I wish to thank the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation Tekes for organizing this seminar on Arctic Know-how as Strength, and for including in it a session on the Arctic Policy of the European Union.  The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland is pleased to co-sponsor today´s event.

A quarter of a century ago, the Arctic region emerged as a new frontier on the world scene. It is remarkable that from the beginning peaceful cooperation and inclusiveness rather than rivalry and conflict were coined as leading principles in the interaction among the Arctic states. Indigenous peoples of the region also joined in this cooperation.

We must keep in mind the principle of peaceful, constructive cooperation and inclusiveness now when international relations are strained. The Arctic region faces many urgent challenges. Addressing them cannot wait for better times.  We need the best possible human and material resources to tackle the issues at hand.

The European Union is an indispensable part of the equation. The EU already has an impressive track record in providing human and material resources, supporting research, formulating policies and raising awareness of Arctic issues.

From Finland´s point of view, the role of the European Union is closely tied to Arctic cooperation and this is emphasized in our own Arctic strategy. Several member countries were among the initiators, when Arctic cooperation became possible in the 1990´s. They were present at the creation.

Three of the EU´s member states, Finland, Sweden and Denmark are members of the Arctic Council, founded in 1996, and participate in circumpolar cooperation. Seven EU member countries are observers to the Council. In addition, the EU gives its significant contribution to the Working Groups of the Arctic Council.

At the subregional level, the European Union is a founding member of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council established in 1993, together with Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Russia. The Northern Dimension policy of the EU contributes to important projects in Northern Europe through partnerships.

In spite of this remarkable involvement in Arctic affairs, the European Union has been slow to formulate a coherent policy toward the Arctic. The first Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council was issued in 2008, followed by the second Communication in 2012.

Clearly an effort must be made to bring the EU Arctic policy to a new level and to strengthen the coherence of decision-making on Arctic issues within the Union. It is time that the EU begins to fully use its influence and resources to better focus its policy vis-à-vis the Arctic region. There are great expectations regarding the third Arctic Communication, due in December 2015. Finland, along with other Arctic member countries, is certainly prepared to contribute to this Communication.

There are urgent, compelling reasons to intensify Arctic cooperation as soon as possible. Major developments such as climate change and globalization will profoundly affect the natural habitats and living conditions in the Arctic region in the coming years.

These changes will be dramatic. Scientific evidence of the impact of climate change globally and in the Arctic is abundant. Temperature in the Arctic is expected to rise twice as fast as elsewhere. The ice cover of the Arctic Ocean will shrink rapidly, resulting in open waters absorbing more heat. It is a vicious circle, made worse by the melting of permafrost and increased emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.

There is no time to lose. A global, legally binding climate agreement is the aim at the COP 21 Conference in Paris in December. This agreement should limit the rise of global temperature to two percent by reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This agreement is widely regarded as a last chance to get a grip of global warming before it reaches its tipping point. As President Obama said at the UN Climate Summit last year, we may be the last generation that can do something about climate change.

The European Union has shown strong leadership in efforts to mitigate climate change and to prepare for the necessary measures of adaptation.  The EU has confirmed its commitment to reach the climate agreement in 2015. It has agreed on a climate and energy package and intensified its climate diplomacy with other stakeholders.

It is symbolic that the Climate Conference will be held in Paris. The role of the French Government hosting the Conference will further underline the European effort to finally reach an effective climate deal.

Globalization will reach the Arctic region with full force, propelled by climate change. It is vital that the Arctic countries will agree, in consultation with indigenous peoples and other local inhabitants, on measures for sustainable development in its three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

Sometimes the Arctic is seen as a new, opening reservoir of resources with its oil and gas deposits, minerals and fisheries. Sustainable development can succeed only if rule of law prevails. We should continue to broaden our common understanding of the application of international law and especially the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea to avoid rivalries and confrontations.

We should not allow the Arctic to turn into a kind of Wild North, where might makes right. All stakeholders, also states and business organizations outside the Arctic region, should work for sustainable development in the region.

Developing Arctic stewardship, a new and stronger model for international governance is what is urgently needed. This is also in the interest of the European Union. On the other hand, the EU is particularly well-placed to contribute to Arctic governance. It is a trustworthy and predictable actor.

Already now, the European Union is a major destination of goods and resources from the Arctic region, and its policies have implications for all those who participate in trade and investments or provide related services. In the area of navigation, transport and logistics the role of the EU and its policies is likely to increase considerably. The expected growth in marine transportation between Europe and Asia via the Northern route is a case in point.

