe is right in terms of ethics and morals, is that we should have, as Albert Schweizer said, reverence for life itself. Life is expressed in us in the highest form that we know. But life is expressed in every other aspect of nature and we should have a respect for it. If we do not, ultimately we will hurt ourselves too. So, the idea of taking a narrow anthropocentric approach is, in my view, morally wrong and ultimately self-defeating. It is not really feasible to adapt only an ecocentric point of view. If you take an ecocentric view, you don't care about humans. And if you take an anthropocentric view, you don't care about nature.
 
Q.        We are in a position where humanity needs to assume its responsibility for finding a complementary view between both positions?
 
A.        We are the most responsible because it is our mastery of technology that has given us the means to make such an impact on society. We are in a position to literally determine the future of life. If climate changes because of human activity, that will affect all life and not just us. So, in a sense, it is a false question. There is a tension between the two, but it is not a question of choosing one or the other. The question is: "How do we balance human interest against the interest of the system as a whole?" I believe we have to do this because the condition of the system as a whole is ultimately our best guarantee of a sustainable life for humans.
 
Q.        Could you explain why peace and security, the goals of the United Nations (1945) are also fundamental conditions for sustainable development?
 
A.        Peace is a requisite for any form of environmental or economic or social sustainability. We have learned that war and conflict are destructive. They are destructive in human terms, in economic terms, and in environmental terms. Thus, environment issues are related to peace. The Earth Council, together with IUCN and with the University for Peace, is developing an ombudsman function to anticipate and resolve potential areas of conflicts, such as those over resources or shared resource systems. You need peace to have sustainable development. But you need a sustainable approach to development to avoid conflict and therefore preserve peace. That is why I have taken on the responsibility from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan for the University for Peace in Costa Rica. Sustainable development, environment, and peace are very closely related. More and more I think that you are going to find that peace and security are linked with the environment and sustainable development.
 
Environmental security is also security of the natural systems; for example, we need security of our food-producing systems. There is a huge potential for conflict in a world where unsustainable practises lead to conflict. The University for Peace has a unique charter to deal with the underlying causes of conflict not just dealing with conflict once it occurs, but with its underlying causes and that is also what sustainable development is. It is a means of dealing with the underlying causes of conflict and the underlying basis for peace.
 
Q.        What reforms of the United Nations do you suggest to achieve adequate global gover nance for the Third Millennium?
 
A.        I have never believed that world government was feasible or necessary. But I believe in a world system of governance which provides the means by which governments and peoples can cooperate in dealing with issues which they can not deal with alone. That is basically what the UN and its system of institutions do. That is the point of the reform efforts that I was privileged to be involved in when with working for Kofi Annan. But the UN needs much more fundamental reform in terms of the Security Council, the relationship between the UN and the other specialized agencies, and the ways in which civil society participates in UN processes. Only governments can undertake these reforms. Kofi Annan has been very courageous in pressing governments on that.
 
Q.        That is a question of power.
 
A.        Yes, that is right. And, of course, when you change the existing power structure, you meet a lot of resistance. And this is what we are fighting. The world needs the UN today more than it ever has, since it was created. And yet support for the UN by big countries, particularly the will to change it, is unfortunately less now than it has been at almost any time.
 
Q.        What are the major moral challenges for the Third Millennium, in particular considering the need to achieve sustainability? What is your dream for the Third Millennium?
 
A.        My dream for the millennium is that we will achieve a global society in which major conflicts no longer are allowed to occur; where the conditions of life are such that conflicts between people are treated through the processes of consultation and law; where every in dividual on this planet has the opportunity to pursue his/her own life and values, and to benefit from the new resources that science and technology offer (and the possibilities that science and technology point to), without having to fear for personal security without having to feel that they are left outside of the processes of change. In other words, that the processes of change of science and technology are made available to everyone equitably.
 
Equitably does not mean equally, because we will never have equality, except the equality of rights, the equality of opportunity. In terms of equality of income, we will always have some differences in any society. But every single person should have access to the fundamental basis for good decent life. I look at freedom in terms of the opportunities that are available to people for their own self-expression: to express their own aspirations, to express their own values. To do that, they have to agree on certain common values, because you cannot express your own individual values unless you have created a framework of law and a framework of conduct and behavior which permits everyone else to do the same. That means that you have to agree to accept certain common values, and that is again what the Earth Charter is all about. The Earth Charter is based on that fundamental set of common moral and ethical values which will produce a society in which people can pursue their own interests and their own aspirations within a framework of security and equity.
 
Q.        Can you imagine a global society?
 
A.        A global society, but not an homogeneous global society. In nature we learn that diversity and variety are sources of strength. The strongest ecological systems are those which preserve the most variety and the most diversity. Therefore we do not want our modernized world to be one in which everybody is the same; it is one the great virtues of humanity that we have differences, cultural differences. But in order to express those differences we need to accept a certain common framework. I'm very keen that we do not just have a central world government with a centrally-imposed set of rules and constraints, but rather only those rules and constraints which are necessary to ensure our security and freedom. And within those, the real test of a good society, a sustainable society, is that everyone has access to its benefits. This is the kind of society I hope we will have. In my view, it is the only kind of society that would be ultimately sustainable.