CSD 17 Day 10 - 14 May 2009

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

CSD 17 Outcome Guarantees a Sustainable Future for the Globe

FRIDAY May 15, 2009

Inside this Issue: CSD 17 Outcome Guarantees a Sustainable Future for the Globe

1

The Marrakech Process

3

Nadine Gouzée: Champion of Sustainable Consumption and Production

4

The Need for IWRM

5

Take the CSD Back Home!

6

There Is No Silver Bullet: The Three E’s

7

New Clothes for the Emperor?

8

UNFCCC Crossword

9

Saturday, May 16.

Progressive! Forward looking! A sustainable future is guaranteed! What had seemed an impenetrable wall of intransigent positions a few days ago, was solved during the final day of negotiation at CSD.

Rio+20

10

Live from the CSD

11

Respect for usage and definitions for sustainable development.

Food for Thought...

12

The agreements between the governments now expressed in the CSD 17 outcome document have in a miraculous way gone much farther than the most critical major group representative could have imagined a few days ago. Sustainable development and ecosystem services are given their proper understanding and due reference has been made to agreed language from earlier UN conferences on relevant sustainable development themes. What seemed to begin a week ago as a serious of misunderstandings and political bickering over definitions of sustainable development, have now been solved in a constructive manner. Delegates have agreed that as this definition is one of the true contributions from the UN system to a global set of norms and

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.

values, they would not mix the definition with regular political negotiations.

Sometime between late Thursday evening and early Friday morning delegates reached a nocturnal agreement during one of the informal informals simply stating they would rather make sure that the policy directives emanating from the discussion met the standards of sustainable development than obfuscating what is the hallmark of CSD: sustainability. As a tired but happy delegate expressed it: ‘The deep understanding and respect the CSD 17 delegates here have shown for crucial definitions protecting the environment and guaranteeing social equity and a stable economy, clearly demonstrates that the way forward to a sustainable future now is guaranteed for the duration of this century’.

The system of negotiations well respected.

The outcome sounds almost like a dream come true: sustainable green agriculture will be the dominant agricultural standards in every UN Continues on page 2

1

Outreach Issues

member nation, and is now the answer to increased agricultural output that will adequately meet the food crisis without harming and exhausting the land resources it depends on. The contentious issues concerning trade distorting subsidies have been moved out of the CSD discussions and onto the WTO discussion where they truly belong. And the somewhat heated debate on climate change issues had cooled down and though mentioned in a chapeau, has been wisely deferred to the climate negotiations which will continue in Bonn in a few weeks.

‘After all’, our smiling but tired and dreamlike delegate friend quietly said, ‘we have developed a system within this miraculous intergovernmental institution of the UN where we have divided up themes into various negotiating clusters, policy assessment issues and so on. Every delegate knows this. And you know, ‘he said knowingly,’ if the delegates did not understand the system or respected it, they would not be welcome here at CSD in these serious negotiations. We would simply send them back to their capitals for some field experience. Sustainable development issues are too serious and should not be played with.

The text cleaned up by wise delegates.

Cleaning up texts is an art in itself, and only the seasoned, trained and wise delegates are allowed to work on these serious issues. New or inexperienced delegates, often overly eager to do a good job, tend to overload text with relevant and irrelevant suggestions or mix up language. This was indeed the case at the beginning of the second week of CSD when the negotiated text had grown from 17 to almost 80 pages. ‘Some of these juniors are not aware of the function of the IPM’ one of these wise text gurus said. ‘We all know that the IPM’s primary function is to take the best and most important issues from the Review Session and distil it into a negotiable document at the IPM. Where we disagree, or need advice from the capitals, we bracket texts. All this is done at the IPM, and everybody respects this.

Then we come back after having consulted

2

wisely over time, and use the CSD in May to negotiate a solution to our differences.

But if you are new to the system, perhaps young and eager, you might easily think you have been given a superior mandate over these procedural rules and come up with new issues and new text at CSD. The ultimate danger of doing this is to make CSD into a ridiculous system, and diminish the importance of sustainable development. And I know that no one here at the CSD has that in mind. By accident, this is what happened over the week end,’ our delegate friend said. ‘But you know, wisdom, knowledge and reason have now taken the upper hand and serious representatives from G-77, EU, JUSCANZ have sat down and solved it.”

