CSD 17 Day 6 - 11 May 2009

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

Moving Forward in Reverse Gear?

MONDAY May 11, 2009

It was a bumpy ride on the CSD highway last week, delegates appeared to be driving forward with their eyes fixed on their rear view mirrors. Considering events currently happening in the world, everyone agrees that the themes of the last CSD cycle and those of the present one have proven prescient and timely.

Inside this Issue: Moving Forward in Reverse Gear?

1

On Human Rights and Sustainable Development

3

Trade Unions on Rio+20

5

Youth Caucus’ 7 Priority Principles

6

Desertification in Drylands

7

Questions from Major Groups to Delegates

8

Live from the CSD

11

Food for thought...

12

By: Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International

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.

Last year the focus was on energy and climate change while we here at CSD17 we are talking about Agriculture, Land, Rural Development, Drought and Desertification and particularly on Africa.

This week offers clear opportunities for delegates to take a good look at the road ahead, and avoid the obvious and hidden bumps and potholes. Throughout last week delegates recognized the convergence of crises confronting the world and the urgent need for concrete actions to be taken. There were repeated talks about the food crisis, the climate crisis and the economic crisis. One other crisis

that did not show up is, the growing deficit of confidence on global governance and in some cases the deficit of democracy. This should worry our governments. The world sorely needs to regain confidence in governance in an era where financial and transnational institutions are enjoying massive bailouts, while the citizens of this world are out in the cold, hungry and unprotected.

The CSD presents a unique platform for global governance to rise up beyond individual countries’ or regional blocks’ self interests.

Unfortunately, the bright spots in this regard have been few and far between. As we all listened to delegates go through the chair’s negotiation text last week, we could not help 1

Outreach Issues

but wonder how they would find their way out of the maze of brackets and additions that have riddled the texts, and if the final outcome will be recognizable.

Obviously, this is the way negotiations of this nature go, but we are concerned that additions and subtractions on the text, do not appear to be introducing ideas that would galvanize nations into acting in solidarity. What we are seeing are grounds being set for competition and business as usual. The world sorely needs inspiration to empower and engineer actions. So far, memorable texts would need to be ferreted out with the aid of a Hubble telescope. We agree that delegates are not wordsmiths, but what is the point in introducing texts without clearly seeing how the jigsaw fits or unravels?

The transformation of the world will not be built on episodic entries that focus on maintaining the status quo, preserving narrow interests and the privileges of some nations and blocs.

This week the G77 kept bringing up references to national laws and cultural contexts to cap some provisions. These may sound progressive, but in reality they may prove obstructive to the attainment of justice and higher ideals of liberty. For example, when G77 speaks about rights of women, they add “in accordance with national legislation.” The CSD should be raising the bar across the globe. The picture that comes through all this is an insidious resistance to change under the cover of tradition.

Right from the preamble to the negotiated text, G77 and China inserted a highly volatile piece of text on the sovereign right of states to exploit their natural resources.

There is nothing unusual about states having the sovereign right to exploit their resources, but we could raise the issue, of what would be the case for countries whose political setting is not settled, also, what about those whose sovereignty is threatened or subverted? It appears that some basic questions, including the prior

2

“The transformation of the world will not be built on episodic entries that focus on maintaining the status quo, preserving narrow interests and the privileges of some nations and blocs. right of communities and indigenous peoples, even before the rights of states, need to be settled on this issue.

Given the themes of CSD17, one would be right to assume that G77 would drive for the best texts that would guarantee the right context for their citizens. However, its is interesting to note that the bulk of the work done to improve the section on Africa, has been done by the delegations of the USA and the EU. Apart from the brilliant addition to the introduction of the section on desertification this has not often been the case.

When G77 suggested that desertification “is a global problem that requires a global response through concerted efforts,” that really shone. However, some of the areas bracketed or deferred by G77 raisesome worries. Why would G77, for example, need to defer immediate acceptance of a clauses such as, “mindful of the growing

scarcities of many natural resources and the competing claims to their use” and on building “the resilience of rural communities to cope with and recover from natural disasters and conflicts”?

