The Director General is improving organizational efficiency and marshaling resources to achieve program goals.

     The task force's recommendations, which were crafted to enhance UNEP's ability to achieve its stated mission, propose that the organization spearhead efforts to aid the entire institution in gearing up for the environmental challenges of the 21st century. The task force is advising that UNEP create an early warning environmental monitoring and assessment system and streamline and link together the U.N.'s environmental conventions.

     UNEP's mission is "to provide leadership and encourage partnerships in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and people to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations." Consistent with this vision, Töpfer is actively extending the capabilities and efficiency of the organization. He is already well known for his successful tenure as the chairman of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development. A former Minister of Environment for Germany, he is credited with the success of the German green dot program, a system that helped reduce packaging waste by returning packaging waste to producers for recycling. He has been a major proponent of cleaner production efforts aimed, through pollution prevention, at reducing the environmental burden associated with industrial production processes.

     In a discussion with ES&T associate editor Kellyn Betts this past October, Töpfer candidly provided his views concerning UNEP, the undertakings and challenges it is facing, and his views concerning global environmental problems and opportunities for environmental improvements. Töpfer's remarks clearly signal his intentions to act in the strongest possible manner in response to environmental challenges.

As far as your job at UNEP is concerned, what first steps have you taken toward reaching your goal of making the organization more effective?

I think we have to accomplish three different steps--three pillars. First, of course, we have to improve the financial situation and the staffing situation, not only in Nairobi but also in our regional offices, in our decentralized divisions. Second, we have to decide on areas of concentration in our work, of course integrated in the so-called Nairobi Declaration, but it was absolutely necessary to focus the areas of concentration. And third, we have to do our utmost to better the atmosphere in Nairobi--in our cooperation with the permanent representatives responsible for cooperation between UNEP and our stakeholder governments.

     Of course, linked with the first step is also the need to integrate the three main headquarters functions in Nairobi. Being also responsible as Director General of UNON and as Executive Director for Habitat (the U.N. Centre for Human Settlements), it must be my aim in the very beginning to encourage synergetic efforts to achieve a lean administrative structure and to make money and people available for the program and not just for administrative purposes. These are the three pillars, and I hope that we have already made some progress in all those three dimensions.

What importance do you place on the task force you chaired recently?

     With regard to the task force, a very important result was that we concentrated the necessary functions--accounted for the cross-cutting of the different conventions, ensured their better integration, and also the synergetic work of the conventions, where it's of course also a very important task for UNEP, already decided on by the General Assembly special session. We also had a lot to discuss and to recommend concerning our activities with the NGOs and with the major groups, and last but not least, concerning intergovernmental cooperation--not only in the interagency cooperation. In the interagency context, the main recommendation is that we have a very flexible group system so that we can integrate the different agencies in specific topics like water, or climate, or chemical subjects, not in new institutions but through new, flexible handling procedures. I think that this idea of issue management as it was already presented by the Secretary General in his first reform paper is a very good instrument to avoid overlappings in respective roles and coordination efforts and even counter-productive activities of different environmental policy processes.

You said that you wanted to concentrate more on technology transfer in the environmental sector. What do you mean by that and how do you hope to achieve this?

I'm completely convinced that in the future, there will be a very concentrated conflict over the use of limited natural resources. We will have dramatic population growth in the future and concentrated urban megacities. This growth is linked with the need for overcoming poverty and for enabling better development possibilities, especially for developing countries. If we want to do this without overloading the capacity of the environment, the solution must be linked with modern technology, especially new technologies that concentrate on more efficient use of limited natural resources. We need what others have called an efficiency revolution: an increase of energy efficiency, of water efficiency, and of land and natural resources efficiency. It must be driven by new technologies, and those new technologies must be available especially, on preferential terms, to developing countries. Otherwise, I think we would have a very, very difficult development task in front of us.

     Donella Meadows' wonderful book, Limits to Growth, encouraged us all to ask how we can decouple those interrelated trends--how can we decouple population growth and economic growth from environmental burdens? We need this type of technology development so that we can accomplish a growth of the limits, without overloading the environment and especially also the public social welfare. Therefore, it is the technology link, but also of course, the behavior links, that are needed to change consumption patterns. It is not just the technical aspect that we need to be concerned about. Unavoidably, all these aspects, integrated of course as a whole, are required for a new vision of the development of modern society and changing to a new consumption pattern.

Since the Stockholm conference in 1972, when UNEP was created, your organization has stressed that environmental issues require more than end-of-pipe solutions. In 1989, UNEP began the Cleaner Production Programme. What do you consider to be UNEP's most notable achievements in preventing pollution, and what do you hope to achieve in the future?

