CSD 17 Day 5 - 8 May 2009

Outreach Issues A daily publication of Sustainable Development Issues Network (SDIN) and Stakeholder Forum (SF)

State of the Negotiations, Some Considerations

FRIDAY May 8, 2009

Report from Working Group 1

After three days of negotiations, national interests and countries positions are becoming increasingly clear, and, despite the high number of insertions, brackets and rewording proposed by delegates, some general considerations can be drawn.

Inside this Issue: State of the Negotiations, Some Considerations

1

Different Visions

3

La Ciencia es Para las Personas

4

Science is for the People

4

Importance of Climate Ethics Animates Learning Center

5

Thinking Locally, Acting Locally

6

U.S. Delegate Head Supports Major Groups

7

How many are twice as many?

7

The Politics of Hope: Rural Development, Water, and Climate Change

8

Food Security and Climate Change

9

Sheila Oparaocha Profile

10

Live from the CSD

11

Food for Thought...

12

Outreach Issues is the civil society newsletter produced by the SDIN Group (ANPED, TWN and ELCI) and Stakeholder Forum.

Outreach Issues aims to report with attitude, from the global scene of sustainability.

The organizations publishing Outreach Issues are not responsible for the content of signed articles. Opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors.

By: Marco Contiero, Greenpeace European Unit

First and most importantly, while the world is faced with the impacts of the combined food, financial and climate crises, country representatives have so far failed to fulfil their mandate to identify and address the basic causes underpinning the global food crisis and propose a clear set of concrete proposals.

The current unsustainable industrial agricultural methods that have caused continuing, social and environmental problems, resulting in widespread hunger, depletion of natural resources and acceleration of climate change, don’t seem to be regarded as a problem. Failing to address

the root causes makes it impossible for the CSD to present proposals that will effectively tackle the global food crisis and promote true sustainable development.

The current negotiating text is focused on increasing food production and agricultural productivity. This has been strengthened by the text inserted by the delegates of G77, which have failed to stress in their propositions the crucial importance of boosting ‘sustainable’ agricultural practices and have limited their references to develop agri-businesses and productive practices. As stated by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof. Olivier de Schutter, Continued on page 2 1

Outreach Issues

“there is a risk that, in the name of raising production, the need for both socially and environmentally sustainable solutions will be underestimated.” Delegates must understand that such an emphasis on production per se, to the exclusion of social and environmental needs, is a recipe for disaster.

The main message coming out of the CSD should be to move away from business-asusual and invest efforts, time and money in a new food and agricultural model based on ecological practices. A system, able to feed people and fulfil their economic needs, while protecting the environment and the natural resources on which we all depend.

Far from rethinking the global food system, currently neither socially nor environmentally sustainable, and far from agreeing a clear set of solutions to the global problems we are currently facing, delegations seem to be concentrated on engaging in a rather sterile debate. Indeed, countries keep defending narrow national interests, making sure that the current situation remains substantially unchanged.

Ending global hunger and malnutrition will never be addressed by limiting international measures to solely boosting food production. Ignoring environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, soil degradation, water consumption and pollution will continue to prevent agricultural producers, particularly in developing countries, from being able to feed themselves and their communities in the long run, especially given the serious climatic changes ahead.

These considerations are in line with the conclusions reached by the International scientific community. January this year saw the publication of the most authoritative assessment of past, present and future challenges in agricultural production, consumption, knowledge, research and development ever conducted, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).

This four-year project was initiated by the World Bank and a multi-stakeholder group of organisations, including FAO, UNESCO, World Health Organisation, UNDP, UNEP as well as governments, civil society, private sector and scientific institutions. The Report, drafted by more than 400 scientists from around the world, concludes that the existing food system based on industrial agricultural practices must be radically reformed and that the future of agriculture is represented by ecological farming practices.

“An increase and strengthening of agricul-

2

ture knowledge, science and technology towards agro-ecological sciences will contribute to addressing environmental issues while maintaining and increasing productivity.” IAASTD Global Summary for Decision Makers, Key Finding 7.

It must be noted that, despite the crucial relevance of the IAASTD Report, delegations have proposed to introduce references to numerous other international conferences but have avoided mentioning the existence of such an authoritative Report.

Outreach Issues

Another sign of political myopia is represented by the repeated calls for more open markets and an “ambitious” conclusion of the Doha Round, proposed by the US, EU and Australian delegations. Such calls forget the crucial role that unfair global trade rules have played in generating hunger, poverty and impacting on the current food crisis. Opening national agricultural markets to international trade without rethinking the current unfair rules is likely to have serious detrimental effects for developing nations and their smallscale farmers, especially in the long term.