In many other sections we find an unwillingness to assume responsibilities, but rather a readiness to push implementation burden on to the “international community.”

The issue of the right to food was firmly raised by the UN Rapporteur on the right to food when he addressed the session on May 7. He affirmed that the right to adequate food is a human right and emphasised that the CSD should recommend measures that would promote the adoption of national right to food strategies and for states to implement the findings of the IAASTD. He strongly recommended that states should realise the centrality of the role of smallholder farmers in meeting the food needs of the world. The ideas pushed by the Rapporteur found echoes in a few submissions of Switzerland and G77 during the negotiations.

On the whole, the EU has made substantial additions on forests, drought and desertification. They underlined the need for the UNFCCC parties to utilise the UNCCD framework in combating drought

Outreach Issues

and desertification. G77’s reference to the UNCCD was mainly on the imperative of the industrialised world to meet their commitments with regard to provision of resources. The USA, Canada, Australia and Japan worked often in tandem, but Australia must be given the medal for fighting to foist WTO rules as a damper on more progressive trade and business relations.

In a bid not to mention genetic engineering by name, delegates have taken the convoluted route and left everyone wondering what they are really talking about. The G77, for example, “supports efforts to increase the nutrition content of food.” While that is not a bad idea on its own, we must be wary of falling into the hoax of the so-called golden rice or the new experiments with genetically modified super cassava: both engineered to have enhanced levels of vitamin A for poor people in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The strong underlying hands of what has been termed philanthropic capitalism keeps excessive pressure on the staple foods of vulnerable peoples, with utter disregard of the precautionary principle that is cardinal in biodiversity protection. Mexico recommended the

‘Sadly quite a number of trite additions were brought into the section on rural development” using of plantations of non-native species of trees to combat the spread of sand dunes.

Sadly quite a number of trite additions were brought into the section on rural development. It is hoped that such additions will be thrown out during the negotiations.

With a week to go in the negotiations it is hoped that delegates will safely disentangle themselves from the web of brackets they find themselves in, with a clear road map and not just a pack of meaningless words. We note that in the course of last week, delegates queried the possible meanings of otherwise simple words or concepts, and answers were sometimes immediately offered or deferred until the following day. In one case, the USA brought up the concept of using smart growth techniques in working group 2. G77 asked to know what that meant. USA explained the following day

that they have found out that the smart growth concept had several meanings and therefore withdrew the submission. This was a good example of helping in making progress and ensuring that obscure terminology are not used to conceal hidden examples.

If it was just that a concept such as the green revolution has become obfuscated, we would not have a reason to worry too much. But CSD17 has also revealed that there may not be unanimity of understanding of the very concept of sustainability. In a conversation in the lobby, a veteran participant said that she was always of the view, that Rio 1992 outcomes were very tame, but now she can see that it was far more radical than what may be expected of CSD17. And she asked the question: are we making progress in reverse gear?

Delegates have the duty of giving an answer to this question, and making sure processes are in place that can deliver a secure, sustainable future for coming generations.

On Human Rights and Sustainable Development Giving equal weight to the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development means integrating an ecosystem approach and a human rights-based approach into thematic issues being discussed at UNCSD17.

By: Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation, Indigenous Peoples Major Group

Applying an ecosystem approach The cluster of thematic issues under discussion in UNCSD17, calls for integrated land and water resources management, applying an ecosystem approach. Within ecosystems planning, due attention must be given to securing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, small farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, including the rights of women.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, which has adopted the ecosystem

approach as it framework for implementation, describes it as a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. The CBD endorsed some principles underlying the ecosystem approach, as reflecting the present level of common understanding: Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choices.

Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cul-

tural and society needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land are important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Both cultural and biological diversity are central components of the ecosystem approach, and management should take this into account. Societal choices should be expressed as clearly as possible. Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic values and for the tangible or intangible benefits for humans, in a fair and equitable way. .