It's, of course, unavoidable that we must integrate environment and technology. In the past, end-of-the-pipe technology focused on treatment plants built for SO₂ or NO_x control or whatever. That did not solve problems. It only shifted the nature of problems--other pollutants, solid wastes, for example, came from this. It was then a very vital and necessary step for us to utilize this type of technology, no doubt, but now we have to change. We must have this new aggregate, this new way to integrate technology.

     What then is UNEP's achievement in this field? To emphasize the strength of UNEP's role, I think we only have to mention one dimension. We started the outstanding activity, initially the responsibility of my predecessor, Mostafa Tolba, to fight against this incredible neocolonial approach of export of hazardous waste. To handle hazardous waste in developed countries costs a lot of money. There were two offsetting possibilities: to change production with a resulting decrease in the amount and nature of generated waste, or to transport it to other countries--as long as this latter easy way out was available, bringing hazardous waste to developing countries assured low out-of-pocket costs. Of course, the result of this is all of the very negative repercussions to those recipient countries and their populations, who can't afford to pay for safe disposal. So we must stand and say "No!" We have to block this export practice, to ban the export of hazardous waste. This was not very easy to achieve in those days I was environment minister in Germany. I personally had to arrange the return of hazardous waste that had been transported to Romania and other places because it was illegally exported. Now we have the Basel Convention that blocks the export of these wastes. Our next step is not only to block the export of hazardous waste, but also to change the production forces that are linked with their generation because we have to consider that developing countries are also undergoing industrial growth and are themselves producing hazardous waste. So they not only have to handle waste exported to them by developed countries, but they also have to handle their own internal hazardous waste generation. If you go to the industrialized, developed countries, you know that handling hazardous waste is at the top of everything. So, one step is to block the export of hazardous waste from developed to developing countries. And a very vital, a very necessary step, especially, is also to avoid the export of hazardous waste for recycling purposes because under the concept of recycling, we have a lot of different meanings. We must now increase the use of additional options in many countries to ensure good overall management results.

     In the past, I wrote that we must establish a life-cycle economy--make the producers responsible for their products from cradle to grave. They need to incorporate into production development the idea of how to avoid waste generation--how to avoid generation of difficult waste that costs a lot of money to handle. The German green dot objective in those days was to assure producer responsibility, to bring the responsibility back where it should be, being aware that to accomplish this, a need for new technologies could arise. In those countries where a life-cycle economy was really integrated, the result was a huge change of materials use for packaging; there was a huge decrease of the amount (quantity) of packaging.

     Here, I think we have a lot of good examples of UNEP activities, and we can go into those situations where, as I believe, it is really honest to be directly addressing improvements in this market economy. A market economy always is linked to prices. We need good price signals, and if we have them, we can stimulate needed technologies. If we have water available at low subsidized prices, nobody will ask for water-saving technologies, because we have no market driver for them. As long as we have no limitations to answer to, there is no incentive for anybody to develop new technologies; there is no market. You must then use price signals to change technologies and to decrease the negative outcomes. Therefore, cleaner production is not only a good headline, cleaner production is in the self-interest of business companies, and it is linked with better prices as a whole. I mentioned Basel; I can also mention the new PIC Convention that requires informed consent prior to the export of pesticides and of industrial chemicals. You can see the same positive development in policy negotiations at the POPs convention. My main concern is that we must come forward step by step, but if possible, not through a reactive position--PIC and POPs and CITES are more or less reactive. We learn there are problems and we solve them. What we need is good cooperation with the chemical industry, cooperation that is proactive. We need early screening; we need to screen in the right situation with the right criteria. I was very glad to have the chance to be invited by the Worldwide Chemical Association to discuss some of these key points. They decided to invest more money for screening. Now that we have lined this activity up, EPA is also asking for the same. We must engage screening earlier. With life-cycle designs that integrate the handling, cost of waste, and production, you can then have cleaner production.

What are your opinions about trading schemes for controlling pollutant emissions?

We did, of course, in conventions, tie repercussions to trade. There is, as you notice, not a single convention that is not also directly relevant to trade. That is very obvious with POPs and PIC, no doubt. But also we have the situation with CITES, which is trade-related, and we have the situation of course with the EC (European Community) as well--benefit sharing, the question of wise use and its offset is again, trading-focused. Kyoto, of course, gave us a fresh idea of emission trading, so it is not surprising that this is effective. Of course, all the conventions I mentioned are global conventions because people learn there is a possibility to have a "beggar my neighbor" policy. You see, what I want to mention here is the sense that it is of concern that we have the advantages of production and technical progress regionalized, yet we need the advantages globalized. Wherever you have such a situation, you will have a need for global treaty-binding conventions. If we have emissions of CO₂ in developed countries and sea level rise in small island developing states, the result is "beggar my neighbor." And all "beggar my neighbor" policies are conflict-oriented policies.