On the other side of the fence sit the G77 delegations, which have consistently demanded the elimination of developed countries' polices distorting markets for agricultural products. Export subsidies as well as national support systems for farm-

ers and obstacle to market access for less developed countries need to be eliminated for a multilateral trading system to help eradicating hunger and poverty. However, given the substantial disparities between the North and the South, developing countries must be allowed a preferential treatment in order to create a truly level playing field. The US delegation intervening on this specific point clarified that reduction and elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers is welcomed, but only provided that “a more market-oriented environment for food and agricultural products” is ensured. Much more debate will be needed to reconcile these opposite positions.

Unfortunately, what is also lacking in the present discussions, is another crucial element, the need for agricultural products to be treated as specific products and not just

as commodities subject to uncontrollable financial speculation.

To seriously address the global food crisis country delegates must follow and translate into action the findings and policy options highlighted by the IAASTD, by putting an end to public subsidies that promote unsustainable industrial agriculture practices and by dramatically increasing their funding to boost modern ecological farming systems. If CSD17 wants to play the role it has been given under the UN system it must agree on a strong text that presents Agro-ecology as the essential basis for the future global sustainable agricultural model. Delegates will therefore have to seriously modify the current negotiating text which simply presents Agro-ecology as one of the possible agricultural methods available.

Different Visions By: Mary Gilbert, Quaker Earthcare Witness

I think I’m seeing two profoundly different visions for our common future, operating here at CSD 17.

The first is a top-down vision. It pictures global linkages established through trade, with high interdependence for the goods needed to sustain countries and communities. It is based in maximizing profits for investors and implies a trickle-down concept of wealth and well-being for the rest of us.

The second vision is bottom-up. It pictures healthy, thriving local economies that are ecosystem-based. Communities are essentially self-sustaining in terms of basic needs.

Trade exists, but involves surplus after basic needs are met. Wealth and well-being grow upward.

inputs with their negative effects on soil health, large use of water for irrigation, and long supply chains with their concomitant greenhouse gas emissions.

first of these visions. It’s also frustrating to think and talk in UN-speak, the glossary of which lacks words related to ethics and values.

In contrast, vision 2 involves farming by families and other small-holders, with farmers receiving profits rather than wages.

These farmers have an investment in building up soil health and long-term water management systems, and they use short supply chains, with local markets and rural-urban links. This vision accords with Gandhi’s swaraj, which doesn’t mean national self-rule so much as being able to make decisions about your own, your family’s and your community’s lives. It means having a say over the conditions in which you live, without choices such as those about land use and water management precluded by interests and forces beyond your control.

I do want to be effective in this CSD forum, and influencing language in the outcome document is the most tangible evidence of effectiveness. But then I ask whether there is also another way to be effective.

Agriculture At CSD sessions we talk about agriculture as if it were a single entity. Yet vision 1 is about large-scale, industrial mono-cropping for export, involving great use of petrochemical

Language

Don’t we have a responsibility to articulate, as clearly and succinctly as we can, the second vision, if that is what we want to see on the ground? This responsibility is to ourselves, for our own integrity, to the constituencies back home that we represent here, and even to the governments and their delegates who might profit from grappling with these ideas?

I perceive a core of shared values … yes, I’m using the “v” word” … among most of civil society. Can we consider giving those shared values a voice?

Here at CSD sessions I find it frustrating to fight for language in the text that amounts to small concessions than can be fit into the

3

Outreach Issues

La Ciencia es Para las Personas By: Prof. Dr. Demetrio Loperena Rota, Centre for International Environmental Conflict Translated by Katerina Yiannibas, Legal Adviser, International Court of Environmental Arbitration and Conciliation

Con la fe del neoconverso nuestros Gobiernos se han lanzado a crear instituciones y a dotar de presupuestos millonarios a las ciencias básicas y a las aplicadas. Las ciencias sociales, al parecer, no son importantes, al menos en dotación presupuestaria. Este abandono estruendoso ha de tener una explicación distinta de la mala fe de los gobernantes.

Desde la revolución liberal los problemas sociales se resuelven por los representantes elegidos democráticamente. En aquel momento las ciencias básicas y aplicadas tenían una presencia algo

marginal. Sin embargo, el crecimiento de estas se ha acelerado profundamente en los últimos años. Pero los problemas sociales se siguen resolviendo desde los Gobiernos y Parlamentos. Y sus decisiones se fundamentan en improvisaciones y en caros informes de consultorías que ignoran la reflexión científica en el mundo de las ciencias sociales.