Continues on page 4 3

Outreach Issues

Such a bottom-up approach, embedded in local ecosystems and landscapes, combined with strategic environmental assessment, and an enabling policy environment, should guide sustainable development planning. An enabling policy environment includes the implementation of human rights obligations and commitments made by governments, under international human rights law, as well as commitments in recent international conferences.

Human Rights and Sustainable Development Sustainable development goes hand in hand with the progressive realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as the protection and promotion of civil and political rights for all members of society, particularly the poor and vulnerable.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted a statement on poverty (E/C.12/2001/10), which recognized that poverty constituted a denial of human rights and defined poverty as a human condition characterized by the deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

Human rights empower individuals and communities by granting them entitlements that give rise to legal obligations on others. Human rights help to equalize the distribution and exercise of power both within and between societies, and can mitigate the powerlessness of the poor and empower them to play their role in realizing sustainable development.

Accordingly, the human rights approach emphasizes obligations and requires that all duty-holders, including States and intergovernmental organizations, are held accountable for their conduct in relation to international human rights. Failures to 4

respect, protect and fulfil human rights, constitute real barriers to human sustainable development.

ies, international financial institutions, States and Indigenous Peoples. Article 26 of the UN Declaration states:

A human rights-based approach integrates the norms, standards and principles of the international human rights system, into the plans, policies and processes of sustainable development planning. These include treaties that a State has ratified because treaty ratification represents “country ownership� of the relevant provisions, and becomes legally binding on all branches of Government, as well as the commitments entered into during recent world conferences, which bear upon international human rights.

1. Indigenous Peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired‌.

Most recently, the General Assembly adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an overarching framework and standard of achievement to be pursued in the spirit of partnership and mutual respect by United Nations bod-

3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

The progressive realization of human rights and implementation of commitments towards sustainable development requires effective monitoring by way of indicators and national benchmarks, as essential tools for effective accountability.

Outreach Issues

Trade Unions on Rio+20 By: Annabella Rosemberg, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

There is growing debate amongst governments and civil society on whether a RIO+20 needs to be organized.

This is an issue of no little importance. We are living in a time of all-encompassing crises, a time in which coherent and sustainable approaches and solutions are often lacking.

We have reason to worry when we look at the state of multilateralism, in light of the current plethora of overlapping governance initiatives.

Where is UN multilateralism?

Governments (particularly the world’s largest economies) have taken a number of recent initiatives which, while not intended to undermine the UN as an institution, implicitly criticize its inability to deal effectively with the challenges affecting our societies. Consequently, the multiple crises have not yet led to a truly multilateral response. The pace of high-profile UN processes – such as that on climate change – appears too slow when set against the urgency of the situation, and the growing public pressure for decisive action.

In addition, a more structural question remains.

We live in a world marked by unprecedented levels of inequality, poverty and environmental degradation. Is the multilateral system addressing these challenges or is it ineffective; could it be actually reinforcing an unacceptable status quo?

the goal of attaining US participation – ironic since in many cases, they did not succeed in getting the US to sign on to the final agreement.

The current context makes us hopeful that times have changed.

Another reason for hope comes from civil society. More and more multi-actor coalitions are emerging around pressing issues, such as poverty or climate change. Through these coalitions, environmental, social and labour organisations are able to build strong platforms capable of pushing for a change of paradigm.

Would Rio+20 contribute to a change of paradigm?

In some important ways, the Rio Summit contributed to a change of paradigm. Yet while it is unquestionable that the world has changed over the past two decades, the change was not driven

by Rio principles – rather the opposite.

Nonetheless, Rio left a legacy of core principles that we feel are crucial to address the challenges facing our societies: the precautionary principle, common but differentiated responsibilities, and the role civil society and in particular trade unions can play in achieving sustainable development, among others.

The general feeling is that the framework adopted in Rio is getting lost. The need to respect our over riding priority – improving people’s lives - by protecting the environment is less

and less clear in the discussions taking place in the “Rio family” of institutions.

Of course there are no guarantees that a Rio+20 would be able to increase public pressure, revive the spirit of social and environmental integration, and generate new and well funded governmental commitments. But without these, we will remain unable to coherently address the challenges of our times and so it is of critical importance that we try.

