Chair of the Finnish Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Johannes Koskinen,
Excellencies and colleagues.
Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today and for Finland’s support to UNEP – from contributions to the Environment Fund to specific funding for UNEP’s work in Ukraine, which I will cover in more detail later in this speech.
We are living in a rapidly changing world. Alignments and power dynamics are shifting, with trade and investment frictions growing. Competition for critical resources such as hydrocarbons, minerals, land and water is growing. Rapid advances in AI and other technologies are increasingly reshaping how we live, work and interact. And, of course, we are seeing a rise in disasters and conflicts. All these factors are increasing intense pressures on the environment and human well-being.
But amid all this change, uncertainty and anxiety, there remains one indisputable fact: a stable environment means a more stable future. Because environmental security is human security. It is national security. It is food and energy security.
Healthy ecosystems – full of rich biodiversity, pollinators, fertile soils, clean water, resilient oceans, and clean, renewable energy – are the foundation on which national stability, strong economies, and sustainable development are built. An estimated 50 per cent of global GDP – approximately €40–€44 trillion – is moderately or highly dependent on nature.
These ecosystems cannot retain their health when climate change is pushing ocean temperatures to dangerous levels, bringing destructive storms and vicious droughts, and accelerating desertification and land degradation. They cannot retain their health when humanity is over-exploiting species and non-renewable resources, and filling them full of toxic chemicals, plastic pollution and more. And they cannot retain their health amid a rain of bombs and bullets.
I do understand that priorities have shifted. Recent data from the OECD tells us that international aid from member countries and associates of the Development Assistance Committee in 2025 fell by 23.1 per cent year-on-year in real terms, bringing official development assistance (ODA) crashing down to levels last seen in 2015.
But we must remember that ODA is also a domestic investment. When nations invest in supporting fragile states to deal with environmental degradation, including that caused by conflict, they minimize the risk of associated disruption rippling across borders, contributing to forced migration, displacement, food shortages and more.
So, even in these complex times, environmental multilateralism is crucial to protect the foundation of our economies and societies. And as no country can face this alone, the response must be collective – across sectors, across borders, across societies.
The UN is, of course, essential to this multilateralism. And it must become stronger to face these challenges. This is why the UN80 reform initiative has a clear goal: building a UN system that delivers more effectively, more coherently and with greater impact, amid the reality of shrinking resources and rising needs.
We at UNEP are deeply engaged in UN80, leading – with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – on the environmental work package that is “undertaking a thorough assessment of current arrangements” and will “make proposals on possible structural changes and programme realignments on environmental issues”.
Friends,
Given ongoing global events, please allow me to go into more depth on conflicts – which have deep, rippling and long-lasting impacts on the environment, and so for local, regional and global security. Conflicts lead to pollution, waste and the destruction of critical ecosystems, with long-term implications for food security, for water security, for economies and for human health.
We have seen this in Ukraine – for example through the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam, which resulted in severe loss of natural habitats, plant communities and species.
We have seen this in the Gaza Strip, which has lost 97 per cent of its tree crops, 95 per cent of its shrubland and 82 per cent of its annual crops. And we are seeing this in the wider conflict in the Middle East, which has recently spread and intensified.
These consequences do not remain contained. Environmental damage and associated economic disruption ripple across borders and contribute to forced migration, displacement, food shortages and more. This is why it is so important to assess the impacts of conflicts and disasters on the environment – so that we can understand these impacts and nations can build their recovery on a solid scientific basis.
In this regard, I greatly appreciate Finland’s support for UNEP’s work in Ukraine, which now totals EUR 2.5 million over four years. Finland’s funding unlocked co‑financing of more than EUR 10 million from other countries, allowing UNEP to continue assessing the environmental consequences of the war and plan for recovery.
In last three years, UNEP conducted a series of assessments on environmental impacts, including a local assessment on Kakhovka and an assessment looking at regional implications for the Black Sea. With 70 per cent of buildings containing asbestos in areas surveyed, UNEP has prioritized analysis of asbestos contamination and hazardous waste management to guide handling and disposal in affected Oblasts.
The Ukraine Green Recovery Platform, which UNEP administers, integrates green policies, financial mechanisms and stakeholder collaboration to support Ukraine’s transition to a green recovery.
As an example of this work, UNEP is collaborating with the ILO to explore the feasibility of green jobs for war veterans. With more than 1.5 million veterans in Ukraine, the initial finding of the study shows that vocational training could help to create two million green and decent jobs in four years.
UNEP is also coordinating with and contributing to the other Finnish projects on air and water quality to ensure all possible support for Ukrainian environmental authorities and on-the-ground delivery.
Friends,
As I said, we must work together to protect the environment and so every nation’s national interests and security. Yes, increased spending on defence does shield against some threats. But it does not shield any nation from environmental decline and societal implications. We simply cannot afford to sideline action on climate change, action on biodiversity loss or action on pollution and waste.
We already have global agreements – driven by ambitious actors like the EU and its partners – that show what cooperation can achieve: fairness, shared responsibility, collective action and real progress. I look forward to working with Finland – including through cooperation with Finnish partners under EU Global Gateway Initiatives – to build on this progress.