En definitiva, la reflexión científica no está siendo utilizada para la resolución de los conflictos sociales. Pero además, esta situación se favorece presupuestariamente.

Pero lo cierto es que nuestra sociedad tiene muy graves conflictos sociales que las ciencias de laboratorio nunca van a resolver. Nadie desconoce los problemas de violencia, de medio ambiente, de

inmigración, de corrupción, etcétera.

Nunca en la historia ha muerto tanta gente de hambre, nunca habíamos tenido 1.200 millones de personas sin acceso al agua potable o flujos migratorios en los que muchos prefieren morir a seguir viviendo en la miseria. Somos la primera generación que vamos a dejar el mundo ambiental y socialmente en situación catastrófica.

Desde las ciencias sociales buscamos nuevas formas de vida más estables y más justas. Muchos creemos que esto es más importante que inventar llaves inglesas de tercera generación. Pero si nuestra ciencia no es superior a la de los ingenieros, al menos que se nos reconozca la homologación presupuestaria que exige la ingeniería social.

Science is for the People By: Prof. Dr. Demetrio Loperena Rota, Centre for International Environmental Conflict Translated by Katerina Yiannibas, Legal Adviser, International Court of Environmental Arbitration and Conciliation

Armed with a faith in international dialogue, our governments have been sent to create institutions equipped with significant funding for basic and applied sciences. Social sciences apparently, are not deemed as important, at least not as reflected in budgetary grants. This uproarious abandonment must have some explanation beyond a lack of faith on the behalf of government.

Since the liberal revolution, social problems have been solved democratically by chosen representatives. At that time, basic and applied sciences had a somewhat marginal presence. Neverthe-

4

less, basic and applied sciences have grown at an accelerated pace in the last years. At the same time, social problems continue being addressed and solved by governments and parliaments. Their decisions are based on improvisation and expensive consultations which often ignore the scientific method within the realm of social science. In effect, the scientific method is not being used for the resolution of social conflicts. Even more, this situation is favoured through budgetary decisions.

One thing for certain is that society has grave social conflicts that laboratories will never solve. Laboratories cannot solve the problems concerning violence, environment, immigration, corruption, etc.

Never in history have so many died of hunger. Never before have we had 1,200

million people without access to potable water whereby many die instead of continuing to live in such misery. We are the first generation that will leave the world in such a catastrophic environmental and social state.

Through the social sciences, we look for new, more stable and more just ways of life. Many think this is more important than developing third generation monkey wrenches. This is not to say the social sciences are superior to that of the science of engineers, they have at base the same importance so they deserve at least the same funding. But at the moment, what we have is science that turns its back to the people. It is a pity for science. It is a pity for people.

Outreach Issues

Importance of Climate Ethics Animates Learning Center By: Jeff Thimm, Bahá'í International Community

Dr. Kaire Mbuende, Namibian Ambassador to the UN and Vice-Chair of the Commission opened a well attended Learning Centre session on the question of climate ethics and their application to the themes of this year’s Commission on Sustainable Development on Monday afternoon.

In his opening remarks, Peter Adriance, of the Bahá'í International Community, highlighted the 2007/8 UNDP Human Development Report, which affirmed that the mitigation of climate change “raises profound moral and ethical questions of our generation.” Faced with evidence that inaction will hurt millions of people, the report asks, “can we justify inaction?” and concludes that “no civilized community adhering to even the most rudimentary ethical standards would answer that question in the affirmative.”

Adriance also highlighted the Bahá’í International Community’s initial contributions to the theme of climate ethics which affirmed that, the challenge of climate change is not only a technical one but a moral one, and that if we are to forge a coherent ethics for the resolution of the climate change crisis, it is “the principle of the oneness of humankind” that must become the “ruling principle of international life.”

Don Brown of the Rock Ethics Institute at Penn State, a co-sponsor, and Marilyn Averill, an environmental attorney and doctoral student at the University of Colorado, were the main speakers for this session. They were also among the authors of the “White Paper on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change”—a seminal piece which offers a preliminary analysis of eight fundamental ethical issues related to climate change.

Averill explained that ethics are standards or rules of right conduct, which comprise a moral philosophy. Ethics involve questions of fairness, justice, duties and responsibilities. Ethical standards, then, help to

determine what is right and what is wrong and when responsibility should attach to human actions that cause harm.

To address the question: “Why do we need climate ethics?” Averill noted that ethical dimensions are attached to decisions regarding the allocation of emissions caps; decisions about payment for injuries and adaptation measures; and when actions should be taken.

Agreement on ethical standards can help to seek out answers to such questions.