Implementation also solved.

Implementation issues had for a small time become a contentious issue, and for a day or so it had appeared as if G-77 had inserted ‘implementation’ everywhere. It seemed as if it had become synonymous with an unbridled demand for more money for economic development, with a blatant disregard for sustainability criteria. But now G-77 have deleted most of these demands and according to the well understood and respected modalities and methodologies of CSD allowed this issue to be deferred to development negotiations where it really belongs.

A debate over the Marrakech process

seemed for a while to go off in a wrong direction when some nations claimed SCP – sustainable consumption and production - were of no concern to them, as poverty prevented them from taking such issues serious. But a positive approach to sustainable consumption and clean production might solve this issue as well.

And even if many of the so-called interlinkages issues caused some consternation, the spirit of close cooperation and deep desire to safeguard sustainable development in this world have prevailed.

‘You know’, our dreamy delegate friend said – ‘we delegates are not ignorant of the subtleties of sustainable development, its true meaning, the importance of contexts. We know what we are doing and we all want sustainable development and strengthen CSD.’ This was not wishful thinking?

I drew a sigh of relief. I must say, the delegates had me worried for a time.

I had really nourished serious suspicions over motives that I thought some delegates held. For a moment I had thought that many had done their utmost to derail sustainable development and CSD. I am glad I am proven wrong on my part and that this article is not wishful thinking. Right?

— jgs

Outreach Issues

The Marrakech Process By: Bjarne Pedersen, Director of Operations, Consumers International

There will be several inputs from the Marrakech process to CSD 18-19 both in the form of regional consultations (prior to the CSD Regional Implementation Meetings (RIM’s)), as well as the 10YFP mentioned above. As a first step in the convergence between the Marrakech process and the CSD 18-19 a draft of this framework has just been released for public consultation by UNEP and UN DESA and it is imperative that civil society and the Major Groups takes this early opportunity to influence CSD 18-19 by commenting on the framework. More information about the framework and the consultation can be found at

"The major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment are the unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, particularly in industrialised countries, which is a matter of grave concern, aggravating poverty and imbalances."

(Agenda 21 (Chap. 4.3), Earth Summit, Rio 1992) We all know it: Unsustainable patterns of production and consumption are having grave social and environmental impacts worldwide. Current consumption and production patterns have far-reaching negative consequences for ecosystems and human lives and we should be acting swiftly to change this. As an example many citizens, particularly in the developing world, are dealing with the effects of climate change already and despite of global recognition of the problem, there is a lack of effective action and energy intensive behaviour patterns continue.

The impact of unsustainable patterns of consumption and production on food supply chains, water service provision and utilities for example, is being felt in devastating proportions for many citizens in developing countries. A united response is required, following the established principle of solidarity demanding action from businesses, governments and international institutions to dramatically reduce our ecological footprint.

There are many proposals already on the table. The financial crisis sparked a global discussion on the need for a paradigm shift towards a global ‘green economy’ supporting already agreed proposals and processes such as the ‘CSD process’, the ‘Marrakech Process’ and the negotiations under the UN framework convention on climate change. Yet, the overall progress has been slow and the next CSD cycle can (or maybe rather should) be critical in facilitating the needed paradigm shift to a low-carbon, green and development-focused agenda.

For a start: two billion consumers worldwide need increased access to energy (but in a sustainable manner) while at the same time, consumption that is already energy intensive (mainly in developed countries) needs to be changed. The joint solution to these problems is to provide sustainable access to energy for those who currently have little access while consuming less energy (and more energy from renewable energy sources) and in a different manner in key sectors like housing, transport and food.

Moving forward; The next CSD cycle and SCP One of the 5 themes for the next CSD cycle is sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and is as such key to moving this issue forward. A central element of the SCP theme will be a relatively unknown process “The Marrakech Process”.

The Marrakech Process was launched in 2003 to build political support for the implementation of SCP and to provide input for CSD 1819. The Marrakech Process is a global process to support the elaboration of a 10-Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on sustainable consumption and production, as called for by the WSSD Johannesburg Plan of Action. It is meant to help countries in their efforts towards encouraging consumers to adopt more sustainable lifestyles, facilitate a move towards green economies and to help corporations develop sustainable business models.

http://www.unep.fr/scp/marrakech or http://esa.un.org/marrakechprocess and all organisations are invited to comment.