     Wherever you have this feeling of inequity you have people saying "Why are they doing this? They are killing my future!" To overcome these conflict-generating situations, you must have legally binding responses, and these are always linked with trade. So, we must be much more integrated with trading issues knowing that on the other side of the coin, environmentally related aspects are always closely tied feelings that these are nontariff barriers.

     Kamal Nath, former environment minister of India, once told me that it is really imperialism to have the same economic necessities linked with the use of the environment in developing countries as you have in the developed countries because developed countries developed their economic strength by subsidizing production via nature. The developing nations do not have all the wonderful technical solutions and other features as when developed nations started their economic development. So they cannot have the same path to development. I'm aware of these needs and these problems, and therefore we need a very honest dialogue.

     We must be more integrated in the development of multilateral trade agreements. We urgently need more environmental knowledge and solutions for globalization of the economy and therefore, again, I believe for those emissions with a global repercussion--CO₂ is the best example; CFC is another a good example--the use of CFCs in developing countries and especially in the southern hemisphere among developing countries, poses problems for the people living there, and not only for the people, but also for their nations. My main aim is not to forget that everything in this sphere can be misused as long as there are nontariff-bearing trade barriers. The very wise and very knowledgeable change in this sphere is absolutely the precondition for avoiding conflict in the world.

     Of course, whenever you engage in trade with nations, you must be aware of possible loopholes or possible illegal or semi-illegal transfers. Luckily, we are now having some success in negotiations with the Russian Federation, but in some parts of the world, where CFCs are still produced and are much cheaper than substitutes, you will have, of course, an illegal situation. As with the CFC issues, we are now having success in conversations with the Russian Federation regarding issues relating to emissions that contribute to global warming. In Russia, you have a dramatic decrease of the economic base, and also a consequent decrease of CO₂ generation. The result is that we have a lot of CO₂ not used. So all this is linked with CO₂ emissions and international trade.

You have also indicated that you want to establish an early warning system and an emergency management plan for environmental crises. What should this be and how should it work?

Well, I'm very concerned for the future development in the use of resources. Of course, it is linked first of all with water. Everybody knows that we have an increase in population, but we do not have a corresponding increase in drinking water, so the result in the regional dimension is conflict. As Boutros-Boutros Ghali mentioned, the next war in the world will be not idealogical, it will be linked with water. If you go out today, you can see more than one example of this. So what we want to do is make information available. What constitutes the quality of water? How can we have the best common use of water? What is the possibility to increase and to change water use technology? All these are direct inputs to the activity, for example, of foreign ministries being responsible, ultimately, for avoiding conflicts. Early warning is also linked with soil and soil protection. We know that arable land is decreasing, and we already know there are, as a result, up to 20 million environmental refugees in the world. It is necessary to be informed early about those interrelations and to make those hot spots known very, very early. So what we need is a good monitoring and assessment capacity.

     We are trying to do it together with GEF, for example, in their global international water assessment, so that we know what is going on, where new problems are arising--early warnings too. Consider, for example, the Bangladesh river basin--we know that there occurred this year the dramatic flood of Bangladesh. Bangladesh has the largest river delta in the world, into which three very big rivers flow. The change in the nature in the upstream and midstream is directly responsible for the resulting repercussions, for the situation in Bangladesh. In China, there is a similar situation: upstream deforestation and destruction of wetlands and forests. As a result, there is a lot of sedimentation. I was told that the buildup of sediment was at depths up to 12 meters in the Yangtze because of this huge sedimentation process. So we see that an early warning system must be available to give clear signals for the governments and for people living in affected and at-risk areas. There is also value in having early warnings for forest fires--the consequences of the El Niño phenomenon and other weather anomalies. I really believe that this is a must for UNEP--to be able to concentrate on early warnings and hot spot analyses, also on the Amazon deforestation as well as other areas and scenarios of similar magnitude and potential concern. But to do this we of course need country investments, as well as assistance from the World Bank, UNDP, bilateral donors, and others so that we don't overload ourselves.

Have any of those other organizations committed any funding?

      In the funding of this? Yes, of course. We have had good backing by GEF, by the way, and I'm totally sure if we can make the case that this is really an important topic, we will also have the backing of bilateral donors. That is my expectation and experience until now. Our financial situation is quite weak, but I have also learned that if we can demonstrate that our activity is important, we can expect to change the funding situation. We already have good signals from important countries that they will not only stabilize their voluntary contributions, but also that they will increase them. We are not yet at a point where I want them to be, but I'm only now seven months responsible for UNEP--this wonderful organization. Since beginning, I've striven to promote our programs and explain our mission, and I trust I have made progress toward making the case for others to support our efforts. It has been proven that if we make good policies and programs, we can convince donors to invest more money in times where money is really very, very difficult to obtain.