Here again we must ask whether the EU will be fully prepared to participate in discussions concerning the Arctic, including in efforts to strengthen Arctic governance. We should make sure that Arctic issues are coordinated at a high level and that the Union is adequately represented in such discussions.

In May last year, the Foreign Affairs Council underlined the need for better understanding of the developments underway in the Arctic and requested the Commission to consider options for an EU Arctic Information Centre. Finland has made an offer to host the EU Arctic information Center in Rovaniemi, linked to the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland. That offer is still valid, and I sincerely hope that the decision to establish the Information Centre will be included in the next Arctic Communication.

In the course of the past year, trust has become a scarce commodity in international relations. The old East-West divide has made a strange comeback, and the Arctic role of European Union runs the risk suffering from the strained relations.

At the moment it is still open whether the Russian Federation will agree to implement the decision taken two years ago by the Arctic Council ministerial meeting, inviting the EU to become an observer of the Council. The next ministerial meeting of the Council in April will discuss this question. Russia refers to the membership of Finland, Sweden and Denmark in the Council and says that it wants to avoid a situation where the EU controls the actions of these countries. Unofficially Russia points out that the EU has turned into a geopolitical adversary as a result of the sanctions imposed against Russia.

This is a most unfortunate approach, disregarding the past merits, present involvement and future potential of the Union in Arctic cooperation. Respect for international law must be ensured and the governance of the region needs to be strengthened to tackle the issues that come with advancing climate change and increasing globalization. Thanks to its broad-based policies, wide experience in regional cooperation and its considerable human and material resources, the EU continues to be an ideal partner to all Arctic stakeholders.

Finland hopes that the Union can still be invited as an observer to the Arctic Council. All member countries of the Council have confirmed that constructive cooperation in the region must continue in spite of the present tensions elsewhere. In view of the huge challenges ahead in the Arctic region, this is the only sensible approach to take.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to use the opportunity to thank Ambassador Hannu Halinen for his great work as the Senior Arctic Official of Finland. Ambassador Halinen has been a particularly active diplomat at home and abroad. He has led the preparations of Finland´s Arctic strategy and represented Finland in countless meetings of the Arctic Council and in other Arctic gatherings. One of his main goals has been to involve the European Union as tightly as possible in the Arctic network. So thank you Hannu!

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am truly delighted to be able to address the Conference on Disarmament today. Yesterday we celebrated the International Women’s Day. It is a good reminder for us that we need to further strengthen the participation and inclusion of women in all disarmament and arms control work in the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security.

As I have understood, you have heard several of my colleagues last week. This year is a special one in disarmament. We will have the NPT Review Conference in May and the First Conference of States Parties of the Arms Trade Treaty in August to start with.

Mr President,

After years of hard work the Arms Trade Treaty finally entered into force in December last year. This is a significant achievement for the international community.

With this historic Treaty we take a major step forward in controlling the use of conventional arms and small arms and light weapons that kill hundreds of thousands of people – men, women and children – every year. The ATT can contribute to creating a more secure and stable environment for everyone, everywhere. In implementing the ATT we enhance principles of human rights and contribute to a more peaceful and just world.

The rapid entry-into-force of the ATT serves as a testament that the international community is ready and willing to regulate trade in arms and to reduce illicit trade in arms. While this is a great achievement our work is far from over.

It is only through effective implementation at the national level that the ATT will make a difference. The preparations for the First Conference of States Parties in Mexico are well under way. It is highly desirable that all decisions supporting the implementation of the Treaty will be duly taken at that particular meeting.

We must not forget that the success of the Treaty and its potential benefits also depend on the universal nature of the Treaty. So far 130 countries have signed and 63 countries have ratified the Treaty. I call on all States that have not yet done so to sign and accede to the Treaty as soon as possible.

Another key event this year is the NPT review conference. The NPT continues to be the cornerstone of the international arms control regime. All NPT members have commitments and shared responsibilities in nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses. The Review Conference provides an opportunity to reflect how agreed actions and commitments have been fulfilled across three pillars.

We acknowledge the decline in nuclear arsenals since the end of Cold War; mostly through bilateral efforts by the two nuclear powers with the largest arsenals. We encourage the Russian Federation and the United States to seek further reductions in all categories of nuclear weapons, including in non-strategic nuclear arsenals, and place them under a legally binding verifiable international treaty system.

Recently the pace of nuclear disarmament has slowed down. At the same time the urgency of nuclear disarmament is increasing as has been highlighted by the three conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.