The last two cycles of the CSD has been less than encouraging in terms of concrete commitments and actions as per “Outreach Issues” of yesterday. Moving forward the issue of SCP will be central to making the CSD count in terms of commitment and action. As SCP was one of the most disputed issues of the WSSD this is not going to be an easy task – on the other hand the next CSD cycle starts now and it is key that we move the agenda of SCP swiftly forward by taking the opportunities to get involved, that both the CSD and the Marrakech process offers.

After all; making SCP real requires empowerment of all to take effective action. Such action is dependent on regulation, international negotiations and infrastructure changes. Citizens cannot act alone and nor can or should they bear the impact of unsustainable consumption and production in the blatant absence of international and national action and commitments. The last CSD cycles have not resulted in substantial action or commitments. It is crucial that CSD 18-19 changes that, moves away from token and watered down statements and makes a real difference.

Bjarne Pedersen, Director of Operations, Consumers International www.consumersinternational.org 3

Outreach Issues

Nadine Gouzée: Champion of Sustainable Consumption and Production Nadine has been involved in the CSD process for a number of years since she was special adviser on Energy and Fiscal Policy to the Belgium ministerial delegate at Rio in 1992. She relates how at the Rio conference there was a genuine optimism that real change could happen, especially in relation to Energy, including discussion on global tax on Energy as a possible way of internalising environmental externalities, at the Global level.

By: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum

such a long wait. The EU had been keen to have the issue discussed sooner.

Although this iniative ultimately failed, many important ideas where discussed and debated. The ideas and commitments of sustainable development where firmly placed on the world table.

A global sustainable development process for an increasingly globalised world. The EU has been actively engaged in all CSD meetings and sees the process as a fundamental way of engaging with other stakeholders and setting the path for a sustainable future.

Since Rio, progress has been made, governments, civil society and the public have recognised the importance of integrating social and environmental impacts and goals within their strategic plans.

There has been progress on implementation especially at the institutional level, but there are still obstacles. The speed and rhythm of the change has been slow, and the current crises cannot be solved by slow implementation.

There are a number of trends which require attention for example in access to food, water, energy, working conditions, habitat conditions, biodiversity loss… All these require a long term view point. A view point that is potentially being obscured by Climate Change talks, although Climate Change negotiations, are extremely important too. But its dominant position within the environmental agenda can be detrimental to other concerns. Climate Change should be part of the 4

Nadine, who’s background is in Economics, believes the economic component is as much needed as the environmental and social components of sustainable development. Their coherent implementation requires a shared vision across the integrated development of these components.

However economic horizon for decision making is generally more or less in 5 year terms, social horizon is in one generation while environmental is minimum 50-100 years. Nadine states that Sustainable Development is about reconciling these three horizons in sound decision making.

Nadine Gouzée

Sustainable Development process not the other way around.

Sustainable Development offers the ability to look at issues in a cross cutting way.

The Commission on Sustainable Development offers the chance to discuss and negotiate interlinkages and delivering between synergies.

Changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns is one of the 5 main issues to be discussed in the next cycle. It is surprising that it is only after such a long time that 1 of the 3 over arching objectives of the JPOI, is finally on the table for discussion. It is quite a paradox that there has been

When I asked Nadine about the CSD in the future, she said there were two options, and both can be taken with a positive viewpoint. One is that the CSD continues to function. The role of the commission is unique. It offers the chance for all stakeholders to create a global vision of Sustainable Development, of a global future based on common goals. The other option is that those people, both governments and civil society who are committed to the ideals of Sustainable Development, create a new movement, which helps reinvigorate the process. The CSD community can deliver it. She has the real capacity to imagine an enabling environment where future generations can lead sustainable healthy lives.

Outreach Issues

The Need for IWRM The decision to schedule a roundtable on Integrated Land and Water Resources Management during the High Level Segment of CSD17 represented a welcome move towards a more substantive discussion of the role of water in relation to the other thematic issues. If there is one issue that can be seen as integral to every theme under discussion here at CSD17, it is water, its availability, quality and quantity. As such the conversations in the roundtable were eagerly anticipated by those focussing on water and land management issues.

