Madame Chairman,
Dear Colleagues Ministers,
Fellow Scientists,
Your Excellencies,

Growing international attention to environmental issues is a sign of maturity and wisdom. The Government of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso is intent in actively pursuing the goal of the sustainable development of our country. Brazil was and still is very proud of having been the host of an event which was a landmark in this process: the so-called Rio Conference of 92, whose outcome constitutes the inspiration and essence of all international concerns and possible actions in favor of sustainable development.

We can therefore understand the sense of pride and responsibility displayed by our German hosts as we gather, here, at this First Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

I would like, in this respect, through you, Madame Chairman, to thank the people and the Government of Germany for the warm hospitality bestowed upon us and for all the efforts being made so as to ensure that this meeting would result in a valid and effective step towards the implementation of this very important Convention.

In Rio, the world came to realize that after centuries of careless use of the earth's natural resources, the process of industrialization and economic economic growth brought unprecedented wealth and well-being to part of the world’s population has also entailed a high cost to the quality of the environment on a global scale.

While the benefits of development are concentrated in the rich nations, the problems derived from it, such as the industrial and chemical pollution, the depletion of the ozone layer, the growing generation of hazardous wastes, as well as the change in climate, tend to be worldwide in their effects and can seriously jeopardize the environment and human life in the developing world as well.

Among these new 'global issues', one of the main concerns of scientists, environmentalists and policy makers alike is the question of the anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect, which need to be tackled by proper policies and measures so as to avoid irreversible and catastrophic consequences for the whole climate system.

Climate change is perhaps the most challenging of all the global environmental challenges which mankind faces, as it enters the twenty-first century. It is challenging in its scale, scope and complexity.

Climate change is about environmental impacts which are, beyond any doubt, of a truly planetary scale and which will severely affect the common future of mankind

Historians have shown us how, in the past, whole civilizations and societies have been swept away by seemingly insignificant, but in the long run quite lethal, natural incremental changes in mean temperatures.

Now our societies face the dilemmas brought by the industrial revolution of the last two centuries and the models of unsustainable production and consumption that followed. I certainly also mustn't remind you that the discussion on climate change is being held, to the difference of some years ago, against the quite new and different backdrop of the end of the world’s economic recession, which is certainly entailing more anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions.

Mainly because of anthropogenic actions, our own survival as civilization and species is therefore now at stake, as the very survival of Nature itself - Nature as we used to know and even took for granted, in its most seemingly immutable and almost divine form, the cycles of seasons.

Combating man-induced climate change is also a truly global challenge in its scope, as the mitigation of effects conducive to global warming involve necessarily bringing to the negotiating table the very different legitimate interests of several nations.

All truly global environmental problems formulate the very difficult equation that begs to integrate, under our common responsibility for global sustainability, national interests of "variable geometry", depending on the main questions it addresses.

Debating climate-change is also, finally, perhaps the most complex of all global environmental issues, since, be it from the angle of its purely scientific presumptions, methodologies or studies, or be it from the perspective of what is really at stake in terms of sustainable development and the well-being of populations of all over the world, it necessarily confronts us with the challenge of bringing together an incredibly vast array of inputs for the serious consideration of the matter.

Necessarily multifarious are the expressions of scientific knowledge on this issue. Not necessarily coincidental are the perspectives from national political standpoints. Most regrettably, even, there certainly are different shades, among the main actors of this debate, on the true expression of concerns for the equity of solutions to the problem.

It could well be, therefore, that the coming into force and implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) represents one of the majors steps for the consideration, by the international community, of the main global challenges we are confronted at the end of this century.

This legal-binding instrument, that is approaching universal recognizance, offers the cornerstone on which me should build, on a pragmatically and non-confrontational manner, the array of ways and means for achieving 'the ultimate objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system'.

The UNFCCC also enshrines very important principles which we should abide by and that are pertinent not only to the question of global warming itself, but to the very overall fabric of international consensus on sustainable development that was spun and accepted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at Rio, in 1992.