The painful memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from 70years ago reminds us of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use. The humanitarian initiative reflects the genuine concerns of citizens all over the world that as long as nuclear weapons exist there is a real threat of a terrible catastrophe with immeasurable human and humanitarian costs. The humanitarian underpinning is a fundamental principle of the NPT. Therefore, we believe that the discussion on humanitarian impact will be a natural part of the NPT Review Conference and will contribute to the proceedings of the Review Conference.

I am convinced that security cannot be based on weapons of mass destruction. Finland is committed to a world free of nuclear weapons. Working towards a world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction is a responsibility of all nations.

For concrete nuclear disarmament we need substantive and constructive engagement of those states that possess nuclear weapons, as provided by Article VI of the Treaty. To achieve progress we need further transparency and confidence building among all states. Therefore I see value in my Dutch colleague’s proposal, of a mandatory regular reporting requirement in the NPT Review cycle.

Nuclear weapon proliferation poses a serious threat to international peace. All states should respect their commitments under the NPT by adopting and implementing the IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement together with the Additional Protocol. We continue our efforts to strengthen the IAEA safeguards system and to promote its universalization.

Mr President,

The Conference on the establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear and other Weapons of Mass-Destruction was planned to be held before the end of year 2012. This schedule turned out to be too ambitious, as it was not possible to convene the Conference with the participation of all states concerned. Nevertheless, participating states have continued preparations and have taken constructively part in the process through informal consultations.

The Finnish facilitator and the conveners, The Secretary General of the United Nations, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, have communicated to all states of the region their assessment that significant progress has been made, the remaining key issues can be resolved and the Conference can be convened once the regional states reach agreement on the arrangements of the Conference. The facilitator and the conveners encourage continuation of informal meetings as soon as possible with a view of making as much progress as possible before the NPT review conference. The Government of Finland is committed to hosting the Conference on a short notice once convened.

In times when our common security, cooperation and principles are being tested and challenged we should continue to strengthen the commitments and norms that are vital for the international security and mutual trust. We should focus on what unites us. In this regard, we will support every effort toward an action oriented consensus outcome of the NPT Review Conference.

Mr President,

The stalemate in the CD remains a serious concern. It is my sincere hope that this historically productive and valuable body would once again begin its work and start negotiating disarmament treaties. There is a real risk of the CD being sidelined and overtaken by developments.  Those of us who value the CD should prove this forum can still produce. In fact, we believe, we would benefit from a modern negotiation forum that would bring us results, i.e. disarmament treaties. A negotiation forum that would be open and inclusive, respecting various views, while at the same time aiming for consensus building. Therefore it is important to review and update where possible the working methods of the CD.  The expansion of the membership of the CD would equally enhance the legitimacy and inclusiveness of this body. In addition, recognizing the beneficial contribution of civil society and academia in today’s world, we should enhance their participation in the proceedings of the CD. In this respect we welcome the idea of a CD – Civil Society Forum to be organized next week.

I am encouraged by the on-going work of the Group of Governmental Experts on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. We are pleased to have been able to provide our expertise for the proceedings of the Group. We are hopeful that this work will lay the ground for future efforts on the FMCT and negotiations for this treaty will commence soon. We are looking forward to study the forthcoming proposal of France for a FMCT draft Treaty.

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) is one of the key instruments of multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation. With the Eight Review Conference in 2016 in mind, we should continue exploring constructive ways to strengthen the existing mechanisms of the Convention. With 172 state parties, the BTWC has a wide global reach. However, in order to make the convention fully universal, we still have work to do.

Countering biological threats by enhanced biosecurity is a vital element of global non-proliferation agenda. Biological threats do not recognise national borders and therefore international cooperation is essential. As the Ebola outbreak has shown us, promoting global health security should be an international priority. Cooperation and preparedness is at the core of combating infectious diseases effectively through strengthened biological and health capabilities. Through initiatives such as the Global Health Security Agenda, Finland is looking for means to advance global health and biosecurity by concrete actions.  Finland will chair the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Steering Group this year.

Finland attaches also great importance to combating nuclear terrorism and preventing the risk of nuclear or other radioactive material falling into the hands of terrorists. Finland has the pleasure to host the Plenary of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) in June.  New partners are warmly welcome to join this initiative and participate in the Plenary in Helsinki.

