inside: What's next for the green economy? Partnering for the Future: Stakeholder Forum’s plans for the future
a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development
out reach. 31 July 2012
Be PaperSmart: Read Outreach online www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach
pic: NYC DOT
contents. 1
Rio+20 scorecard
3
Women’s Major Group on Rio+20: Taking stock and moving forward
4
What’s next for the green economy?
5
Sustainable Development Goals in Rio+20 and the post-2015 development agenda
5
The Road from Rio: Establishing a principal advocate for the needs and interests of future
7
Measuring what matters: Developing a coherent global framework of performance indicators
8
What happened to governance at the Summit?
10
Manifesting a future beyond Rio+20: Seeding a global citizen's movement
11
National Councils for Sustainable Development: Implementation post-Rio
12
Corporate sustainability reporting:A glimmer of hope
13
Doing more with less: Lessons learned from the CEO Water Mandate
14
Rio+20 word clouds
15
Beyond Rio+20: NGO key focus areas
16
Partnering for the Future: Stakeholder Forum’s plans for the future
18
Food for thought: Stakeholder Forum at 25
OUTREACH IS PUBLISHED BY:
About Stakeholder Forum Stakeholder Forum is an international organisation working to advance sustainable development and promote democracy at a global level. Our work aims to enhance open, accountable and participatory international decision-making on sustainable development through enhancing the involvement of stakeholders in intergovernmental processes. For more information, visit: www.stakeholderforum.org
Outreach is a multi-stakeholder publication on climate change and sustainable development. It is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena, published at various international meetings on the environment; including the UNCSD meetings (since 1997), UNEP Governing Council, UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) and World Water Week. Published as a daily edition, in both print and web form, Outreach provides a vehicle for critical analysis on key thematic topics in the sustainability arena, as well as a voice of regional and local governments, women, indigenous peoples, trade unions, industry, youth and NGOs. To fully ensure a multistakeholder perspective, we aim to engage a wide range of stakeholders for article contributions and project funding.
If you are interested in contributing to Outreach, please contact the team (jcornforth@stakeholderforum.org ) You can also follow us on Twitter: @Earthsummit2012
2
75
127
OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Felix Dodds
Stakeholder Forum
Farooq Ullah
Stakeholder Forum
Editor
Georgie Macdonald
Stakeholder Forum
Co-editor
Jack Cornforth
Stakeholder Forum
Print & Web designer
Matthew Reading-Smith
Stakeholder Forum
Editorial Advisors
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Emily Benson
Green Economy Coalition
Sarah Nolleth
Eleanor Blomstrom
Prince of Wale's Accounting for Sustainability Project
Women's Major Group
Derek Osborn
Stakeholder Forum
Wael Hmaidan
Climate Action Network International (CAN-I)
Catherine Pearce
World Future Council
Lauren Koopman
PwC
Jan-Gustav Strandenaes
Stakeholder Forum
Ashish Kothari
Kalpavriksh, India
Ashwani Vasishth
Ramapo College of New Jersey
Jeannet Lingan
Stakeholder Forum
Rio+20 scorecard Derek Osborn Stakeholder Forum Early in 2012, Stakeholder Forum in collaboration with several other civil society organisations in the UK drew up a checklist of 13 key objectives that we hoped to see achieved at Rio+20. In the following scorecard I have tried to assess how far the Rio+20 Outcome Document measured up to those objectives, and given the outcomes my personal rating based on a crude star system: * Inadequate – Barely adequate **Adequate - Fairly Good *** Very good The scorecard 1. Reaffirm that sustainable development is the only possible solution to achieving a safe and just operating space within planetary boundaries and above a social protection floor, and a recognition that this can only be achieved through urgent concrete actions reflecting common but differentiated responsibilities. Outcome: The language is vague about integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development, but is good on the need to eradicate poverty (para 2) and meet the development needs of the world’s poorest (Rating: ***). It is less inspiring on promoting a more sustainable production and consumption in the developed and middle income countries so as to protect the environment; and finally there is no mention of planetary boundaries at all. Rating: * 2. Recognise rights-based approaches which ensure universal access to health services, access to safe and secure food, water and sanitation services, energy, shelter, quality education and decent work as universal rights for both current and future generations. This includes reaffirming the importance of gender equality and women's empowerment, along with sexual and reproductive health and rights. Outcome: There is a strong recommitment to right to development for all, and recognition of the need for decent work and for social protection floors (para 156) (Rating: **). However, there is deplorable backsliding from previous agreements on sexual and reproductive rights (paras 145-46). Rating: * 3. Recognise that greening the global economy, ending unsustainable consumption and production, coupled with strong commitment to equity and poverty reduction, are essential for economic recovery and a sustainable future. Outcome: The language is vague about the green economy helping to manage natural resources sustainably and
1
RIO+20
increase resource efficiency (para 60), leaving each country to work out for itself what this might mean in their own circumstances. The UN system is to provide models and examples of good practice on request (para 66). Rating: * 4. Commit to full implementation on all key issues within realistic but urgent timeframes guided by the Rio Principles and renewed obligations to the prescriptions of Agenda 21. Outcome: There is a reaffirmation of the Rio Principles (para 15), but the overall the text lacks urgency and contains virtually no reference to timetables. Rating: * Green and Fair Economy in the Context of Poverty Reduction 5. Commit to worldwide introduction by 2020 of new ways of measuring progress towards sustainability and a green and fair global economy, including: •
Natural capital accounts;
•
Sustainability indicators (including alternatives to GDP as measures of overall well-being); and
•
Measures of poverty, and of equity and fairness.
