Speech of the Prime Minister of the CR, Mirek Topolánek at Forum for Sustainable Development in Lichtenstein Palace in Prague on 30th October 2006

His Excellency, ambassador of the Republic of Finland,

Dear ministers – Deputies of the Council for Sustainable Development, dear guests from the Directoriate General for the Environment of the European Commission and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, dear ladies and gentlemen,

I feel honoured to be able to open this year's Forum for Sustainable Development. And as I am here for the first time, let me to define briefly my attitudes. Because it is a topic, which is not regarded unequivocally, but on the contrary, it evokes range of disputes and polemics at the national level, at the level of the European Union and especially at the global level.

First of all I must say that I have a little problem to use the term "sustainable development". I understand that the modern age demands contractions, brief names of complicated problems. The problem is that under such term, one can feel an attempt to usurp the topic in question, to usurp it ideologically. It hampers to reach a broad consensus. Therefore I will prefer to use clear terms "development" and "environment", instead of the term "sustainable development" which is understand differently by different lobbying groups. In English it sounds better: development and environment. And if I use the term "sustainable development", then it will be just as a terminus technicus, really like a contraction expressing an attempt to find a compromise of the two values: development and environment. As a conservative, I have natural care for the environment around us. Care that arises from elementary desire to preserve world as it is now. Care that was, for J.R.R. Talkien, one of the leading principles when he was writing his trilogy The Lord of the Rings. I remind you this book intentionally, because just this book became, by the way, a cult bestseller of the environmental movement. I remind it because it shows how close the conservative view to the green one; closeness, which may be surprising for somebody, but which is indisputable.

Basis of the conservative care for the environment is freedom. Every damages of the environment are encroachment into somebody's freedom, and sometime into freedom of all of us. This shows that countries, for which freedom is a basic value, care for the environment better than those in which there is lack of freedom. It is natural. First, free countries are wealthier and have a possibility to invest more into the environment protection. Second, in countries where human freedom is not felt as a value, the riches of nature are much less value.

Range of problems of the environment is solved simply by private ownership. Observance of owners´ right means also strict respect to the environment. And emphasize on the freedom is a driving force for remedy of matter, where the environment pollution is not encroachment into right of an individual but into rights of all the community. To say it briefly, free people do not put up with damage to the environment and they have means in free countries, including legal ones, how to defend themselves.

I do not believe that an effective environment protection can be based just on interventions from above. On the contrary, it is necessary to believe in human freedom, in interests of owners not to devastate their own property, in good will of companies that want to make business for a long time and therefore they care for their good reputation. It is necessary to believe in municipalities and regions, which are closer to voters, that they will protect their right to live in good environment. Only there, where natural pressure of a community is not enough, where environment pollution endangers all people, there it is necessary for a state to determine clear rules, or to make an agreement on those rules with other states.

Reality that the conservative and liberal views agree with environment can be proved by the fact that there were just right-wing governments that invested most money into environment after November 1989. The state of the environment had been improving rapidly, but it was changed during last eight years, during which less and less money were flowing into this area. Using financial mean of European funds became a great problem – and I hope that our Finnish guests will advise us on it.

We will accept advice also regarding the area, which is familiar to me, as I had been engaged in it for many years. It is the area of energy industry and energetic safety. I am glad that this theme became one of topics of the Finnish presidency of the EU. European dependence on imported fossil fuels is unsound because of two reasons. One, it is a burden for the environment; second, our countries are vulnerable to blackmail. Implementation of new technologies and decrease of energy consumption must be accompanied by diversification of resources. I congratulate Finland on finding courage, in spite of high costs, to build a new nuclear power station, which will on the one hand help the environment and on the other hand it will decrease dependence of this nice Scandinavian country on Russian gas.

I think that we can see evidence here how can development and environment go hand in hand; not the only one evidence. Existing effort of the European Commission to support development of modern technologies will certainly bring not only higher prosperity, but also less polluted environment. Of course, it is not always possible to enforce environmental interests without any damage of the sphere of economy. But also in these cases I prefer economic tools to the administrative ones. Good example is emission rights trade, or it would be better if the emission rights trade operated well, as it enables to cut emission faster, than in case of usage any directive, and with lower costs.

The long and the short of this, that it is the human freedom, which is behind any successful effort to improve environment. I have already mentioned that I refuse ideological content, which certain lobbying groups try to include in the term "sustainable development". On the contrary, it is necessary to proceed jointly in the environment protection, without ideological bias, based on natural interests shared by each human being. Such a broad consensus can be reached under condition of professional approach, high-quality education and the influence of human activities on it.

Professional attitude to the environment protection is connected with association of research and industry, which can be supported by the state using advantageous tax relief. Thanks to it, private money serves for both development and environment. I must highlight Finland again, which is at the top in the framework of the EU regarding industrial utilization of scientific information. It is again evidence proving possibility to harmonize economic and environmental interests.

I have mentioned here how I perceive an effort to harmonize terms "development" and "environment". Really, I think that it is absolutely fundamental for the debate on "sustainable development" to be professional, not ideological. Only in this case it will be possible to stop confrontation and start a dialogue. To start a dialogue first in local communities, then at national level, at the level of the European Union and finally, which will be the most complicated, at the global level. States outside Europe, poor southern states and dynamic Asian states have different opinions of "sustainable development". And above all, more and more powerful Asian states have means enough to oppose to, what they regard as a dictate of the West, an effort to undermine their economic development. It is necessary to express it frankly. For the larger part of the world, the strategy of sustainable development is not a priority; on the contrary, it is a burden. If we are ever to persuade non-European civilizations on advantages of good care for environment, we must exonerate ourselves from ideological arguments and to shift the debate to the professional level. The effort to enforce observation of principles of "sustainable development" using power has certain limits. We need global dialogue, equal and open dialogue based on mutual expedience, on connection of words "development" and "environment". We must be successful. My government, in spite of the fact that it is the government after submission a resignation, and personally minister Kalaš, will be striving after that.

Thank you for your attention.