Environmental Ethics and Public Policy
The University of Maryland The Center for International Development and Conflict Management The Bahá’í Chair for World Peace Eighth Annual Lecture
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy A lecture by Lord St. John of Bletso
1
2
Bahá’í Chair for World Peace | Eighth Annual Lecture
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy A lecture by Lord St. John of Bletso House of Lords EU Subcommittee on Trade and External Relations Friday May 31, 2002 Auditorium, Inn and Conference Center University of Maryland, University College College Park, MD, U.S.A.
© 2002
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy Mr Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great privilege for me to have been invited to speak here today, at this, the Eighth Annual Lecture for the Bahá’í Chair for World Peace, now an internationally recognised institution. I feel particularly honoured to have been personally invited by Professor Suheil Bushrui, with his remarkable academic and distinguished international career. At a time of global uncertainty, we need a lot more Professor Bushruis dedicated to the promulgation of peace and conflict resolution. I know my introductory remarks are the traditional way of opening a speech, but today they also happen to be true. I am privileged to be here today, not least because — all said and done — I am an independent member of an unelected political chamber. That concept — independent and unelected — may seem like pure anathema to every principle held dear in American politics, but that is what I am — a member of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, with no allegiance to any party. I vote according to my conscience, not any instruction. When I took my seat in the House of Lords in 1978 I had no aspirations nor expectations of becoming an active spokesman on trade, finance, foreign affairs, human rights, and the environment. Some of you may be aware that the popular image of a member of the House of Lords is that of a geriatric, doddery gentleman with a walking stick, landed gentry up in town for the day. In fact, this perception does not match reality. The House of Lords is a unique collection of members representing all age groups and all interest groups in the United Kingdom. Their Lordship’s House has persuasive, rather than directive influence, both on the British government’s legislative programme and our relationship with the European Union. The Chamber is currently unelected, comprised of hereditary peers, of which I am one, and nominated peers — although it seems likely this will change in the near future, and the reformed House will include up to 60% elected members. The House of Lords has the right to delay the passage of legislation for up to a year but no power of absolute veto over the House of Commons. Our work is split between our activities in the Chamber, where we revise and ex-
3
amine legislation, and our work in various Select Committees. We have five Select Committees, of which I sit on EU Sub Committee A focusing on trade, finance, and foreign affairs. In the very near future, I plan to move to the Select Committee for Environmental Affairs. I believe it is fair to say that our Select Committee work has to a large degree shaped and guided the legislative thinking of the government of the day. Within parliament, my primary areas of expertise are financial services, deregulation, information technology, and sport. But through the 25 years that I have sat and been involved in the House of Lords, I have also made many speeches on key environmental issues of the day. I also happen to be President of Friends of Television Trust for Environment, an organisation primarily funded by the United Nations, which makes documentaries on pressing international environmental issues. I have been deeply involved in the World Wildlife Fund and am a trustee of Tusk, whose focus is the protection of endangered animals in Africa and the promotion of ecotourism. It is, perhaps, for these reasons that I have been asked to speak to you today. Ladies and gentlemen, I must declare at the outset that I do not stand before you today as a classic tree-hugger. No, I would prefer to see myself simply as someone who has four children and a deep concern that, as we develop this planet, we must do so in a sustainable manner. There is a lot of talk about the future of the planet, a lot of supposition and doom-laden predictions, some of which turn out to be true; but I would defy anyone to sit down in a quiet room, think carefully about our natural resources, and not feel a sense of responsibility to our children. Caring about the environment has almost become fashionable. As P.J. O’Rourke put it in his own way: “Everybody wants to save the Earth… nobody wants to help Mum do the dishes.” But good intentions are one thing, concrete action is another. In 2002, by any measure, beyond any doubt, we have reached a time for action. Let’s be clear about the issue: within the next half century, the population of the world is expected to grow by 50% — rising from 5.6 billion today to more than 11 billion in 2050, and these people will want rising stand-
4
Bahá’í Chair for World Peace | Eighth Annual Lecture ards of living. Our shared challenge is to sustain our resources to meet this dramatically increasing demand. It is as simple, and as difficult, as that. Ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to say that I am keenly aware how the Bahá’í Chair for World Peace at the University of Maryland has been created to develop alternatives to the violent resolution of conflict. This is a noble cause, and I am very pleased to make my own small contribution here today. The Bahá’í movement has become a recognised force for good in the world, and it is providing valuable leadership in many fields. Ethics lie at the heart of the Bahá’í faith. To hold ethics dear is to have an understanding of a situation, an appreciation that something needs to be done, and a determination to do it. The world has obviously been forced to revise its priorities since September 11 last year, and this process seems to have affirmed the crucial importance of the environment. It is heartening that the environmental debate will seize the world headlines again in the weeks preceding and during the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development, to be held in Johannesburg in August. Sustainable Development — this is the new Holy Grail, to the point where the organisers actually changed the name of the event. It used to be the Earth Summit, but it has now become the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The summit will be a unique gathering of world leaders and other government representatives, concerned citizens, United Nations agencies, financial institutions, and other major stakeholders — a total of 65,000 people converging at one place to discuss how we are going to preserve this planet. There is no doubt that this enormous group of decision makers will have the power to commit themselves to sustainable development. The question is whether they have the will. Will they express a high level commitment to Agenda 21, hammered out at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992? Will they signal a new kind of co-operation between the nations of the world?