Outcome: There is a request for the UN Statistical Commission to undertake a further programme of work to establish broader measures of progress to complement GDP (para 38). Rating: ** 6. Commit to set new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2015 to complement MDGs. Specific goals for key sectors including energy, food, the oceans, fresh water, biodiversity, consumption and production and urban areas. Set up a review of regional fisheries agreements to report to the 2013 UN General Assembly. Outcome: Although no specific goals set at this stage, there is agreement to initiate a process to establish SDGs on a universal basis (paras 246-257). Rating: *** Positive outcomes on fisheries and other ocean issues. (paras 158 -177). Rating: ** 7. Toolkit of instruments for a green and fair economy. Launch a new global dialogue to reach agreement by 2015 on specific policies and measures needed to advance sustainability. Outcome: There are vague and reluctant conclusions on green economy which indicates little real consensus. No toolkit has been agreed upon and little reference is made to specifics (paras 56 -74). Rating: * implementation of new technologies.
8. Give IFIs a new mandate to spearhead the transition to the green economy, to identify by 2015 the scale of global investment needed and the specific changes in public and private investment flows needed to achieve this new green investment and to eliminate unsustainable harmful investment. Seek a convention on new technologies to ensure that there are effective global rules for the implementation of new technologies.
Outcome: There is mild support for national, regional and local sustainable development strategies (para 98), and for appropriate institutions to engage civil society (para 101). Rating: **
Outcome: It is agreed that new intergovernmental process will be established to develop a Sustainable Development Financing Strategy covering public and private sources of finance (para 258). Rating: **
Outcome: There is still no commitment to an international legal framework. However, there is strong encouragement for further action by businesses to bring sustainability into the heart of their strategies and to report on this (para 47). Rating: **
9. Developed countries to commit to support capacity building for sustainable development. Achieve 0.7% target for ODA by 2020, and to ensure that all of this supports the green economy transition. Specific commitments on the transfer of green technologies and techniques, education and training, and the development of green skills and green jobs. Outcome: There is strong language on the 0.7% ODA target, but no reference is made to a specific deadline date for achieving this (para 255) and no explicit linking of this with the transition to a green economy. However, the UN Secretary-General is due to make proposals for a facilitation mechanism to promote the development, transfer and dissemination of clean and environmentally sound technologies (para 273). Rating: **
12. For the business community launch a new international convention on corporate sustainability reporting and responsibility.
13. Engage all stakeholders in the transition to the green economy. Launch a new global convention (or a series of regional conventions) to better implement Article 10 of the Rio Principles and to provide greater participation and better access to information and justice. Outcome: There is mild support for regional, national and sub-national efforts to provide better access to information and to justice (para 99). Rating: **
Governance/Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development 10. Internationally, establish new UN Sustainable Development Council under the General Assembly and a strengthened UNEP to drive global progress more powerfully. Establish a UN Ombudsperson or High Commissioner for Future Generations. Set up an Intergovernmental Panel on Sustainable Development to oversee IPCC and IPBES and any other sector science panels set up to ensure interlinked science advise for decision makers, reporting to the new Sustainable Development Council. Outcome: A new UN high level forum will be established to replace the CSD at a higher and more effective level. The Secretary-General is due to report on the need for intergenerational solidarity taking into account the needs of future generations (para 86). Finally, UNEP is to be strengthened and given universal membership (para 88) and a new IGP on Biodiversity was commended. Rating: ** 11. Nationally, commit to placing sustainable development and greening of economy and poverty reduction at heart of national policies and programmes under direct leadership and co-ordination by heads of government. Commit to initiate or revive national sustainable development strategies to drive progress, and to engage all parts of society in the transition, using National Sustainable Development Councils or other mechanisms to achieve this. Establish new or strengthened arrangements for parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of progress towards sustainable development.