Averill also noted that the term, “common but differentiated,” not only applied to “responsibilities” held by countries, but to their contributions, impacts, and capacities as well. “We all contribute to the problem, but at different levels; we will all be affected, but some are more vulnerable than others; we have different levels of responsibility, again some more than others; and we have different coping capabilities.” This raises numerous ethical questions: “Who or what should be protected? Who are most vulnerable? What rights do they have to protection? Who has duties to protect? Who gets to decide?”

Climate-related ethical issues include matters of international equity (to what degree are people in one country responsible for the welfare of those in another country?); inter-generational equity (to what extent are those alive today responsible for the welfare of future populations?); inter-species responsibilities (what responsibility do humans have to other species?); and stewardship (what duties do humans have to protect nature?)

Don Brown brought the focus from the general to the more specific, stressing the

importance of clearly identifying concrete ethical issues embedded in economic and legal arguments. Using an array of maps and images, he highlighted the strong connection between climate change and the Commission themes, outlining ethical issues related to agriculture, land, rural development, drought and desertification.

For the second half of the session, participants worked in small groups to examine six country-specific case studies in order to identify the relevant ethical issues, determine ethically sound actions, and identify responsibilities for diverse actors.

Following the exercise, each group presented a summary of the insights gained from the analysis.. While the ethical issues were often complex and difficult, many participants noted that such considerations were essential in finding sustainable solutions.

In the final segment, Don Brown highlighted measures that had been undertaken to increase awareness of the ethical dimensions of climate change and engaged the group in a discussion of strategies to expand those efforts. Several ideas emerged, including the use of the arts and the development of educational curricula to inspire ethical action.

5 7

Outreach Issues

Thinking Locally, Acting Locally In Zambia, the MBAWOFA Project has set a global example for sustainable agriculture and self-empowerment.

By: Madhyama Subramanian and Matthew Boms

This is CSD-1 for Barbara Hachipuka Banda, but you’d hardly know it from talking with her. Ms. Banda has come to the U.N. from Zambia, where about 3.5 out of 12 million are currently employed in agriculture. This figure is on the rise (from about one million in 1960), but according to Banda, many more depend on subsistence agriculture to survive.

The Zambian dilemma, she says, is one of sustainability—not just with respect to environmental degradation, but to affordable farming as well. Many farmers in Zambia simply cannot compete with globalized technologies, like hybrid seeds. So in 2004, Banda teamed up with Shumei International in Japan, which has promoted the age-old model of natural agriculture. Together, they founded an organic farming project through the Mbabala Women Farmers’ Cooperative Union (MBAWOFA).

“When you’re doing basic, normal farming with fertilizers, hybrid seeds,” she says, “Yes, the productivity and efficiency is faster...because you don’t need the human

6

manpower. But when it comes to organic and natural, you need a lot more manpower, which is an advantage as well, especially for African countries, because it can create employment opportunities.”

The organizational philosophy is straightforward: a respect for nature, the indigenous seed, and soil cleansing. MBAWOFA has pursued these goals through a variety of initiatives: seed harvesting, crop rotation, financial training and while it may seem obvious, self-sufficiency is at the forefront of the solution.

Originally, the project sprouted from a small group of women, led by Banda’s mother, who urged them to buy two-dollar shares in the cooperative. This quickly expanded to about two thousand women, each owning one or two shares in the group. So when Banda’s mother passed away, the women were left with empty hopes.

They turned to Barbara, who notes, “People are there. They’re getting together everyday, and they’re ready. And what they’re simply

looking for are partnerships and guides to help them get to the next level.”

Today, she is seeing progress beyond the small, ecological successes that have developed with organic farming. Through MBAWOFA, the group of women have drawn tremendous support from the local communities—men, children, even tribal leaders.

The project has begun to embody Banda’s chief philosophy: “that when you educate a woman, you educate an entire community.”

But to achieve broad support, all of these Zambian communities need to advocate for local initiatives. Ms. Banda is very much part of a grassroots movement that is propelling sustainable development on the ground.

She says, “This is where the international community must take advantage of these opportunities to say, ‘Let’s not support a big donor organization. Let’s not do some big NGO where we are going to spend so much on operational funds. Let’s do direct partnerships with the rural communities. Not the government level, not just people in cities, but with the rural community.”

Outreach Issues

U.S. Delegate Head Supports Major Groups By: Beth Gunningham, Shirlynn Sham, Thea Tan & Alicia Cundall, Youth Caucus

share. One of the priorities of the youth caucus is to make the policies we are writing here more action-oriented. After all, if these policies do not translate into real change, we have achieved little. As the voice of hopeful youth, we call for actions over words, for concrete steps towards tangible goals.