I will just recall the most important, hoping that they should always guide our steps: 'the precautionary principle', 'the polluter pays principle', 'the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities', as well as those referring to 'the right to development, 'an equity-based global partnership', 'the sharing of benefits derived from technological advances', 'the coverage of the internalization of incremental costs, by developing countries, through new and additional resources distinct from development assistance', not to forget the most important concepts of unsustainable patterns of production and consumption' and of sustainable development itself, which puts environmental and developmental concerns in the just integrated perspective.

For all its complexity, its social end economic implications and the unprecedented patterns of cooperation embodied in it, the Climate Change Convention is an instrument for global action during the next millennium.

Bearing in mind this wider and future-oriented perception, we hope to be able to decide, here in Berlin, upon some practical steps which might constitute the very start of the process for the implementation of the Convention's commitments.

In the present stage, I emphasize it is of foremost importance that our decisions should not go astray from the concepts and principles of the Climate Convention it self.

Our first substantial task will be to address the question of the adequacy of the commitments in Articles 4.2(a) and (b) of the Convention. Even if it is not easy to scientifically define what would be the level of greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere at which we would have a dangerous interference with the climate system, it is clear that present commitments are inadequate.

General evidence, as well as the 'precautionary principle' and common sense point to the fact that even if global anthropogenic emissions were maintained indefinitely at present levels, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases still would keep growing until at least the year 2100.

The discussion that follows is on what measures should be taken: should we address the question with the setting up of new targets and timetables, through a new mandatory instrument such as a Protocol to the Convention, or should we adopt new commitments based on measures and policies to be taken at the national level.

One way or the other, the Brazilian Government feels that, in a matter of such an importance, our deliberations here should be foremost based on the idea of ensuring credible and realistic commitments, in such a way as to ensure the credibility of the Convention itself as an instrument.

We support therefore that this matter should be broached in a pragmatic and non-confrontational way, with a setting up of an appropriate negotiating body of this Conference entrusted with a broad mandate that would consider the matter in a very flexible and comprehensive manner, taking into account all the options present (policies, measures, targets and timetables). All greenhouse gases should be considered, as well as the whole gamut of the important sectors involved in the question.

But, foremost, the Brazilian Government believes that this necessary exercise should be done in full cognizance and respect to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities of the Parties to the Convention. We insist on this point not to avoid our relative share of responsibility on the matter, as a country not belonging to Annex I, but to ensure that the equity principles on which this Convention is based should not go astray.

Our right to development should not be compromised. If the international community is really willing to achieve the overall objective of stabilizing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, the national needs and priorities for sustainable development of developing countries should be dully considered in the policies and programs of action established during this initial implementation phase.

Some sobering scientific aspects should also be considered in this respect. There is undoubtedly a certain drive to associate the responsibility of each country directly to the level of its own anthropogenic emissions, be they developed or developing. This, compounded with the fact that there is a certain amalgam between the aspects of urban pollution and the growing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, would set us up in the wrong track.

The fact is that in the case of urban pollution (such as sulfur dioxide), the atmospheric concentration of the offending particles in the atmosphere is directly proportionate to the emissions and relatively very short-lived. In the case of those emissions entailing climatic change, greenhouse gases display a very long life: atmospheric concentration of these gases is therefore proportional to an integer of these emissions, which takes into account the decreasing weight of each gas in terms of its average life in the atmosphere. Global warming results from greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.

The practical effect of these unassailable scientific facts is that while we can always guess that emissions coming from non-Annex I countries will eventually reach the same levels as those coming from Annex I Parties to the Convention by the year 2050, the resulting concentration will take effect onlv by the year 2100, as well as the consequent temperature rise will take effect onlv by 2150.

Of course, if we would consider past emission contributions (before 1990) of developed counties to climate change, these would further project into the future the intersecting slopes of the effects of the emissions of Annex I and non-Annex I countries.

What I am saying is that the very urgent problem we are dealing with (the dangerous level of concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) cannot - for all practical purposes and even putting aside important equity arguments - be considered trough the hasty optic of merely trying to enlarge the enrollment of developing countries in Annex I.

It is important therefore, in this context, that the appropriate scientific expertise should inform future decisions by the Parties. The relative contribution of each greenhouse gas and each country to climate change should be correctly assessed.

lndependently of the specific mechanism that is devised in the future to mitigate emissions, it will be imperative to consider indicators that would take into account the true scientific real proportion of each country’s contribution, through emissions, to the rise of mean global temperature over time and not only the relative level of its emissions.