Trade unions will support and encourage those who show ambition, those who believe in the importance of a meaningful and high-level discussion on the means of obtaining a socially just, environmentally sustainable and multilateral response to today’s and tomorrow’s crises.

Some reasons for hope Those who declare the end of multilateralism are guilty of grave irresponsibility. It is our belief that multilateralism is the only viable tool to address the ongoing economic, social and environmental crises. Provided their actions are not subordinated to financial and commercial interests, through greater synergies and effectiveness, international institutions can place social and environmental concerns at the very top of the list of international priorities.

We do have some reasons for hope.

Still incipient, the United States’ return to multilateral negotiations will make a big difference.

Multilateralism has suffered from almost a decade of a destructive strategy, in which international negotiators weakened agreements with

Annabella Rosemberg

5 7

Outreach Issues

Youth Caucus’ 7 Priority Principles The Major Group on Children and Youth (also referred as the 'Youth Caucus') calls for the Youth Caucus' CSD-17 Priority Principles to be taken into account. These 7 Priority Principles are the shared vision of the Youth Caucus on the cluster of issues that the CSD16 and 17 cycle focuses on. They are a result of a process that was participatory, interactive and inclusive.

By: Ivana Savic, Youth Caucus' Advocacy Coordinator, Lisa Develtere, Belgian Youth Delegate

The Major Group on Children and Youth (also referred as the 'Youth Caucus') calls for the Youth Caucus' CSD-17 Priority Principles to be taken into account. These 7 Priority Principles are the shared vision of the Youth Caucus on the cluster of issues that the CSD16 and 17 cycle focuses on. They are a result of a process that was participatory, interactive and inclusive.

The Priority Principles reflect the philosophy of the Youth Caucus; they are a frame of reference for the actions it undertakes at CSD-17. This means that whenever the youth at CSD speaks up, supports initiatives or undertakes action it derives from these Priority Principles. The principles are the Youth Caucus' foundation.

Since the Youth Caucus represents children and youth from all over the world, it should listen to the voices of all children and youth.

These Priority Principles were defined through a participatory, interactive and inclusive process.

The process was facilitated by the Youth Caucus' Steering Committee members. They ensured that the process was participatory; ensuring that everyone interested could take a part, be consulted and engage in discussions. The Youth Caucus members present here do not have the exclusive right to make decisions without the prior consultation of their peers.

The main tools that have been used are web tools such as the e-mail listserve (with approximately 1600 subscribers), the website (www.youen.org), Google Docs, online voting systems, Twitter, etc. These transparent tools helped with reaching as many youth as possible, but still full representation remains an ideal that the Youth Caucus will continue to strive for.

6

The Priority Principles listed below are not limited to issues concerning youth; they are the issues that youth are concerned with.

The youth present at this CSD session look forward to hearing from you, explaining the Priority Principles and engaging in a constructive discussion on this cycle's themes.

• Eliminate hazardous & exploitative child labour in the agricultural sector by ensuring fair prices for farmers and access to education for children in rural areas.

• Investing in infrastructure is not a goal in itself but a means towards a humancentred development, with particular emphasis on Africa and its potential as a positive and constructive voice in sustainable development.

• Young farmers should gain access to financial facilities such as micro-credits and micro-savings combined with training and capacity building to improve market access.

• Education for sustainable development should be mainstreamed into primary

education and strengthened through non-formal, experiential education.

• Particular attention should be placed on improving gender equality and ensuring that equity – at all levels – is attained.

• Emphasise the need to involve local communities – particularly youth, women, indigenous people and vulnerable groups – in sustainable development initiatives, recognising that their full emancipation is a prerequisite for sustainable development.

• Invest in, facilitate and further strengthen an enabling environment for youth and youth organisations to fully and effectively participate in society. This includes, but is not limited to, involving more youth into official national delegations to the Commission on Sustainable Development and other UN commissions, particularly for developing countries.