2
RIO+20
My own conclusion is that the overall outcome of Rio +20 was somewhat better than the critical and dismissive commentary it has received so far (Rating: **), and that the positive points in it need to be followed up vigorously. In particular governments and civil society alike need to gear up to take forward: •
The creation of the new high level forum at the UN;
•
the strengthening of UNEP;
•
the creation of a new Sustainable Development Financing Strategy;
•
the global Sustainable Development Goals;
•
the implementation of natural accounting and sustainability indicators; and
•
the development of global action programmes in key fields such as agriculture and food, sustainable energy, water and sanitation, protection of the forests and of the oceans
.
Women’s Major Group on Rio+20: Taking stock and moving forward Eleanor Blomstrom Women’s Major Group The Women’s Major Group (WMG) left Rio feeling profoundly disappointed by the overall lack of ambition in the final document, ‘The Future We Want’, including the weak commitment to address the crucial issues of equity and equality. The Women’s Environment and Development Organisation stated “We are resilient. The disappointments and missed opportunities are not forgotten; rather they are repositioned as fuel for continuing to fight for gender equality, alongside eliminating poverty, protecting biodiversity, mitigating climate change, addressing the current failing economic system and ensuring universal enjoyment of human rights”. However, before we move forward it is essential that we first map where we are. The WMG, made up of over 200 women’s organisations from around the world, identified numerous priorities. Many priority points were incorporated into the outcome, and though often weakened by language to ‘recognise’ or ‘encourage’ rather than ‘commit’ to changes and actions, they offer a base from which to work. Other priority points are clearly missing. Our key points are as follows: Women’s empowerment and gender equality: The language was integrated throughout many sections of the document, with 84 mentions of women and gender. Leadership, Political Participation and Decision-making: The vital role of women’s full participation and leadership was reaffirmed, as was the prioritisation of removing barriers to decision-making and management. Particularly important and hard-fought language is in paragraph 237: "setting targets and implementing special measures…with the aim of achieving gender parity”. Other paragraphs reference women in business, entrepreneurship, science and technology. Women’s rights and access to resources: The text resolves to make reforms to give women equal rights to access to resources such as land, credit and inheritance, but it does not commit to equal rights for women to these resources. Sexual and reproductive health and rights: Affirmation of reproductive rights was starkly omitted, despite concerted efforts by the WMG and allies. On a positive note, several individual countries broke from their blocks in support of reproductive rights during closing statements. The health section called for the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and the International Conference on Population and Development Plan of Action, and also emphasised the need for universal access to reproductive health.
Informal and care economies: Women’s informal and unpaid work was recognised, but without specific recognition of women’s extra responsibilities in sustaining the care economy. Energy: The connection between gender equality, social inclusion and access to sustainable energy services was clearly acknowledged. According to the ENERGIA International Network, this was a milestone achievement. However, radioactive pollution and its impacts were not mentioned. Climate change and disaster risk reduction: The link between gender and climate change was deleted in the final text, missing the disproportionate burden on women, as well as women’s essential role in solutions. On the positive side, a gender perspective is highlighted in the disaster risk management. Social protection floor: Included in the document in several places. High Commissioner for Future Generations: Not included in the document, to the detriment of links between present and future generations. Other issues: Empowering rural women as critical agents for food security; promoting participation of women farmers in markets, collection of sex disaggregated data and using gender sensitive indicators were included in the document. The experience at Rio+20 provided a number of additional positive outcomes: There was participation by hundreds of grassroots women and organisations from many different countries – partly financed by UN Women and UN DESA; opportunities for women to speak on panels at official Rio+20 events and to the media; and a multitude of networking and partnership building opportunities. According to Sascha Gabizon of Women in Europe for a Common Future, “the Women’s Major Group shared knowledge and experiences and jointly advocated for language and policies that would move the world toward sustainable development. We will not stop now. We will continue to build on the strong networks and partnerships created throughout the Rio+20 process”. For its next steps, the WMG will follow up on the Outcome Document and attempt to ensure a clear participatory role for Major Groups in all future UN processes, including those around Sustainable Development Goals
.