Finland joined the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention in 2012. We have since then practically destroyed our stocks of anti-personnel mines and our contribution to humanitarian mine action has increased to the level of 6 million euro annually. We are actively supporting mine action in countries like Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Somalia and South Sudan. With other parties of the Treaty, we are fully committed to the Maputo Review Conference decisions, with the aim of ending the suffering caused by these weapons.

Mr President,

I would like to highlight one of the most concrete international disarmament efforts during recent years. After the horrendous chemical attacks in Gouta, Damascus in August 2013, we witnessed how the OPCW and the international community strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria and was determined to follow through with the dismantling of the Syrian chemical weapons programme.

Finland, among others, provided its support and expertise in various phases of the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons programme. For Finland, this was a matter of great importance as we have for years provided our strong support to the Chemical Weapons Convention and its full implementation.

Due to the uniqueness of the CW mission, we  have supported and our experts have participated in UN lessons learned workshops as they provide valuable information for example on how we can further strengthen the Secretary-General’s Mechanism for investigation of alleged use of chemical and biological weapons.

Our work is not finished until the Syrian chemical weapons programme is completely and irreversibly eliminated.  It is essential that prompt destruction of the remaining production facilities is carried out and the discrepancies in the declarations are clarified. The use of toxic chemicals constitutes a breach of the CWC.  Therefore, we have also voiced grave concerns over the findings of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission which has established the facts around allegations on the use of chlorine on the civilian population in Syria. Finland was one of the cosponsors of the recent UN Security Council resolution which condemned any use of any toxic chemicals and supported continuation of the Fact-Finding Mission.

April 22 2015, marks the centenary of the first large-scale use of chemical weapons at Ieper in Belgium during World War I. Events in Gouta 2013 showed us that we need to stay vigilant 100 years later.

Mr President,

The United Nations Disarmament Research Institute UNIDIR has been instrumental for the disarmament community in providing research and expertise in our specific fields. We have always found their contribution beneficial.  This year will be crucial in finding a durable funding structure for UNIDIR. All of our help is needed in this effort. Finland for its part will continue supporting the UNIDIR.

To conclude I wish you and the Conference on Disarmament a productive year.

I thank you Mr President

1. On the megatrends changing the world

Finland has always been and still is a firm supporter of true and inclusive multilateral cooperation. It has equally been and remains our view, that the United Nations, its principles and achievements, forms the heart and backbone of this cooperation. This does not mean that we should shy away from the many problems and shortcomings the UN has faced over the past years. On the contrary, Finland has been an active partner in many initiatives aiming at enhancing and reforming the UN and global governance in general.  The Helsinki Process on Globalization and Democracy is one example of our efforts in the recent past in this regard.

There is a number of megatrends in the world development that add to challenges the global community and the UN face.  I’ll point to four of them as one background for our conversation here today.

                   During my lifetime, the world’s population has grown more than threefold from about 2,3 billion in the mid-Forties to  over 7 billion today. The growth continues at a slower pace, and most forecasts predict that we will reach the peak between 2050-2100 with a world population somewhere between 9 and 10 billion people. Population growth is the single most important factor when it comes to understanding how the world has irrevocably changed.

                   Population growth combined with all aspects of globalization is the driving factor for why we are living in an increasingly interdependent world, in ways both good and bad.  We have different views on the pro’s and con’s of economic globalization in particular, and there are different means of trying to steer its direction.  However, the interdependence this development has created is an undisputable fact that no country, be it a superpower with nuclear weapons or a small island micro-state, can escape irrespective of its desires.

                   Population growth plays a part also in the third megatrend I wish to refer to, namely our way we manage our coexistence with the natural environment. Or, I dare say, our failure to manage it in a sustainable way. Desertification has advanced, the loss of biodiversity has continued, and last but not least, global warming and climate change have proceeded.  The scientific advice is clear, the global awareness has grown, but the political will to achieve a real change in this course has not yet matured. The Rio Conventions have made a certain difference, but not enough. My prediction is that we have only a few decades to reach a path of ecologically, socially and economically sustainable development.

                   The fourth megatrend is the deep-going transformation in international relations and geopolitics. The cold war East-West divide is history, although some aftershocks can be observed every now and then.  Also the North-South divide, as it emerged during the post-colonial period as a complex relationship between developed industrialized countries and developing countries, is to a lesser and lesser extent reflecting   the evolving realities of the world today.  The old divide in levels of development is being gradually blurred by the fact, that inequality occurs more and more within states and between regions of states. This emerging transformation towards an increasingly multipolar and differentiated world is not yet adequately reflected in the multilateral system.