Contact the Youth Caucus at csd17@youen.org, www.youen.org, or talk to Youth Caucus members; they wear badges.

Outreach Issues

Desertification in Drylands When your life depends on how words are understood.

By: Patrice Burger, Association CARI

Desertification is about degradation of land under the impact of climate change in one hand, the impact of human activities especially agriculture in the other. Desertification occurs in drylands but it also occurs in areas broader than only drylands. It is well know that drought and false rural development are major drivers of desertification. As it imposes itself and impacts the basis of all life, desertification has been mentioned by scientist as a public good .

This said, desertification has been neglected by decision makers, probably because the voices of the poor do not have any audience in terms of power, or profit, or simply members of human kind. Nevertheless no situation is established forever and things can change.

is also a struggle for hope and dignity for too many people in the world.

In what way is our behavior intelligent for the present and the future?

Unfortunately the current trend in the flow of investment in drylands, of agriculture practices and policies, of rural development, of climate change, often of drylands governance, will all increase the level of desertification. They are not addressing the root cause, nor developing innovative policy solutions. The result is a global economic loss, which can be valued up to 10 % per year according to some countries,. Other affects include growing costs and impacts on peace and insecurity, which is multiplied by illegal migrations. And more fundamentally a growing feeling of absence of any form of justice.

The UNCCD provides an international framework for the implementation of agriculture and natural resource management policies and investment to combat desertification. This has been agreed to by 193 states but 10 years after its adoption and 8 conferences of the Parties, desertification has increased and the people living with the consequences has risen.

In order to solve a problem first you have to recognize there is one. As we know the problem, as we have the instrument, as we are taking the decisions at CSD17 to enable the environment, are we allowed to only add words to words? Certainly not. The time has come to implement solutions, to make concrete decisions, to remove the brackets and take action.

The process of desertification results in a huge pressure on future generations and already affects the life of 1.5 billion people in the world ; their land, their homes, their way of life, are disappearing under their feet.

These communities are not here at CSD17, but they would like to hear something from CSD17 in order to believe that the delegates of the nations gathered here are their representatives. Also in order to have at least one reason to invest in where they live, and plan for their children’s futures.

Speaking about desertification requires speaking about agriculture, rural development, drought and water management.

Combating desertification is at its most fundamental about adapting agriculture practices, rural development and natural resources management to the natural constraints of drylands and minimizing the negative human pressure on this natural resources. Finally combating desertification

7

Outreach Issues

Questions from Major Groups to Delegates The Ministerial Dialogue with Representatives of the Major Groups and UN System 12 May 2009, 10:00 am – 1:00 pm, Conference room 6 One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making (Agenda 21, Section III, Chapter 23.2)

This note on the dialogue session presents an overview of the methodologies for the session. It includes questions by the Major Groups that will be asked of the governments. Ministers, Major Groups and UN System representatives may choose to address any of these questions. Participants may address any aspects of the issues they think relevant to the discussions.

[This is a shortened version. For the full text see http://tinyurl.com/pf8745 .]

Format and Focus The dialogue session will be informal and there will be no delivery of official statements.

Opening remarks: 15 minutes The session will be opened with general remarks by the Chairperson, followed by a statement from Ms. Mayanja, DESA Assistant Secretary-General. The Chairperson will then introduce the format of the dialogue.

Part I: Presentations from the Nine Major Groups sectors (approximately 50 minutes) During the first half of the session, each of the nine Major Groups’ sectors will make 3-minute presentations on their priorities for advancing implementation. The order of the sectors will be as follows: • Women • Children and Youth • Indigenous Peoples • NGOs • Local Authorities • Workers and Trade Unions • Business and Industry • Scientific and Technological Community • Farmers Presentations will be followed by approximately 20 minutes of discussion guided and moderated by the Chair, including responses from Ministers and representatives of UN entities. Interventions during discussion will be limited to 3 minutes.