She was in the middle of her sentence when the gavel cut her off. From the floor came the question, why should this woman, who had so much more to say, have only one minute of our time?

This happened this week here at CSD 17.

The speaker was from the women’s major group, and the question came from the head of US delegation.

We believe change begins with a heartfelt commitment on the part of each individual. This commitment goes beyond advocating for the agendas of our respective organizations and governments.

We’re not here only on behalf of a particular group; we have deeper responsibilities as members of the human race.

The youth caucus agrees with those governments that have raised concerns about giving major groups only one minute to speak. The major groups have on-theground experience that we are ready to Beth Gunningham (left) and Antonia Hernandez (right)

How many are twice as many?

By: Ms. Rebecka Carlsson, Youth Representative of the Swedish Delegation and Member of the Youth Caucus

But how many are twice as many? - 100 %? - Enough? - Even 50 %? When Agenda 21 was adopted, 30 % of all world citizens were children and youth, and therefore in chapter 25, it is announced that “it is imperative that youth from all parts of the world participate actively in all relevant levels of decision-making processes” and furthermore that “the involvement of today's youth in environment and development decision-making and in the implementation of programmes is critical to the long-term success of Agenda 21”.

However, the percentage of children and youth has increased radically since. Today, half of world’s population is children and youth. In many countries, especially in the developing world such as the Sub-Saharan region, the percentage is even larger - up

to 70-80 %. Meanwhile, here at CSD, children and youth has, so far, only been given one minute to speak and out of 46 paragraphs, 3 paragraph mentions youth.

since young people are not only the present but also the future; if young people are not included today – how can there be true sustainable development?

Therefore, while this CSD is focusing on agriculture, rural development, drought and desertification, land, Africa, the majority of the people who will be the most affected is barely taken into account.

This is insolently unfair. Children and youth of today have inherited a world they did not shape, and their future is principally depending on the decisions and actions being made – or not being made, by Governments and other stakeholders. The fact that it is unfair is nothing compared to how unsustainable it is!

I am youth and just like everyone else, I have the capability to pollute, destroy and eliminate. But I also have the capacity to do wonderful things; to innovate, to lead, to mobilize, to contribute and to cooperate. I am not alone; neither of being youth nor having the capacity to do these amazing things. Therefore, the successful inclusion of children and youth is not just a “children and youth issue” – it is a matter of sustainability.

In the developing world, up to 70-80 % of the total population is children and youth.

If their participation and contribution is not guaranteed, will adults be sustainable enough for everyone? And not to forget,

Today, 3 paragraph out of 46 paragraphs in the negotiation text mentions youth.

There is still a lot of time to extend this appropriately. You can make this happen. Please, let this happen! Let all world citizens enjoy young people’s contribution!

7

Outreach Issues

The Politics of Hope: Rural Development, Water, and Climate Change By: John H. Matthews, WWF Freshwater Climate Adaptation Specialist

At a meeting I recently attended, one speaker began with a dramatic image: “If you want to see real fear in someone’s eyes, talk with a climate scientist.” That was the most positive statement he made in his talk, actually. He was correct on some level, of course. I’m a climate impacts biologist working globally on water and climate issues with WWF, and both as a species and as stewards of the earth’s resources, humans clearly have a lot of new things to be afraid of because of climate change. Perhaps the most serious threat is that the climate will continue to change for decades even if we were to stop all human-source greenhouse gas emissions today. We are committed to adapting to the emerging climate.

But fear is a strong drink that should be sipped slowly; despair is intoxicating. And I hope my eyes reveal hope too, since hope is a better foundation for action. By accepting that the climate is already changing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, we can focus on the needs of the most vulnerable among us: the poor, especially in the developing world. And in truth, we have three emerging trends relevant to rural development worldwide that represent new opportunities.

Climate Adaptation Is Mostly About Water Most of the reports about climate impacts — whether in the scientific or the popular press — tend to focus on air temperature. But most of the species on the planet live in areas where freshwater is critical: obviously in lakes and rivers, but also species that live in forests, mountains, and meadows. Even marine species that live in estuaries or near shore often depend on nutrients carried by rivers to the sea or on species that spend part of their lives in freshwater such as many molluscs, arthropods, and fish. Humans are certainly no exception: as a species, we live in regions that range from extremely humid

8

“By accepting that the climate is already changing and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, we can focus on the needs of the most vulnerable.” to excessively arid and from some of the hottest to the coolest parts of the earth. But wherever we live, we always need water — whether from surface, frozen, groundwater, or even desalinated sources. For rural areas, reliable access to water often defines the agricultural basis of the economy as a whole, particularly where subsistence farming plays a significant role.