By: Hannah Stoddart, Stakeholder Forum

Yet the anticipated level of dialogue, at least in Conference Room 6, unfortunately never really materialized. Firstly delegates seemed unwilling to abandon prepared statements, or to build on each other’s comments to generate a genuine dialogue. Secondly, there appeared to be a reluctance to engage with integrated land and water resources management as a holistic concept, and the lack of in-depth engagement should be a cause for disappointment and concern among the water community.

Some interesting points were raised by a number of delegates. Denmark shared the five principles that have emerged from the Dialogue on Land and Water Management for Climate Change Adaptation, which offer an extremely useful framework for guiding discussions into Copenhagen. Burkina Faso followed suit as a country who has engaged heavily in those dialogues. The Netherlands helpfully introduced a (lone) call for the right to water and sanitation services, as well as the need to ratify the UN Watercourses Convention. However, all-too-often the discussions strayed into areas that did not grapple effectively with the issues. Much time was dedicated to the issue of land tenure and security without many insights on land-use. Some interventions went completely off-topic.

It seems a shame that whilst water management has been given only cursory attention in the main working groups, a whole plethora of other issues managed to make their way into the one space that was that was supposedly dedicated to integrated water

and land management. The real questions that should have been addressed during the Roundtable, and for which UNDESA helpfully gave much food for thought in their briefing note, were unfortunately sidelined – how to manage water to preserve land quality, how to manage water among competing users, how to guarantee ecosystem and climate resilience through water management, and, perhaps most importantly considering the level of the discussions, how to enhance understanding of and capacity to implement IWRM. The Freshwater Caucus together produced a statement that was distributed ahead of the Roundtables, which identified some of the points that we hoped would be raised or discussed by the delegates. It called for a recognition that we are facing nothing short of a water crisis, with the proportion of the world’s population living in areas of water stress predicted to rise to 47% by 2030. If we are to address this crisis with anything near the level of urgency that seems to have been

generated around the food crisis, we need to radically re-think the way water is used and managed, especially in the context of rising demand in the agricultural sector coinciding with diminishing availability in certain regions. Recognising these drivers of pressures on our water systems, which stand to be exacerbated by climate change, we need to reappraise water rights allocation systems, guaranteeing minimum environmental flows and prioritising human and ecosystem needs ahead of other demands in response to water scarcity. This principle is inherent in the IWRM approach, and yet despite the Freshwater Caucus drafting numerous statements and text amendments over the course of the past two weeks, the importance of environmental flows has found little traction among delegates.

The Freshwater Caucus called for strengthened institutions on the riverbasin and transboundary level, and for enhanced efforts and education to translate the technical concept of IWRM into everyday terms for a range of stakeholders. The need for equitable and environmentally sensitive transboundary management arrangements was also highlighted.

An overarching concern among the water community is that decisions which have huge impacts on water resources continue to made ‘outside the water box’. The profoundly enlightening World Water Development Report, launched just a few months ago, emphasises this problem as one of its key messages.

5 7

Outreach Issues

Take the CSD Back Home!

By: Leida Rijnhout, Flemish Platform for Sustainable Development (VODO)

It seems to get worse every year. Listening to all the discussions, one is confronted with the cruel reality that a lot of delegates are not aware of the history and importance of Agenda 21 or Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and the ongoing and complex processes in sustainable development. A lot of the concepts, working and agreed upon language within CSD is not even known! Sometimes I really do ask myself if delegates have read Agenda 21, if they know any of the basic principles and if they are aware of the promises they made in Johannesburg, the (few) targets they even agreed or even the role of the CSD within the UN-institutions. More and more, and we have to walk with our heads hung low, ashamed as the CSD has become a follower for other UN-negotiations, rather than a leader in setting an overall framework, with strong ethical and moral principles, as a guide for governmental policy. To be a leader you need a strong vision, and thus strong national delegations and major groups.

Collective memory and knowledge of agreed language is a necessary precondition, if you want progress in the process at the CSD. So you need professional experts on sustainable development, which takes time and experience. Sustainable development is much more complex than most of the underlying thematic issues. It requires an integrated and holistic approach that you only will even slightly understand after years of working in these matters.

It is very important that every country, region and city has experts on sustainable development for implementation of Agenda 21 and JPOI at the different scales. Being here and talking is not enough. So sustainable development needs to be institutionalised at the different levels.

A legal framework will guarantee the institutionalisation of these processes.