Part II: Substantive Discussion on Issue Clusters (approximately 100 minutes) .During the second half of the session, four specific issues from multiple major groups’ sectors will be discussed in depth. Each multi-sectoral presentation will be 5 minutes long and focus on the following topics: • Farming First • Rural Development • Urban-Rural Linkages for Food Security and Vibrant Market • Secure land tenure and water rights

Continues on page 9 8

Outreach Issues

QUESTIONS FROM MAJOR GROUPS TO DELEGATES The following questions are a result of deliberation among major groups over the weekend.

•

A large number of countries have re-iterated the Paris declaration; more and more countries are giving budget support to national governments. We are wondering how it can be assured, that governments will decentralise funds to local authorities and CSOs/NGOs especially in rural areas and/ or get direct access to ODA funding to effectively take their development in their own hands?

•

Rural development implies community development, institutional strengthening of CSOs/NGOs and local authorities and participatory strategies; these are long term processes. The way financing and monitoring criteria are formulated at the moment does not allow for long-term investment and is only measuring quantity. Are governments willing to support the development of process and quality criteria to allow for CSOs/NGOs to work on sustainable long-term development and support initiatives of Major Groups to that effect?

•

Availability of infrastructure such as transport and information technologies but also basic services including water, energy, education and health care are needed; this implies that smaller scale made-to-measure investment and delegation of responsibilities is needed. Are there good examples to follow and countries who have actually adapted their national policies to make that possible?

•

Are governments supportive of the idea to pay people living in rural areas for eco-services as an alternative for economic activity?

•

We all realize that the most successful rural development projects are those that rural communities have taken ownership of. Given this, what concrete measures are you taking in your respective countries to ensure that development initiatives are inclusive of local peoples?

•

How can we move forward in establishing favorable conditions for secure land tenure and rights to land, particularly for women, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups?

•

How can African governments ensure that trust lands are not alienated and given to private parties, and that traditional, customary resource use and management will be respected on government lands.

•

Will governments recognize the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including the rights of women, and guarantee that they will not be forcibly displaced to give way for economic and environmental projects?

9 7

Outreach Issues

QUESTIONS FROM MAJOR GROUPS TO DELEGATES — CONTINUED •

How can local governments ensure the full and effective participation of local communities in decision-making about sustainable agriculture and rural development and ecosystem management?

•

In response to the continuing food crisis, governments are called upon to invest in sustainable agriculture and rural development. How can such investment be directed to the most vulnerable communities in developing countries, building new market infrastructure for local agriculture, truly supporting small family farmers, and not just benefiting large multinational food and agriculture businesses?

•

Considering the damage to the land and ecology caused by biotechnology and GM crops, what are the mechanisms that you will put in place for a new sustainable green revolution to ensure protection of essential resources for long term and sustainable agricultural and livestock practices?

•

Recognition has been given to the value of indigenous and local knowledge in agricultural practices. How can that knowledge be mainstreamed into educational and training institutions and extension services, such that it is given the legitimacy it deserves and informs agricultural plans and policies?

•

It is now widely accepted that aid conditionalities, and especially structural adjustment policies, have destroyed safety nets, with the effect of plunging people into poverty, especially in rural areas, leaving them without adequate food or social services. Given the uncertainties of agricultural and livestock production, basic services are essential to rural development. How do you intend to ensure that populations have those services such that their basic needs are met?

•

Considering that protectionist trade policies are one of the root causes of the economic crisis, how do you intend to ensure that agricultural and agricultural related products from the developing world have equal access to international markets?

•

Given the fact that urban centers can be powerful engines for rural development, how can national governments enable cities and other local authorities to partner with major groups to strengthen food security and social protection programs?

•

How can extensive livestock pastoral systems in Africa, Asia and Latin America be given greater attention for the carbon sequestration they provide, and be included in both policy and programmatic outcomes of CSD?

10

Outreach Issues

Live from the CSD By: Sharon Shattuck, Stakeholder Forum

EARTH TALK: Biofuels are liquid fuels made from biomass – recently living organisms or their metabolic by-products. They are considered “green” because they are renewable, as opposed to nonrenewable fossil fuels. But for all their green connotations, Biofuels have generated heated discussion in recent years, even being accused of driving food prices up around the world and causing deforestation in tropical regions. Can biofuels be used sustainably?