There’s a growing recognition among governments and civil society groups focused on conservation and development that adapting to climate is mostly about managing water resources. At a recent meeting in Nairobi sponsored by the Danish government and the UN Environment Program, ministers and delegates from a wide range of countries, multi-lateral organizations, and nonprofits agreed on a core set of guiding climate adaptation principles for land and water management

(see http://www.landwaterdialogue.um.dk).

At a conference in Istanbul, panels representing government, industry, and civil-society organizations easily reached consensus on the key status of the water sector in facilitating the adaptation of human societies and economies to the emerging climate. This consensus is new and has developed very recently. Those of us focused on climate adaptation largely agree that water management is the critical issue for humans for this century.

Climate Change and Water Catalyze Holistic Thinking (Finally!)

Agreeing that water is the focus for collective action on climate adaptation is important, but perhaps even more promising is the recent recognition that managing water requires holistic thinking. For too long, conservation and development have been viewed as separate, even competing approaches. But in rural China, climate change has been the vehicle for WWF to finally bring together landowners, fish and poultry farmers, freshwater ecologists, provincial resource managers, urban water treatment centers, and central government planners together to talk about water quality.

Outreach Issues

In eastern Africa, WWF has been working with farmers, biologists, and policymakers in the Ruaha basin to manage the hydrological cycle (environmental flows, or e-flows) in a more sustainable way. All of these groups have needed to talk to one another for decades, but climate change has been the means of facilitating new approaches to link human water use with the health of ecosystems.

Climate Adaptation Should Begin Now (and It Can) Although the amount of climate change we’ve realized is modest compared to what we can expect in coming decades, biologists

have already noted significant alterations in the behavior and geographic ranges of many species globally. Climate change alters the ecosystems we depend on, and people whose livelihoods depend directly on ecosystems — such as fishers and farmers — are certainly the most exposed and vulnerable.

In more than 500,000 km of travel in the 18 months I’ve worked for WWF, I’ve seen a lot of anxiety around climate change: “We know it’s a problem. We know we should focus on water. But we don’t have the expertise to begin adapting.” WWF’s message is that good climate adaptation is not a problem that requires mainframe computers. It doesn’t require a PhD. Effective climate adapta-

tion is less a scientific problem than a problem with inertia, isolation, and fear. As Vahid Alavian, water consultant with the World Bank, said in a talk last summer, “We cannot wait thirty years for precise science.”

Bringing the relevant stakeholders together to talk about issues holistically is a critical first step. Groups like WWF and GPPN have been developing guidelines for sound climate-resilient water management that build on qualities like flexibility, preparation for extreme events, and maintaining (or improving) ecosystem health and viability. We may have difficult challenges, but we have new opportunities as well.

Food Security and Climate Change By: Thomas Rosswall, Chair, CCAFS Steering Committee

It is clear that food security and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people who depend on small-scale agriculture are under significant threat from climate change. To address this challenge, a new major research programme has recently been launched on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). This initiative unites the complementary strengths of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its 15 centres and the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP; a partnership of the four international global change science programs sponsored by the International Council for Science, ICSU) to address the most pressing and complex challenge to food security in the 21st century.

The goal of CCAFS is to overcome the additional threats posed by a changing climate on attaining food security, enhancing livelihoods and improving environmental management.

The Program will address this goal by generating the knowledge base and toolsets to enable and assist farmers, policymakers, researchers and donors to successfully manage agricultural and food systems so as to strengthen food security, enhance rural livelihoods, and improve environmental sustainability in the context of the challenges arising from current climate variability and progressive climate change.

The strategic alliance between the CGIAR and the ESSP will bring together the world’s best researchers in agricultural science and Earth system science and engage the stakeholders in a participatory approach.

The collaboration will allow a truly integrated multi-disciplinary, resilience-based approach to the climate change–food security problem. Thus, the programme will bridge the natural – social sciences divide as well as the global – local scale. In bringing together climate scientists and development researchers it will tackle the difficult issue of scale, where climate must be understood at the global level, while development in small scale subsistence farmers must be understood in a local context. Much of the research is inherently place-based and will be carried out in three focus regions (East and West Africa plus the Indo-Gangetic Plain) that have populations and agriculture vulnerable to climate change, sufficient institutional capacity, and offer a high chance of generating transferable results. The outputs will be IPG with utility well beyond the research locations., and offer best practice examples, which a number of delegates have called on major groups to present.

The activities and outputs of the CCCP are orientated towards three high-level outcomes to achieve impact:

1. Climate variability and climate change issues mainstreamed into national, regional and international agricultural development strategies and institutional agendas.