Will they address the dual and mutually dependent challenges of the eradication of poverty and address the current unsustainable patterns of consumption and production? Will they just talk, leave town, and do nothing? South African President Thabo Mbeki has already identified the prime challenge of the summit as being to translate the global convergence of opinion on the importance of sustainable development into real, practical action. Johannesburg will send out a thunderous call for money and for political will. Following various pre-summit conferences, staged around the world, it seems likely that the Summit will focus on five clearly stipulated areas: First, water — the Summit will be challenged to provide access to at least one billion people who lack clean drinking water and two billion people who lack proper sanitation. Second, energy — the Summit will be challenged to provide access to more than two billion people who lack modern energy services; to promote renewable energy; to reduce over-consumption; and to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to address climate change. Third, health — the Summit will be challenged to address the effects of toxic and hazardous materials; to reduce air pollution that kills three million people each year; and to lower the incidence of malaria which has been clearly linked with poor sanitation and polluted water. Fourth, agricultural productivity — the Summit will be challenged to work to reverse land degradation, which affects about two thirds of the world’s agricultural lands. Fifth, and lastly, biodiversity and ecosystem management — the Summit will be challenged to reverse the processes that have destroyed half of the world’s tropical rainforest and mangroves, and are threatening 70% of the world’s coral reefs while decimating the world’s fisheries. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, is providing strong leadership in the weeks preceding the summit. And I believe he hit the nail squarely on the head when he recently declared: “These are the five areas in which progress at the Johannesburg Summit will offer all human beings a chance of achieving prosperity that will not only last their own lifetime, but
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy can be enjoyed by their children and grandchildren too.” Ladies and gentlemen, of course it is easy to be alarmed by the forecasts of the United Nations and environmental agencies, and the temptation is to pull the duvet back over your head, go back to sleep, and hope it all goes away.
5
as the black rhino and Siberian tiger, to the less well known, such as the Amur leopard of Asia, the short-tailed chinchilla of South America, and the Philippine eagle. Human activities — notably the destruction of habitats, poaching, and the introduction of alien species from one part of the world into another — are identified as the main causes of this likely extinction.