Madame Chairman,

Another question our conference should consider, with no lesser emphasis, are the provisions for transfer of and access to environmentally sound technologies, by the developing world, so as to ensure that we will be able to continue our path to development in a way that will pose no threats to the climate system.

A lot has been said about the necessity of devising market-based strategies, instead of command-and-control methods, for ensuring the wider possible ways and means to involve all countries in our global effort towards greenhouse gas abatement. Our stand on the matter is, by now, quite well known, so I will try to be synthetic.

On the one hand, we agree that market attractive and cost-effective measures may be needed to allow developing countries to 'grow clean', mainly through access to environmental sound technologies, as devised in Article 4.5 of the Convention.

On the other hand, as the debate on the controversial 'joint implementation' issue itself has proven so far, we are of the opinion that this concept has been unduly pushed to the forefront of our concerns. It is certain that mechanisms for 'joint implementation' entailing cooperation between Parties belonging to Annex I of the Convention are acceptable and even advisable. The extension of this concept to Parties that don't belong to Annex I, in terms that would entail the trade of carbon emissions of developing countries versus the management of the carbon-dioxide sinks of developing countries, is, in our opinion, conducive to severe distortions to the spirit and the letter of the Convention, and would therefore put at stake the credibility itself of the commitments thereof.

I think that we are past the stage of trying to establish the 'true nature' of joint implementation or trying to devise complex schemes for the implementation of it, of doubtful verification and unforeseen consequences. Why do we need an international endorsement for a concept that is being put forward as something that is said to be of a purely voluntary nature and 'over and above' the commitments of Annex I countries? Wouldn't be that the real question that is at stake is only the question of credits offsetting developed countries emissions, through a mechanism that for all practical purposes, will not solve the real problem, in quantitative terms, and that would distract us from our main goals?

I believe that it is high time to characterize the much needed cooperation between developed countries and developing countries, in the context of the FCC, in pragmatic terms. We should relinquish the debate on 'joint implementation for credit’, thus foregoing the semantic traps, the unacceptable purely mercantilist appeals and political deadlocks we have witnessed so far.

We must instead concentrate in devising market-oriented mechanisms, among others, for the implementation of the provisions of Article 4.5, concerning access to environmental sound technologies by developing countries, which is the only road that will bring full participation of the majority of non-Annex I countries in the implementation of the Convention's objective.

Madame Chairman,

For the Brazilian Government, the progress in attaining the objective of the Convention also depends on maintaining one essential element: credibility. In order to maintain credibility in our own work, we should engage ourselves in an effort to broadly disseminate among the public, on a comprehensive and understandable way, the available scientific certainties about the climate change. With this regard, the useful work of a wide range of NGO's which follow closely the implementation of our decisions represent a valid and important effort to disseminate, among the public, the actions we have been taken, as well as to assure the increasing participation of the society in this process. There is much information spread out about this issue, but not all is reliable from the scientific point of view.

Madame Chairman

I will not here try to impress upon you our good record in this context. We have produced a short video, which is being shown in the premises of this Conference, that describes, quite synthetically and with nice images, how we situate ourselves on the global warming issue and what me have been doing about it.

Suffice it to say here that Brazil is one of the few continental countries that has a considerably clean energy matrix, with a high level of renewable energies (60%), a very low level of fossil emissions (0.3% tons of carbon per capita) and a population whose rate of growth has declined consistently in the last three decades, while we occupy 6% of the earth's land.

I will not refer to our well known past and ongoing pioneer achievements in the utilization of the biomassa for renewable energy, in particular through sugar-cane ethanol. Let me just mention two emblematic examples of more recent governmental action in the field of climate change. Last year we inaugurated a Center for Numerical Weather Prediction and Climate Studies, with a powerful and modern super-computational system, entirely dedicated to atmospheric, oceanic and climatic modeling applications, an investment of more than 40 million dollars by the Ministry of Science and Technology. This year we will become permanent hosts, in São José dos Campos, State of São Paulo, to the headquarters of the lnter-American lnstitute for Global Change Research, the regional organization of the Americas dedicated to the study of the very momentous issue we are now debating in Berlin.

Thank you, Madame Chairman.