It is unfortunately necessary to add another worrying aspect to the consideration of these megatrends.  In light of the emergence of ISIS and other new forms of international terrorism, the crises in Syria and in Ukraine – to mention just the most pertinent examples – are we facing a new upsurge of power politics to the world scene? And if so, how would that affect our ways and means of trying to cope with the megatrends and huge challenges I sketched above?

No one has a definitive answer to that. One thing is certain though, most of the problems and threats the world is facing today cannot be solved by military means.  And many of the advantages that states and governments sought to achieve in the past through power politics  to promote their own national interests at the cost of others, can no longer be attained in a sustainable way in today’s world through the use of power and violence. It is also a broadly accepted view, that there is a high degree of correlation between the lack of security and inequality.

At the very least we should try to avoid that the key multilateral processes at hand this year get caught hostage of the pressure of power politics. We should strive to take the post-2015 agenda, the conference on Financing for Development, and the negotiations on a new global protocol on climate change further on their own merits. These highly interlinked processes and events provide a real momentum to put us on a constructive and positive path forward.

2. Is the Global Governance System fit to cope with the growing challenges ?

Before addressing briefly some key issues related to these three processes, some thoughts on the broader state of play of multilateral cooperation and the need for further reforms and enhancement of global governance.

I don’t want to dwell on the long list of shortcomings of the multilateral system in its efforts to face different challenges during the past few years: no adequate response to the financial crisis, no credible solution to the climate change challenge, the unresolved regional military conflicts in different parts of the world, etc.

Instead, I want to turn up the other side of the coin, and point to some positive developments.

Ten years ago, one of the ideas that emerged from the Helsinki Process on Globalization and Democracy was to replace the then G 7/8 with a broader grouping, a “G-20 (or thereabouts) annual summit of the heads of leading governments from the North and the South”. It was suggested that this “leader-level group could act as an effective co-ordination mechanism for global economic governance with coherence and legitimacy”.

It would be too much to claim that the Helsinki Process was the initial cradle of the idea of the G- 20 Summit concept, but we were definitely in the forefront of bringing this proposal to the political agenda.

The G-20 is now a reality, a cornerstone of global economic governance. The formation of G-20 has not profoundly changed the world either. But the underlying processes and many of the political proposals and statements made within and through the G-20 have definitely brought added value to multilateral cooperation.

One much more radical idea, also discussed but never proposed by the Helsinki Process, was to use the G-20 concept as a key element in the debate about the UN reform, and particularly the reform of the Security Council. In the end, to have a body combining both the tasks of the present Security Council and the need for enhanced global economic governance. And with a composition that would cover both the interests of all major powers and economies as well as the voice of smaller countries and the most vulnerable groups in the communities. This idea does not fly today, but tomorrow is another day…

The other aspect related to the Helsinki Process I wish to bring up, is the concept of multistakeholder cooperation. The process itself was, from the very outset, built on cooperation between different stakeholders – coordinated by the Finnish and Tanzanian governments but engaging representatives of multilateral organizations, civil society, business and academia in a joint dialogue.  In this sense the Helsinki Process was one of the first networks to successfully experiment on the use of the multistakeholder approach in international relations.

The final report of the Helsinki Process suggested three areas in particular where multistakeholder cooperation can bring value-added, confidence building, idea-shaping or innovation, and implementation and adding scale. The report also included a number of recommendations, some addressed in particular towards the UN system, on how the multistakeholder concept could be further integrated into the practices of the organization.

Today multistakeholder cooperation is an integral part of the work of all serious multilateral organisations and networks , starting with the UN itself, but including many other fora such as the World Bank, OECD and the World Economic Forum, to mention a few.  And it is not only a concept. It has also been an essential practical element in mobilizing the political will needed behind some of the positive achievements in the recent past. One example I wish to mention here is the adoption of the resolution on the Arms Trade Treaty last autumn in the General Assembly. In the last phase of the negotiations the governments were naturally in the driver’s seat, but the momentum needed to get to the point of a final compromise was very much the result of a multistakeholder dialogue and process.

Another fresh example that the system works after all, in spite of all deficiencies and stumbling blocks, is how the world responded to the Ebola crisis. While much has been said about how slow the initial response was, we should not forget that joint efforts  – under the leadership of the UN and the WHO, but also here with an important ingredient of multistakeholder cooperation –   have contributed to the epidemic being brought under control in several parts of the affected region. These efforts show the immense value of multilateral cooperation. The challenge is now how to sustain these efforts until the present outbreak is eradicated. This is high on our agenda, as Finland is currently chairing the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) which focuses on preventing and reducing the emergence of disease outbreaks, detecting threats in a timely manner and using international coordination and communication to create multisectoral rapid response.