6

“Collective memory and knowledge of agreed language is a necessary precondition, if you want progress in the process at the CSD.�

Belgium for example has recently integrated sustainable development in their constitution, but even before then, since 1997 there exists an entire structure (by law) for the institutionalisation.

This forced the various public administrations to integrate sustainable development into their work, formed a federal council on sustainable development, required federal planning and monitoring on sustainable development and last but not least a ministerial responsibility for sustainable development. That helps to create a large group of people (also within the major groups) as experts on sustainable development. Capacity building and experience is then continuous with this institutionalisation. And of course national strategies for sustainable development will have more success, as you have a specific administration that is responsible and accountable for its implementation.

But it also avoids the problem, that every year a government or major group sends a total new delegation to New York. Mostly a group of thematic experts, for the issues handled during that cycle. This means there is no common understanding, no common language, no knowledge on Agenda 21 or JPOI. The best and most productive delegations would be a small core group of sustainable development experts, supported by thematic experts. That guarantees an ongoing and most of all a process with forward momentum, instead of days filled with old discussions on issues which were discussed already. Of course this will also deliver a better understanding of the interlinkages and cross cutting issues.

If the CSD wants to play a leadership role in global governance, we recommend the delegates take the principles of sustainable development back home, make it institutional and train a group of politicians, diplomats, public servants, key persons in civil society, journalists, ... in your country.

Especially for the next cycle, where sustainable production and consumption is a necessary outcome, and there is a strong need for more people with a broad and open view for long term analyses and the capacity to connect the interlinkages and to understand complex issues.

Outreach Issues

There Is No Silver Bullet: The Three E’s The notion of diverse stakeholder engagement and protecting the health of humans and natural systems has been with us for some time. As human development and economic security loom large on the horizon, policy is being directly and indirectly reshaped to do more “for” people, not “to” them: at the global level to the local level, tapping into traditional, community, local, and indigenous peoples’ knowledge.

By: P.J. Puntenney, Education Caucus Coordinator

meet the challenge of creating both a learning society and a framework that achieves human and environmental security. First is the human capacity for ingenuity and the intellectual energy that can devise solutions to a problem and improve well-being. Secondly, through engaging people in sustainable development so that everyone gains experiential knowledge around protecting ecosystems, environmental education and sustainable practices, we may avert the possibility of a collapse in public support for any form of effective action on policy.

The thematic issues being addressed in the CSD 17 Policy Session are interdependent and of such complexity, that attempts to ameliorate one issue can exacerbate another and worsen the situation as a whole. Meeting the challenges of food security, climate change, and sustainable livelihoods requires a firm commitment to effectively protect ecosystems.

There is no silver bullet. Achieving policy coherence - including coherence of donor support - depends upon understanding where we are, what’s working, what’s not, and what are the options and opportunities at all levels of engagement.

The over-arching objective of eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable systems of living is integrally linked to The Three E’s: Environment, Education, and the Engagement of civil society.

Rethinking Environmental Education and Sustainability Policy The tone of the negotiations has shifted towards revisions that acknowledge the value of engaging diverse stakeholders who directly face the impacts of degraded ecosystems. The complex and imperfectly understood global issues - such as climate change, water and sanitation, biodiversity loss, food security, poverty reduction, and rural and urban systems - demand a profound understanding of their integration within social-cultural systems, and their on-going development. Failure to hold environmental education and sustainability in the final text will exact an even higher price from society but especially from the poor and vulnerable populations, undermining capacity building efforts for women, the elderly, youth and children, indigenous peoples, local communities, and workers that will lead to

sustainable communities and sustainable livelihoods.

Before the environment was positioned on the global political agenda, development strategies were driven by the social and economic components, and the failure rates were high. The ecosystem interface is non-negotiable, requiring implementation strategies that heed the limitations of human knowledge in terms of management and application. The common ground - global responsibilities linked to local realities - necessitates strong policy options and implementation strategies that are knowledge-based and incorporate: (A) the precautionary principle (B) ecoeffectiveness as the measure of real success, and (C) the Agenda 21 Principle #7, “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.”