2. Innovative information products and communication processes developed and maintained at local, national and regional levels.

3. Effective, climate-informed decisions made relating to: (a) setting priorities to identify and fund research and development agendas and adaptation policies and investments at international and regional levels; (b) promoting and implementing adaptation options that render rural communities better able to monitor and adapt to climate variability and change, with full knowledge of the tradeoffs that arise between multiple objectives of increasing food security and sustaining livelihoods and the environment; (c) establishing and maintaining a supporting institutional, policy and infrastructural environment so that adaptation options are effective.

For more information, contact Thomas Rosswall, Chair of the CCAFS Steering Committee at thomas.rosswall@gmail.org.

9 7

Outreach Issues

Sheila Oparaocha Profile Growing up in Zambia, one of the least developed countries in the world, Sheila Oparaocha, saw first hand how poverty, gender and energy are related. During her graduate studies in Thailand, she realized other developing countries faced similar problems, and that the solution was to understand people’s lifestyles, and then create solutions that meet their needs.

By: Brett Israel, Stakeholder Forum

Oparaocha, the secretary and coordinator for the International ENERGIA Network on Gender and Sustainability, was a guest on Pioneers of the Planet, a radio program recorded live at the UN by the Stakeholder Forum in partnership with the BBC World Trust.

The problems for women in places like Zambia are directly related to a lack of modern energy, according to Oparaocha. Without modern electricity, women are mired in their traditional roles of gathering firewood for the wood burning stoves that they use to cook. When they have to spend large amounts of time with household chores, they have little time to spend on activities that would better their lives – like education, said Oparaocha.

She sees renewable energy technology – things like microhydro, improved cook stoves, biogas and solar cookers – as forms of technology that can be adapted to meet the needs of different communities.

“When you have renewable energy, this really offers an opportunity to provide energy for poor households,” said Oparaocha.

She’s proudest of a program that she helped start in Kenya to create a market for better cook stoves. The simple clay stoves, made and sold within the community, are vastly more efficient and have helped prevent further deforestation in Kenya by reducing demand for firewood. At first, the locals refused to use the new stoves because they didn’t work with their traditional ways of cooking. This taught Oparaocha an important lesson.

“Yes, we have the ideas and advice, but we also have to educate ourselves on what their problems are and listen to them,” said Oparaocha.

Once they were able to educate the public about the benefits of the new stoves, the

10

program caught on, allowing women to spend less time on household chores, and creating more income for the people making and selling the stoves.

“People are willing to change if they see the change benefits them. They are not going to be willing to change if it’s just imposed,” said Oparaocha.

She is optimistic that programs like the one in Kenya can be repeated to solve some of the biggest problems in developing counties.

After all, she said, “We are living in the era of Obama,” a fact she said is a personal boost of inspiration.

Sheila Oparaocha interviewed by Merim Tenev

Despite distractions like the current financial crisis, she encourages people to stay focused on the problems plaguing developing countries.

“Even in these difficult times, people realize that climate change and poverty are very serious problems,” said Oparaocha. “We need to stick to some of the commitments and be very serious about them to be able to move them forward.”

Oparaocha’s entire interview with Pioneers of the Planet is available online at media.stakeholderforum.org.

Outreach Issues

Live from the CSD

http://media.stakeholderforum.org

tion of women at the CSD, and also voices of pastoralists from Kenya and a section on regulated advertising to curtail consumption.

By: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum

Day Four of the Radio programme in a joint collation of Stakeholder Fourm and the BBC World Service Trust in conjunction with UN radio produced more innovative Radio programmes. Today the programmes where led primarily by Bulgarian Journalist Merim Tenev. In Earth talk Merim sets out to unravel the debates surrounding organic and fertiliser farming, clarifying approaches to sustainable agriculture.

In today’s edition of “Pioneers of the Planet” Merim talked to Sheila Oparaocha. Sheila is involved in gender energy issues and is a Secretariat Coordinator for the international ENERGIA Network on Gender and Sustainable Energy.

The discussion focused on the connection between gender and energy. Sheila discussed the ways in which women are involved in many energy-supplying issues such as collecting firewood for their homes. We also discussed the issue of energy policies in such countries and outlined the perspectives of renewable energy there.

During the conversation we faced the truth that it is not only having necessary to have a program on sustainable development, it is also necessary to educate the people on how to benefit from it.

In Today at the CSD we have an eyewitness account of Climate Change at the Arctic, words of caution on biofuels, the representa-

Radio journalists preparing production of Today at the CSD.