But these problems won’t go away. We cannot ignore the predictions that over 70% of the world’s land surface will be affected by the impact of the roads and mining that cities and other infrastructure developments envisaged in the next 30 years, unless urgent action is taken. According to the most recent Global Environment Outlook, issued by the UNEP (the United Nations Environment Programme), Latin America and the Caribbean region are likely to be the hardest hit with more than 80% of land affected. UNEP warns that more than half the people in the world could be living in severely water-stressed areas by 2032 if market forces — and market forces alone — are allowed to drive the globe’s political, economic, and social agenda. Global financial losses from natural disasters in 1999 cost over US$110 billion, and these disasters are not simple accidents. An increasing number of experts have now identified clear links between these disasters and the climate changes caused by human-made emissions. Sewage pollution of the seas is another area of concern. This has precipitated a health crisis of massive proportions, with contaminated shellfish causing an estimated 2.5 million cases of hepatitis and more than 30,000 deaths per year. The growing gap between the rich and the poor parts of the world is also identified as posing a clear threat to the environment. One fifth of the world’s population currently enjoys high, some would say excessive, levels of affluence. This one fifth accounts for nearly 90% of total personal consumption globally. In comparison, around 4 billion people are surviving on less than 1 to 2 dollars a day. The future doesn’t look too bright for the animals of the world either. Almost a quarter of the world’s mammals face extinction within 30 years. The list of the critically endangered species ranges from the well publicised, such
And yet, we should guard against becoming merchants of doom and gloom. Indeed, there is a growing suspicion in European political circles that the increasingly large group of environmental pressure groups have started to believe they must depict worst-case scenarios and exaggerate their dire predictions to ‘scare’ the world into paying attention to this issue and to force governments to fund the industry. Environmentalists should beware of crying wolf. Just as we highlight the dangers — as we must because they are real — we should also take care to identify and spread more encouraging news. And there is some more encouraging news. For example, it is predicted that the proportion of hungry people in the world is set to fall to as little as 2.5% of the global population by 2032. It is also widely accepted that concerted action by governments, industry and individual citizens will deliver deep cuts in emissions of the gases linked to global warming. With continued public and private will, levels of carbon dioxide will start to stabilise the atmosphere by 2032. The Adoption of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro ten years ago has produced genuine benefits for millions of people, particularly in Asia where many initiatives designed to help the world’s poor while still protecting the planet from further degradation have demonstrably worked. Development is fine, but it must be sustainable and an intriguing debate has been launched concerning how we might best measure such crucial sustainability. Sustainability requires this type of integrated view of the world — it requires multidimensional indicators that show links among a community’s economy, environment, and society.
6
Bahá’í Chair for World Peace | Eighth Annual Lecture For example, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a wellpublicised traditional indicator, measures the amount of money being spent in a country. It is generally reported as a measure of the country’s economic well-being: the more money being spent, the higher the GDP and the better the overall economic well-being is assumed to be. However, because GDP reflects only the amount of economic activity, regardless of the effect of that activity on the community’s social and environmental health, GDP can go up when overall community health goes down. A better indicator is the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare. This ISEW provides a more complete picture by taking into account harmful bases, consequences of economic activity, air pollution, depletion of resources, climate change, and unequal income distribution. Like the GDP, this ISEW bundles together in one index tremendous amounts of information, but the key difference is that the information takes into account the links between environment, economy, and society. I strongly believe the ISEW should become the new GDP and be used more widely. Ladies and gentlemen, far too many countries are too busy trying to bring their economies onto the recovery path by targeting rapid economic growth when it is clear that a high growth rate does not guarantee poverty reduction. Economic growth, while necessary, does not always lead
to widespread improvement in standards of human wellbeing. Indeed, policies that prioritise growth alone usually harm the poor by diverting resources away from them. If the goal is to take poverty alleviation seriously, the global consensus must shift beyond the pursuit of economic growth alone. Of course, aside from environmental issues, the world faces many other problems. It is depressing and frightening to wake up in 2002 and see the world’s largest democracy, India, on the brink of nuclear warfare against its neighbour, Pakistan. The ongoing impasse between Israel and the Palestinians has entered a phase where, as in Biblical times, violence truly begets violence — and the rest of the world watches the belligerence anxiously, concerned both by the loss of life and the potential huge rise in the price of oil. Africa remains beset by massive problems, not just arising from political mismanagement and corruption by the likes of the tyrannical Mugabe in Zimbabwe, but also caused by natural phenomena such as the terrifying spread of HIV (AIDS) and the devastating drought in southern Africa. Every indicator suggests this drought is the result of climate changes caused by man, and the situation is serious. Up to 20 million people across the region — in Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Angola, Lesotho, and Swaziland — are currently suffering severe
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy food shortages. And the crisis is set to worsen later in the year. By July or August, the food will be running out. From then until March 2003, these countries will be facing an even more extreme shortfall. In addressing all these issues, as in meeting environmental challenges, there is a growing consensus that international co-operation holds the key to a successful resolution.
7
the world because it is clear the US must hold a powerful role to play in any global coalition that is brought together for any purpose — a powerful role, not a unilateral, ruling role. While the reality may be that no global initiative could stand without US support, it is also the case that the US wields the most power and influence in ensuring that any coalition does hold together. Global problems require global solutions.