Linking Knowledge Sharing and Action to Meeting the Realities of the Future It has become clear that most government delegates and civil society organizations benefit from briefings and training seminars regarding ecosystems, their protection, approaches and methodologies. There are strong grounds for hope to

A rapidly changing context demands methodologies and indicators that lay the basis for adaptive, flexible and responsive management regimes. Policies and actions in this area do not match the realities on the ground: for their very existence, local communities have to engage in highly complex decision-making in response to changing ecosystem conditions. An informed polity and informed civil society require actions that go well beyond compliance and controlling behavior.

Sustainable development requires a foundation built upon an organizational learning model to implement eco-effective policy-making, planning, and implementation of national, regional, and global priorities. This is where we need to identify what governments, international organizations, and civil society organizations are doing about environmental education and sustainability that support environmental security and human development.

Annual Ministerial Review 2008, Stakeholder Input on Environmental Services. http://amr.stakeholderforum.org/ fileadmin/files/AMR_2008/ PES_Statement_1st_July_2008.pdf 7

Outreach Issues

New Clothes for the Emperor?

By: Patrice Burger (CARI - France), Nathalie van Haren (Both ENDS – The Netherlands) Lauren Naville Gisnås (The Drylands Coordination Group - Norway)

Arriving at the end of the CSD17 session, we observe that the outcome, if any, is still far away from being a tool for change towards sustainable development. Despite the reassuring declarations of many heads of state to refrain from business as usual, CSD17 seems to be missing a historical opportunity. It is an urgent time to examine the intermediate results in the context of current crisis and emergencies.

There is already so much text in so many multilateral agreements. Where are the concrete plans of implementation and, even better, where are the actual actions coming out of these texts? The original text has grown from 17 pages to 120 pages with many new details but where an important adjective is being bracketed (sustainable in front of agriculture). To refer to the well-known fairy tale: the emperor is still naked!

The UNCCD has been recognised and confirmed as the main framework for the implementation of sustainable development in drylands. But 12 years after being entered in force, this convention is still poorly supported and as a consequence national action plans (NAPs) are poorly implemented. Agriculture and pastoralism in drylands consist of small-scale activities, but feed the people living in these drylands. The reality is that most poor countries cannot afford to implement all the UNCCD policies. What is needed are concrete commitments and actions through cooperation, both South-South and South-North cooperation.

With regard to small-scale farmers, governments have done little to enable any real improvement in their livelihoods.

The zealous call for public private partnership will remain an illusion as long as 8

Photo: ”Drought” by RRI Images @ Flickr

“What is needed are concrete commitments and actions through cooperation, both South-South and South-North cooperation.” public policies are not able to guarantee a stable environment for these investments.

Keys to food security and food sovereignty are small-scale farmers, a greater focus on people living in drylands, and sustainable agriculture. It is likely, that without any concrete commitment by governments to actions and support, it will remain a general and generous declaration. To paraphrase the Namibian Minister Mrs. Nandi-Ndaitwah: ‘when there are no resources, we keep the same implementation of decisions as in the past…’

Not all parties have the same notion or interpretation of certain concepts in terms of content, range and scope.

‘Desertification’, ‘sustainable’ or ‘double’ Green Revolution lack a shared definition which leads to false expectations.

The same story applies to protectionism and subsidies for agriculture. Recent history teaches us that Europe and the USA have developed their strong competitive position in agriculture behind trade barriers which today would be considered as ‘protectionist’ by themselves! Let us remind ourselves that in 1948, the USA struggled to keep agriculture out of the GATT. But what is the legitimacy of these countries to deny small-scale farmers in other parts of the world their own recipe of training, technical support, credit, appropriate technology and the guarantee that the agricultural produce will be bought at a fair price?

As for the negotiations, roundtables and dialogues, it was difficult to observe concrete steps for a paradigm shift towards a people-centred green society.

Parties reverted constantly to their own topics. There seems no concrete action plan, nor ways of financing these ambitious aspirations: old wine in new bottles; it is far from the anticipated steps forward. The Emperor is indeed naked to the elements.

Outreach Issues

9 7

Outreach Issues

Rio+20 By: Joanna Dafoe, Sierra Youth Coalition

Based on the recent number of articles on Rio+20 in Outreach Issues, it may now be evident that the prospect of a 2012 Earth Summit has garnered the support of many civil society participants here at the CSD. The recent article by Anabella Rosemberg explains how a 2012 Summit can alter the existing paradigm in which the CSD operates. A 2012 Summit, according to Rosemberg, can increase public pressure, revive the spirit of social and environmental integration, and generate new and well funded government commitments. As a young person that has been involved in the CSD process, I would like to offer two additional arguments that support the movement to create a 2012 Earth Summit. First, a 2012 Summit can integrate a much-needed security dimension to the sustainable development discourse and second, a 2012 Summit can bring hope back in the multilateral process.