Episode 4 of “The Greentable” shows was moderated by Richard Black and set out to answers the question on “Do small-scale community projects or industrial nuclear and clean coal installations hold the key to our energy and climate future?” The guest included Dr Hans Holger-Rogen of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Annie Wilson of the New York Sierra Club, and Sabina Mensah from the Gratis Foundation.

A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR Towards the end of the first week of my first Commission on Sustainable Development, and through sitting in and observing the delegates engage in dialogue that affects us all, I am remind of some graffiti by the artist Banksy, about the power to influence change.

“In November '89, in response to a small uprising in Timisoara, Romania, the country's corrupt and brutal dictator was persuaded to address a public rally in Bucharest. A lone man in the crowd, Nica Leon, sick of Ceausescu's dreadful regime started shouting in favour of the Timisoara revolutionaries. The crowd around him, obedient to the last, thought 'Long live Timisoara!' was a new political slogan and started chanting it to. It was only when he began shouting 'Down with Ceaucescu!' that they realised all was not right. They tried to get away from him, banners were getting dropped and broken in the crush and women started screaming.

On the balcony, the panic sounded like booing. Ceausescu stood there ludicrously frozen, mouth opening and shutting. Then the head of Romania's security walked over to him and whispered 'they're getting in'.

It was clearly audible on the President's microphone and was broadcast live across the whole country. The revolution had begun. Within a week Ceausescu was dead.

Somewhere in a bar in Romania sits Nica Leon, a solitary man who changed the course of history.

11 7

Outreach Issues

Food for Thought…

Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

“Governance” With the failure of the General Assembly process on International Environmental Governance (IEG) under Mexican Ambassador Claude Heller and Swiss Ambassador Maurer, now is the time for UNEP to pick up the leadership role. The decision of the UNEP Governing Council to set up a Working Group of 20 Ministers to try and move forward IEG is to be very much welcomed. It was framed in Nairobi by the impressive speech by Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, who said: “My challenge to our collective gathered here today is that we must use the next 3 years, up to Rio+20 in 2012, to define a new paradigm for our cooperation. We must transform the politics of distrust, break the impasse and build a common vision for IEG reform. Whilst building on UNEP by enhancing its legitimacy, authority and resources, we must ask ourselves fundamental questions on the desired future and how we can find innovative ways of achieving it.”

With a target date of 2012 now set, it

looks very much like the chance for some movement on IEG will be possible. Heads of State will not want to attend a Summit in 2012 without a resolution of this issue, which has been going on since the first Rio Earth Summit.

What is the role of this discussion in the context of sustainable development governance? Is the CSD as it is presently constructed the right body to address the sustainable development challenges of the future? Is a work programme set up in 2003 relevant to issues that need to be addressed in 2010 to 2015? Where in the UN system can you address emerging and critical issues such as energy and climate security, food security, water security, and the real impacts of growth of urbanisation?

Might a Sustainable Development Council of the General Assembly to deal with these kinds of issues be a better place for doing this?

Maurice Strong did advocate at Rio in 1993 and afterwards that there should be

E DITORIAL T EAM Senior Editor: Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, ANPED Co-Editor: Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum Daily Editor: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum

Previous and today’s issues are easily available online, go to:

Design and Layout: Erol Hofmans, ANPED Contributing writers: Marco Contiero, Greenpeace European Unit Mary Gilbert, Quaker Earthcare Witness

www.sdin-ngo.net media.stakeholderforum.org

Prof. Dr. Demetrio Loperena Rota, Centre for International Environmental Conflict Jeff Thimm, Bahá'í International Community

Ms. Rebecka Carlsson, Swedish Youth Representative John H. Matthews, WWF Freshwater Climate Adaptation Specialist Thomas Rosswall, Chair, CCAFS Steering Committee Brett Israel, Stakeholder Forum

12

This brings me back to reform of UNEP. One of the ideas in the papers distributed to governments for the governing council mentioned the merging of UNEP and UNDP. If one was to extend that to include UN Habitat, might we have a world sustainable development organisation that could address the role of the UN in countries in a real coordinated way? Is this too radical an idea for Rio+20?

Outreach Issues is made possible through the generous support of: .

THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND SEA

Please send your contributions to:

AND

smooney@stakeholderforum.org erol.hofmans@anped.org

THE BELGIAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL PUBLIC PLANNING SERVICE

Madhyama Subramanian and Matthew Boms Beth Gunningham, Shirlynn Sham, Thea Tan & Alicia Cundall, Youth Caucus

a transformation of the Trusteeship Council into an Ecological Security Council. Might Rio+20 be a chance to look again at these kinds of ideas?