It has become clear that very little can be achieved by one country, however powerful, operating alone. By the same token, there is very little that cannot be achieved by a global coalition. In this area, the state of mind and approach of the United States is of paramount importance. Ladies and gentlemen, there were widespread fears in Europe that the United States would withdraw to itself following the terror attacks of last September, with dire global consequences. However, such fears have proved misplaced. Recent research by Price Waterhouse Coopers indicates that 27% of executives in US multi-national firms plan international expansion in the next year, up from 17% before September 11. It is heartening to see Americans still looking out into
I spent almost a year living in China in 1983, after completing my Masters in Chinese Law at the University of London. In those days, everyone on the streets was wearing Mao suits and I felt as though I had been transported to another planet where the Chinese had their own agenda and were not influenced by international opinion. Yet, even the Chinese now recognise the truth that global problems require global solutions. Many of you will be aware that one of the greatest causes of the depleted ozone layer has been the carbon emission from the industrial enterprises in China. But China has now joined the World Trade Organisation, and this is being addressed. Ladies and gentlemen, global co-operation is crucial, and it seems to me that the United States and Europe must stand — perhaps even shoulder-to-shoulder — at
8
Bahá’í Chair for World Peace | Eighth Annual Lecture the heart of every coalition. In this respect, the recent spat over steel imports to the United States was not helpful. It seems imperative that Americans and Europeans settle any differences as soon as they arise, and present a united face to the rest of the world.
28% of its water needs are met by recycling or that its greenhouse gas emissions efficiency has improved by 9% over the past five years, these may sound like just a few more manufactured statistics blowing uselessly in the wind.
We know we all want to reach the same destination. Even if we do differ on the correct route, let’s make sure we all get there in the end.
Yet these initiatives make a huge difference to the quality of life for many hundreds of thousands of people at some time, in some place. They are not simply baubles for the annual report. They are practical, meaningful, and life changing.
Such coalitions will necessarily be built by governments, but the environmental challenge needs to be met not simply by elected leaders, but by every one of us.
Once again, beyond the will and the decision, it becomes necessary to identify an effective means of assessing true corporate commitment to these complex environmental goals.
We are not talking about something that can be shrugged away as being the responsibility of the politicians alone. This planet belongs to all of us, and the responsibility for its maintenance should be shared among the entire community.
The indicators for any particular facility will depend firstly upon what they are producing; however, some of the following questions may be worth asking at the annual general meeting:
The corporate sector must also react. This point will be emphasised at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in August. The environmental crisis challenges us all, and it is important that so many business leaders from around the world have decided to take time out to travel to Johannesburg and join the debate. On this side of the Atlantic and in Europe, it appears that Corporate Social Responsibility has become the fashion. I’m not sure whether this is because companies have been scared into making sure they pursue sustainable practices, or because CEOs and MDs have suddenly seen the light. It doesn’t really matter. The fact is that it is no longer enough for a company simply to be legal and profitable. Public expectations rightly demand the responsible stewardship of resources and a real commitment to maintaining and enhancing the physical environment in which we work. There are many companies who have risen boldly to the challenge and, while I hesitate to name just one, it is perhaps instructive to note how the metals group, Rio Tinto, identified its specific task as being to engage with its hosts and neighbours where it operates and to take responsibility for the consequences of its operations. If I tell you that Rio Tinto now operates at a point where
> “What types of material are being used? What percent are renewable and what are non-renewable? What percent are recycled and what percent are not recycled?” > “What emissions are being generated, and are they being absorbed into the surrounding ecosystems?” > “Does the facility benefit the community around it, the community around the source of its raw materials, and the community that is the destination for the product?” You might not be the most popular person in the meeting, because most of those present will be more concerned about the profits, but, if we are serious about the environment, sooner or later we are going to have to start showing we are serious when it really counts — when it costs us. When we reach a stage where questions such as these become superfluous because the answers are automatically volunteered, then we will see broader and deeper corporate commitment. It all makes so much sense. The World Bank has worked diligently in this area and developed three words that sum up corporate responsibility for the environment, initiatives driven by tri-sector partnerships involving business, government, and civil society. It’s “win-win-win”. I would like to mention one further incentive for companies to adopt tough ethical policies towards the envi-