What opportunities could they provide for farmers and for the planet? On today’s edition of Earth Talk, host Catherine

Karong’o talks to youth delegates Kevin Tan and Mechaila Okhengbon to shed some light on the subject.

PIONEERS OF THE PLANET: Kartikeya Sarabhai is a famous environmentalist and industrialist from the Sarabhai family in India. He is a member of the Earth Charter International Council and has written

“The issues of the planet cannot be solved through technology alone -- or through laws.”

http://media.stakeholderforum.org

and spoken extensively on environment, education and related subjects, and was awarded the prestigious Tree of Learning in 1998 for his work in environmental education and communication. On today’s edition of Pioneers of the Planet, Mr. Sarabhai talks with host Catherine Karong’o about the need for communication and education in the environmental arena, in India and beyond.

In Today at the CSD, Catherine Karong’o talks to Bureau member, Anna Bianchi, and CSD Chair, Gerda Verburg, for an update on the status of the negotiations at the end of the first week. She hears from delegates from South Africa and the DR Congo to learn of their interpretation of some of the key issues that are emerging in the discussions.

In addition, Brett Israel presents a special feature on the possibilities that gene banks offer to preserve biodiversity, and the team investigates the potential of biochar for storing carbon.

Kevin Tan and Mechaila Okhengbon. Photo by Lisa Develtere.

11 7

Outreach Issues

Food for Thought…

Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

“The Tulip Bubble” I had always wondered where economic bubbles come from. So it was very interesting to read in the Economist the other day that they actually originated in the Netherlands. Our present financial system is actually based on one developed by the Netherlands and then copied by the UK and expanded through their empire. It does seem appropriate to be discussing this with a Dutch Chair of the CSD with us in New Amsterdam in the province of New Netherlands.

Tulips were introduced into Holland in the mid-16th century from the Ottoman Empire. Very soon afterwards there was ‘tulip mania’, leading to the first economic bubble. At its height, tulip contracts sold for 10 times the annual income of skilled craftsman. Speculation on the price going up saw masses of people buying or becoming involved in ‘bulb futures’, which helped to create a tulip bubble.

It is alleged that a single bulb of the Viceroy type could be traded for: four fat oxen, two right fat swine, twelve fat sheep, two hogsheads of wine (my

favourite), two lasts of wheat, four lasts of rye, four tons of beer, two tons of butter, 1000 lbs of cheese, a suit of clothes, a silver drinking cup and a complete bed. Now that is a lot to take into the local bulb shop. Eventually this ‘tulip bubble burst when the demand collapsed’. People were left holding bulbs that had cost them 10 times the amount the market was now selling them for.

The Tulip bubble was the first, but as we know history is littered with other examples of how the economic system that we have built doesn’t work. If you are interested, then have a look at some of the other bubbles: Mississippi Company (1720), the Florida speculation building bubble (1926), the 1920s American economic bubble, the dotcom bubble, the Asian Financial Crisis and the real estate bubble we are experiencing now. There are of course the less well-known bubbles such as the sports card bubble, the comic book bubble (one I cared about a lot) and the TY Beanie Babies bubble, which didn’t hit so many people.

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

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

Daily Editor: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum Design and Layout: Erol Hofmans, ANPED Contributing writers: Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation, Indigenous Peoples Major Group

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

Lisa Develtere, Belgian Youth Delegate Patrice Burger, Association CARI Sharon Shattuck, Stakeholder Forum

12

So perhaps the time has really come for a serious look at the financial mechanisms that we seem to have created out of the Dutch model. A green financial system might look a lot different but how can we create the new model while working within the present globalised economic system? Should this be one of the challenges for Rio+20?

If not, then what will be the next bubble?

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

Annabella Rosemberg, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) Ivana Savic, Youth Caucus' Advocacy Coordinator

The 17th century was a difficult time for our Dutch friends, not only because of the tulip crash of 1637, but also being annexed by the British in 1664, when New Amsterdam became New York.