3. The “Big Three” in 2015

The three major  processes underway this year –  post-2015 negotiations, the conference on Financing for Development, and the climate change negotiations culminating at COP 21 in Paris – provide – separately and interlinked – a real opportunity to break the negative spirals we otherwise face in too many areas, and to create a new momentum that opens a positive outlook towards the future.  (Having said this I want to underline that this is not an exclusive list of positive opportunities this year. There are other events, like the 3rd World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction starting in a couple of days’ time in Sendai, Japan, and the WTO Ministerial later this year.)

The most compelling and significant feature of the ongoing negotiations under the post-2015 agenda is the universal nature of the goals to be set. We are negotiating goals that are common to all of us, regardless of the category of development in which our country happens to be placed in the present system.

This is in my mind exactly the paradigm shift required in order to cope with the global megatrends I have described above.

In a world where the growing population and the on-going globalization enhance the interdependence of all peoples, where climate change is threatening us all, and  where the past divide between developed and developing nations is crumbling and we are moving towards a multipolar and differentiated world, common goals for a sustainable development are the only durable way forward.

A universal agenda is also the natural outcome of the merger between the development and the Rio agendas. Poverty eradication, safeguarding the biodiversity of the planet, and securing decent jobs for as many as possible are goals where each and every country has its own responsibilities, but where  a reasonable outcome requires joint efforts and changes in the course of action by everyone.

This is not just wishful thinking. The fact that we are building this effort on the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals shows that we are on firm ground, in the real world. All of this requires a mutual responsibility for the future, while acknowledging the fact that national circumstances among countries vary greatly, and that the spectre of capabilities and resources available is still extremely broad.

Please allow me, at this point, to present a short “commercial break”. Finland has already adopted what we call “The Finland we want by 2050”. This is a vision of how sustainable development can and will be promoted and implemented in our country, creating the space for all possible actors, from the Government itself to individual citizens, to promote this. In addition, this new Finnish model also provides a practical way of committing oneself to self-adopted concrete goals for promoting sustainable development and thus becoming a kind of social contract called ‘Society’s Commitment for Social Development’.  We are happy to share more information on this project with all interested partners!

Turning briefly to the finance agenda, also here we should be aiming at a paradigm shift, supporting in a coherent way the shift we are promoting in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda as a whole.

We are ultimately talking about a merger of the finance agendas for development and sustainable development, including climate finance. The big shift we are talking about is to break away from the narrow approach of traditional public funding from the North to the South for development and climate change.  Instead, we should broaden the concept to entail a transformation of our economies, both North and South, to promote a low-carbon development and to redirect international investment flows in this same direction. In fact we should strive for implementing the transformative proposal put forward by the International Committee on Sustainable Development Finance, that all human economic activities – whether private or public – should be required to have a positive economic, environmental, social and governance impact.

Without this broader global transformation of the economy, no public budgetary funding will ever be enough to reach the goals we have set for further poverty eradication or to enhance climate mitigation and adaptation. We should also recognize importance of the rapidly growing South-South cooperation in all key spheres of development. And a close interaction with the private sector, ranging from the large multinationals to small and midsize enterprises both in the North and the South, is a key to delivering this transformation.

Having said this, it is not about giving up on our existing commitments, be it the 0,7 percent goal for development cooperation or the mobilization of 100 billion USD per annually by 2020 for climate change. It is about using these commitments as catalysts for a much broader transformation of investment flows to support the sustainable development goals at stake.  The New Climate Economy report is a fresh and extremely useful illustration of how the pathway for such a transformation could be structured.

And finally, we should do our utmost to reach a robust climate deal in Paris in December this year.  I don’t think anyone believes that we’ll come up with the “final solution” in Paris, i.e. a legally binding agreement that once and for all would put us on a secure path to curb the temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. But what is well within reach is an agreement based on an ambition level high and credible enough to keep us on the route to the ultimate goal. This would include commitments and contributions by all parties while – once again – recognizing the existing differences in national circumstances and capabilities, and contain a dynamic element allowing for a continuous iterative increase of the ambition levels of all parties over time.

At the end of the day, what will be required this year in July in Addis Abeba, in September in New York and in December in Paris, is a good portion of a kind of political will we never witnessed before. It is possible to break the vicious circles of low or lousy performance and replace them with outcomes that show the way forward towards a real sustainable development.