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy ronment. The incentive is that such companies are likely to receive much more lenient treatment should they ever come before the courts. For example, a fine of between US$1 million and US$2 million could be reduced to as low as US$50,000 if the company concerned can prove it has a comprehensive program, including a code of conduct, an ombudsman, a hotline, and mandatory training seminars for executives. Judge William W. Wilkins, Jr., chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, has said: “Even the best efforts to prevent crime may not be successful in every case. But we have to reward the corporation that is trying to be a good corporate citizen.” Perhaps part of the problem today is that environmental issues, such as gas emissions, are not especially telegenic. It is an unfortunate reality that, when discussing issues such as these, the time and space between cause and effect often means the public at large tends to lose focus and interest in the issue. Other events are rightly judged as enormous global disasters because the havoc they cause is immediately visible and undeniable — the terror attacks in this country on September 11 are the most obvious and terrible example. Examples of severe, lasting damage to the environment — you could almost call it a kind of environmental terrorism — are much less easily conveyed to a television audience. It is altogether harder to identify the culprits, and it’s often impossible to convey the serious long-term effects in a few images on prime-time news. So, the environmental crisis and the pressing issues pass by and the world moves on. The buzzword among the delegates around the hotels and conference centres of Johannesburg in August will be sustainability, but as United Nations representatives readily agree, that word has become a pious invocation rather than the urgent call to concrete action that it should be. It is crucial that the Summit succeeds in showing that sustainability is far from being as abstract as it sounds, but rather is a life and death issue for millions upon millions of people around the world, and potentially the entire human race.
9
Secretary General Annan recently recognised this challenge in a stirring speech when he successfully put a human face on the sweeping assertions and statements of environmental reality. The first face was that of a woman in a rural district — it could have been in India, or almost any African country — who, year by year, finds she has to go further and further in search of water and fuel. Her back aches from the long journeys carrying a heavy load, but her heart aches even more from the fear that failure will leave her and her children hungry and vulnerable to disease. Another face was the son or cousin of this woman who, precisely because that rural way of life is no longer sustainable for a growing population, is now living in an urban slum. He has no work — or rather, he lacks the resources and training needed to start work, although his community desperately needs the contribution he could make. What is worse, although he himself does not know it, he is infected with HIV and has passed it on to his wife. The third face might be that of someone who looks much better off than the first two. He lives in a house or apartment, owns a car and has a job in one of the rapidly growing East Asian cities. But at this moment, he has been sitting in his car for an hour, and it is not moving. He is eager to get home to his wife and children, but he is stuck among thousands like himself. He also has a respiratory disease caused by toxic chemicals in the factory where he works, and his children suffer from asthma. He wants to travel away from this environment, and he is saving money to pay for false travel documents so that he can join his brother in Europe or North America. What he does not realise is that his way of life when he gets there may not be so very different. The more development is based solely on the quest for economic growth, the less sustainable it is going to be in any part of the world. The fourth face might be that of any of us in this room. We lead immensely privileged lives, but we do so by consuming much more than our share of the earth’s resources, and by leaving much more waste and pollution on the global environment. Moreover, our way of life is highly visible to those who cannot share it, but who see it in glamorised form on flickering screens in those slums. It is, one could say, flaunted before them as the model of development, to which they should aspire. But, Kofi Annan asks, is it sustainable? And, if so, for how many people and for how long?
10
Bahá’í Chair for World Peace | Eighth Annual Lecture These are important questions, and many hope we will find some answers in Johannesburg.
The presence of this leader of the free world would provide great momentum to the cause.
Another hope among many delegates to the Summit is that the Kyoto Accord will be brought into force in Johannesburg.
“EARTH FIRST” runs the slogan. May that remain the slogan in Johannesburg in August.