Security & the CSD - A relationship under-examined?

It might seem strange to consider how the CSD relates to violent social conflict or militaryrelated issues, but perhaps we ought to explore this relationship more. The nature of environmental issues has changed rapidly since the 2002 Johannesburg Summit. The food crisis, as just one example, has affected social stability in countries around the world through food riots.

In response, Ban Ki-Moon warned that the food crisis could undo the work done toward building democracies, but it could also present a historic opportunity to revisit past policies and revitalize agricultural practice. A proactive take on environmental security issues would emphasize the prevention of conflicts before they occur in the first place. Here at the CSD, we have the chance to protect the very conditions necessary for peace. The provision of healthy food, the steady supply of drinking water ‌ - these are all necessary conditions for social stability.

There is a great demand for concrete and low-cost policies that can help us prevent future resource-related conflict. The CSD process is unique for its emphasis on a holistic and integrative framework for sustainable development. Daniel Deudney, a Professor of

10

political science at Johns Hopkins University, states how most multilateral efforts compartmentalize violent conflict as something that is seperate from sustainable development.

As a result, Deundney states, "a permanent dialogue should emerge between specialists in environmental security and sustainable development." It is time we address how the work of sustainable development is also the work of world peace. It is therefore appropriate that one of the suggested titles for a 2012 Summit is "Sustainable Development The Peace of the Future."

Bringing Back Hope More than any policy consideration, though, what inspires me most about the prospect of a 2012 Summit is the simple, desperate, need for change. It is possible that a 2012 Summit can help catalyze this change. The youth caucus, as just one example, has changed considerably following the Rio and Johannesburg Summits.

It was during these Summits that our vision formed and our membership grew. While I cannot attest to this first-hand, as I busy being

six, I have heard from my basement corridor colleagues that the Rio Summit breathed life into civil society in 1992. While it is important to explore fully the policy implications of a 2012 Summit, it is also important to consider how the Summit might serve to inspire us. As the CSD-17 is ready to close, we see many dispirited and discouraged participants walking through these halls. The hope that has deflated among many of us here comes at a time we can least afford it.

It is perhaps through the perspective of a younger participant that a 2012 Earth Summit makes the most sense. Younger participants at the CSD need to be assured that the multilateral process works. We need to feel confident in the common future that was envisioned for us in 1987. In his poem The Waste Land, T.S. Eliot makes his gentle appeal that resonates with me now. In one small verse of his poem, he says it better than I. Hurry up please, it's time.

Outreach Issues

Live from the CSD

http://media.stakeholderforum.org

for that deal? Joining Richard Black on this edition of Green Table are Carsten Stauer, Denmark's ambassador to the UN; his Samoan counterpart Ali'ioaiga Feturi Elisaia; and Andrew Revkin, environment reporter with the New York Times.

By: Catherine Karong’o and Brett Israel, Stakeholder Forum

Listen to the penultimate edition of ‘Earth talk’ as Wilfred Legg, the Head of Policies and Environment Directorate at the OECD and Neth Dano of Third World Network intensely debate on the subject of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is a debate that has heated up in the last two weeks at the CSD especially due to the scale of last year’s food crisis. Many NGOs at the CSD are now calling for greater ‘food sovereignty’. But what do we mean by Food Sovereignty? Catherine Karong’o takes you through this debate with Legg and Dano who, despite agreeing on the need to end the constant food shocks, disagree on the means.

In Pioneers of the Planet we profile Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. Achim was born in Brazil in 1961 and was the former director general of IUCN before taking up his role at the UNEP. Our Greentable discussion was on the on the commonly heard demand “We must have a deal in Copenhagen" as we lurch towards the supposedly seminal UN climate conference in December. But with a new president in the Washington White House, and with world leaders' minds on restoring business in the banking sector, what prospects are there for a deal that will make a significant dent in emissions? Which countries are going to have to trade what

On Today at CSD, we bring you all the latest news and talk from the day’s discussions. In today’s episode, Merim Teniv talks with Kusum Athukorala, the communication officer of Women for Water, and David Andrews, the senior representative for Food and Water Watch, about the pros and cons of public-private partnerships and how that might affect access to water. We also hear about a mushroom farming program in Ghana, a new climate change report and we talk about communicating climate change – through theater. We bust the jargon “food sovereignty” and we explore what green space means to New Yorkers with a trip to Central Park. In live at the CSD.