Concerning the need to improve worldwide water management. How do you propose that drinking water reserves be controlled and how could conflicts be prevented?

Stabilizing greenhouse gases will take a major effort. Would you care to comment on what you believe are the greatest challenges to accomplishing this task?

Well, I think that this is one of the most outstanding issues that must be addressed--hopefully, there will be no reasonable argument in the future that there is not really a change in climate from greenhouse emissions; that we are all really convinced that the scientists are right; that yes, we are changing the climate by human activities. All the arguments that there was always a climate change and that it is natural--that it is not necessary for us to act--addressing this division of view is really a first necessity. It is absolutely time to act because there are repercussions in the change of climate now.

     Second, we must do our utmost to prove that the costs linked with such a policy are not prohibitive--that low costs are not wishful thinking. In similar situations, we learned that from the very moment when we decided to act, there is a very dynamic technical process that takes place and begins changing the cost of taking action. For example, when we discussed in the very beginning the cost of phasing out CFCs, everybody was worried about costs, but at that very moment, people started thinking about controls, and it was a wonderful concept. I remember when we started to decrease SO₂ emissions. At first, desulfurization installations were extremely expensive. But later on, of course, there was competition, there were new ideas, and the cost went down. So what I desire as an economist--as a market economist by my conviction, by my education as well--is to prove that we must begin this dynamic process of technology changes. And third that these are win-win strategies. In economic terms, it is desirable to increase energy efficiency. It is also better to broaden sources for energy--not be dependent on fossil energy alone. To develop renewables is in any case--whether with or without climate change--an absolute must for a growing world population with limited resources of fossil fuel. So there is the need for a broadening of resources, for energy production, and last but not least, there is the question of how can we change consumption, addressing as well how we can handle mobility in the future.

     Being responsible for urbanization, we are in the midst of megacities issues right now--those that are already in a situation wherein automotive development creates immobility by gridlock. We are not able to handle this problem without change. So this is again a win-win strategy opportunity: We must make the cities a part of the solution of our problems of the future. We need to develop solutions for mobility in those big municipal areas. Altogether, I think we have to be convinced that this is a problem. Second these problems can be handled without extraordinary costs by stimulating technology. These are win-win situations, and they prove that consumption patterns can be changed, and we need to integrate wherever possible with actions of private business and create flexible solutions wherever possible to avoid the feeling that we are as environmentalists more interested in the input than in the output. I'm only interested in reaching my target, and not whether I am a better environmentalist if I have a higher input to pay for that. That is, I think, quite self-evident, so I sincerely hope that the process we started in Rio with the signing of the Framework Convention, with the steps in the direction of the Berlin Mandate and then the Kyoto Protocol is encouraging. Hopefully, further progress in Buenos Aires [November 1998] will prove that we are also able to handle such a huge challenge for mankind in a proper and honest way.

You've written about the need for developed countries to commit to helping developing countries realize their economic aspirations. What specific opportunities are there for UNEP to encourage this commitment?

My perspective especially comes from living in Nairobi, where UNEP is headquartered. Nairobi is a city with three-and-a-half million inhabitants--more or less, nobody knows exactly--with a huge population increase rate. The minister told me that the population increase rate in Nairobi is 7.6%. That amounts to a doubling of the population in roughly 16 years. Sixty percent of Nairobi's inhabitants live in ghettos and slums--there's all the poverty problems. That reality today is not a unique situation. You can travel to quite a lot of other cities where the situation is similar. It is very difficult in these situations to convince people to be cooperative when you are asking for better environmental solutions: They cannot feed their children--answers are very very difficult. On the other side, we have overconsumption in developed countries, which means there's a lot of environmental problems exported--a "beggar my neighbor" policy to developing nations. It is a very difficult situation. I once mentioned on going to Rio that we are facing a great danger--that we have come to a new cold war, to a cold war between the developing and developed countries. Therefore, I hope that we can convince everybody that to fight poverty is also to fight environmental problems in the world. In southeast Asia, as the result of this dramatic financial crisis, there are now 60 million people living in Indonesia below the poverty line. That social catastrophe is a direct result of the economic disaster, but it is also an environmental problem. So what can we do to be integrated in our response to those problems? I think all the conventions we are responsible for can help directly or indirectly, along with financial incentives--the Montreal Protocol, biodiversity, climate, and other conventions, as well as financial aid and technology transfer activity. What we really have to do is to be integrated with private direct investment in developing countries. We don't want to inhibit private industry initiatives in developing countries, but we want to make them environmentally more suitable. I sincerely hope that we can become more and more involved in developing programs with sustainable environment development objectives, and this in any case is development.