This agreement on carbon dioxide reduction was a step in the right direction. I have read the various assessments that suggest the annual cost of implementing the treaty in each year of the coming century will be the same as the cost — just once — of installing clean drinking water and sanitation for every human being on the planet. Kyoto is probably not perfect. However, beyond dispute, the accord seeks to limit carbon dioxide emissions. It is also beyond dispute that these emissions need to be restricted. The WorldWatch Institute, an independent body, has revealed that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 31% since 1750, when the start of the industrial revolution triggered the ongoing trend of mass consumption of fossil fuels. In 1990, the concentration measured 354 parts per million, jumping to 369 parts per million in 2000. This is not sustainable. Kyoto may not be the perfect leap forward, but it is a step in the right direction, and as such needs to be made. Many countries are now close to ratifying the Treaty — among the major developed nations, only the United States, Canada and Australia have insisted on their own opt-outs. Current indications are that formal implementation of the Accord may depend on whether Russia has ratified the treaty by the time of the summit. The position of the United States remains an area of concern, not least because the US first agreed to a 7% reduction in emission of greenhouse gasses, but has now withdrawn from Kyoto and stated it will pursue its own policy based on voluntary emission reduction targets. This is not ideal, but it need not be fatal either. I believe it is simply necessary for the United States government to demonstrate its genuine commitment to preserving the environment in a visible and unmistakable way — and it is with this in mind that I earnestly hope President Bush decides to attend the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
There are others who suggest a more accurate slogan would be “EARTH FIRST – WE’LL MINE THE OTHER PLANETS LATER”. May that remain a joke. Ladies and gentlemen, many of you will be aware that Wednesday June 5th has been earmarked as World Environment Day with the theme “Give Earth a Chance”. That is what we need to do. Give Earth a Chance. That’s all. Yes, we will all have to make sacrifices. Yes, they will be worth it. I would like to conclude by refecting on the words of Barnabas Leith, Secretary General of the Bahá’í community in Great Britain. He recently identified three contributions that the Bahá’í community can make to the wider environmental cause. The first act is to draw upon its deep-rooted belief in oneness and interdependence of all nations. The second is to sustain a cross-cultural practice of consultation as a non-adversarial means of making decisions and resolving conflicts. Finally, the third is to pursue the Bahá’í tradition of facilitating learning and empowerment through social and economic development projects. I don’t believe it is an exaggeration to say we are facing one of the greatest crises in human history. Collectively, in the spirit of the Bahá’í movement, we can preserve a just and united planet. Ladies and gentlemen, our world is at a crossroads and the choices made this year may prove critical in the future of the forests, oceans, rivers, mountains, wildlife, and other life support systems upon which this and future generations depend. We need concrete actions. We need timetables, and we need an iron resolve from all sides. Ladies and gentlemen, there is an argument to be won. I urge you to get out there and win it. Thank you.
Environmental Ethics and Public Policy
Lord St. John of Bletso
11
Lord St. John of Bletso is a noted authority on the environment and environmental policy. A member of the Royal Household, he took a seat in the House of Lords in 1978 as a crossbencher (independent) and his parliamentary interests include foreign affairs, particularly South Africa and Hong Kong, environmental protection, science and technology, deregulation and financial services, and sport. He serves as Vice Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary South Africa Group, President of Friends of South Africa, and member of the European Union Sub-Committee on Trade and External Relations. He has also served on the House of Lords’ Library and Computers Sub-Committee. In March 1998 he was appointed Extra Lord-in-Waiting to Her Majesty The Queen. Lord St. John is Global President of Sales and Marketing for Globix Corporation, a NASDAQ-listed, leading provider of advanced Internet infrastructure hosting services and connectivity for businesses in Europe and the United States. Since 1998 he has also been managing director of Globix UK. He is also director of WMRC plc, a leading provider of internet-delivered and independent global marketing intelligence, and of Pecaso Limited, a pan-European IT human resources consultancy practice. Lord St. John is an Advisory Board member of OverNet Data plc and 3G.Com, developers of wireless information and e-commerce services for wireless devices. He is Chairman of the Governing Board of Certification International, a management consultant, and chairman of Eurotrust International, a provider of asset protection trusts and companies. He has served as a consultant for Merill Lynch International with specific responsibility for emerging markets and Parliamentary Liaison. He is a qualified solicitor and a registered representative of the London Stock Exchange. Lord St. John also serves as chairman of Trustees of Citizens On-line, a non-profit organization promoting universal access to the Internet in the UK. He is Trustee of Tusk, the Television Trust for the Environment, and the Life Neurological Research Trust. He is Director of Oxford Philomusica Trust, which offers educational programs and support for young musical talent in symphony and chamber music. Lord St. John was educated in South Africa and England and holds a Master of Law degree from the London School of Economics, with specialization in Chinese Law, Insurance, Aviation and Shipping Law.
12
Bahá’í Chair for World Peace | Eighth Annual Lecture
Design :: Steiner Graphics | Switzerland | Canada | www.steinergraphics.com