11 7

Outreach Issues

Food for Thought…

Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

“The Structure of a Document” I am a huge fan of Agenda 21, but what I don’t understand is why no one else seems to be!

Well that’s not completely true; everyone says that they are fans, but a real fan gets into appreciating what an amazingly well structured document it is. A real fan looks with hope for each passing year that the Bureau will look back at that structure and say, ‘Wow, let’s use that to structure the CSD outcome’.

Sometimes, as the days become nights , as the text looks increasingly unstructured and issues aren’t being addressed effectively, some ‘fans’ can be found in the Vienna Café discussing how if only we could have a well structured document… all would be well.

Of course, this discussion also went on around the preparations for Johannesburg, another document that could have done with proper structuring. I remember some of us at Prepcom 2, having a long discussion with an un-named European delegate about the text. We were saying that if you sort out the structure, it will sort out the conversations that you need to have. They didn’t agree; look at what happened.

Stakeholder Forum’s policy coordinator during Johannesburg, Rosalie Callway, attempted to update the Agenda 21 structure. The structure of a document can be critical on a number of fronts. A well structured document: 1. Enables gaps to be clearly identified; 2. Identifies problem areas to be focused on; and 3. Allows for principles and mainstreaming to be integrated.

E DITORIAL T EAM Senior Editor: Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, ANPED Co-Editor: Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum Daily Editor: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum Design and Layout: Erol Hofmans, ANPED Contributing writers: Bjarne Pedersen, Consumers International Hannah Stoddart, Stakeholder Forum Leida Rijnhout, (VODO) P.J. Puntenney, Education Caucus Coordinator Patrice Burger, CARI Nathalie van Haren, Both ENDS Lauren Naville Gisnås, The Drylands Coordination Group Miquel Muñoz Cabré, Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future Joanna Dafoe, Sierra Youth Coalition Catherine Karong’o, Stakeholder Forum Brett Israel, Stakeholder Forum

12

Working with Stakeholder Forum’s international advisory board, she tabled this suggested approach.

Each section of the agreement should set Poverty Eradication as an overarching theme.

Furthermore the sections should mainstream the following aims: 1

Rio Principles

2

Sustainable Production and Consumption

3

Enhancing Globalisation

4

Millennium Development Goals

5

Human Rights

6

Gender Equity

7

Good Governance

Each section will be organised under the following structure: Introduction to the overarching topic: Outline general issues/problems.

A. Programme areas: Identify priority issues, e.g. renewable energy.

B. Basis for action: Chapters in Agenda 21, CSD decisions, Millennium Development Goals, setting of additional targets.

C. Objectives: For each priority issue, outline aims and purpose for action, e.g. to improve access to renewable energy, improve trade policy for energy provision, etc.

D. Activities at all levels: International to local action, touching on priorities for existing institutions, roles of stakeholders, and outlining new institutional areas.

E. Means of implementation: Including capacity building, technology sharing, education and training (targeting sustainable development).

F. Financial resources: Public (domestic and foreign, aid and investment) and Private (business, foundations, NGOs and other) resources.

G. Timetable and targets: 5, 10, 15 years.

H. Information for decision-making: Monitoring and assessing progress, Indicators, data management and provision.

Perhaps the next Bureau meeting will consider this kind of an approach.

(Edited by Aleksandra Radyuk)

Previous and today’s issues are easily available online, go to: www.sdin-ngo.net media.stakeholderforum.org

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

ANPED’s newsletter on sustainable consumption and production The Switch is ANPED's monthly newsletter on initiatives that are making the switch to a society of sustainable consumption and production. The Switch covers developments in the wide spectrum of SCP issues and includes recommended selected articles, interesting websites, and provides links to more in-depth information on new developments and publications. The Switch also keeps you updated on upcoming conferences and events.

Read current and previous issues at our website, www.anped.org

THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND SEA AND

THE BELGIUM FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (PODDO)