MORE INFO
3
RIO+20
For detailed analyses see: www.wedo.org and www.wecf.eu Contacts: WEDO eleanor@wedo.org; WECF sascha.gabizon@wecf.eu
What’s next for the green economy? Emily Benson Green Economy Coalition Over a month has now passed since Rio+20. The dust has begun to settle. Bags unpacked, expenses filed, inboxes cleared. So, what next for the green economy? Did it survive the crucible of Rio+20? To answer that question, it is useful to wind back the clock to 2009 when the seeds of green economy were first sown. The full force of the financial crisis was being felt the world over – 27 million people lost their jobs and 80% of the world population had recorded a rise in inequality (over the previous two decades). Despite the scale of the ecological crisis, the UN climate-change negotiations’ failure to make any meaningful progress on mitigation targets sent a blow to the core of multilateralism. Out of a toxic environment a new vision emerged – one of greener, fairer and more inclusive economies. After three years of debate, Rio+20 has proved that international cooperation is possible. The final text is lacking in many ways; the failure to reference ecological limits, the lack of clarity on natural resource management or social protection measures, the insipid language on the role of government regulation for spurring the transition; and the lack of timelines and urgency are all marked failures. But there are also things to celebrate. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will now happen; the UN Statistical Commission will launch a programme of work on alternative metrics to GDP; governments have committed to promoting sustainable modern energy services for all through national and subnational efforts; they have reaffirmed their commitment to eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and to phase out subsides that support inefficient fossil fuels. They have stressed the need for more coherent and integrated planning and decision-making that involve all relevant stakeholders. Outside the formal UN process, the landscape is changing even more quickly. The Global Green Growth Institute has emerged as a potentially very influential actor on the international stage; the OECD, the World Bank and the ILO have produced significant publications on the opportunities around the transition to a green economy, thereby signifying their direction of travel for the coming years. The Green Growth Knowledge Platform is up and running; and the WAVES project for natural resource accounting is now gathering pace. According to the World Bank, 24 countries are already using natural
4
RIO+20
capital in their national accounting; and a further 50 countries, from Botswana to Bulgaria and from the Philippines to Poland, and 86 private companies including Walmart, Nestle and Anglo American, have committed to accounting for their use of natural capital. Despite the economic turmoil, last year total investment in renewables excluding large hydro increased 17% to a record $257 billion. Some interesting plans and strategies are emerging at the national level. South Africa is now developing scenarios for long term planning and decision making in green economy focus areas; Tanzania is actively working on green economy initiatives such as the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania; Mozambique is working on a transition roadmap for the country. New national strategies for greener development pathways are now in development in Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico. The green economy landscape is changing quickly. There are some influential players emerging. Here at the Green Economy Coalition we would argue that the need for multistakeholder collaboration and involvement has never been more acute or urgent. •
The Rio+20 text underscored the need for multistakeholder involvement at all levels for moving forward. This provides civil society with their mandate to ensure that all conversations and strategies on green economy will involve the relevant constituents – from indigenous groups, local communities, informal and small businesses, farmers, etc. Here at the Green Economy Coalition we will be continuing our series of national dialogues in developing countries to explore the different cultural, political, economic and ecological contexts in which green economies will grow.
•
There are some critical questions about the green economy approach that have yet to be answered or explored in sufficient detail. At the Green Economy Coalition we will be taking on several lines of enquiry around the valuation of our ecosystems as tools for delivering sustainability; the extent to which greener growth can be inclusive and specifically target the poorest; and the role of our financial institutions and capital markets in funding the transition to greener, fairer economies.
•
Finally, we need to pool and build a much more sophisticated knowledge-base on the enabling conditions in which green economies can emerge
.
Sustainable Development Goals at Rio+20 and the post-2015 development agenda Jeannet Lingan Stakeholder Forum Originally proposed in 2011, by the Governments of Columbia, Guatemala and Peru at an informal government meeting in Solo, Indonesia, the launching of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) process has now become one of the major outcomes of Rio+20. Initially picked up by several countries and stakeholders in their Zero Draft submissions, it was part of the NGO statement arising from the UN NGO/DPI Conference and was included in the recommendations of the UN Secretary-General’s Global Sustainability Panel report.
and the SDGs processes would converge to eventually set up a single global framework for development. However, the Outcome Document does not provide a clear answer here. Instead, it states that the SDGs process needs to be coordinated and coherent with the other processes considering the Post-2015 agenda. There is not a clear mandate for the integration of the aforementioned tracks, therefore if not managed well, it could result in the creation of two competing processes.
At Rio+20, governments agreed to launch a process that will set up an Open Working Group, composed of 30 government representatives from all regions, to develop a plan of stakeholder engagement within the process and build the framework (including specific goals, targets and indicators). This will be done with the support of the UN Secretary-General, who will be backed by other UN entities and work in consultation with additional governments. The Working Group is expected to submit a proposal for an SDG framework to the 68th General Assembly session in September 2013.
However, it is promising to see that the recently published report by the UN System Task Team to the UN Secretary-General on Post 2015 addresses this concern. It recommends that both the goals and targets should be organised along key dimensions: economic, social, environmental and peace and security, and that this should be aligned with the Rio+20 outcome.
It is expected that this SDGs proposal will led to a framework that will integrate the three dimensions of sustainable development. Just as with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), this process will aim to focus global and national efforts and resources on priority areas by measuring and tracking their progress. The timing of this could not be more crucial, with the recent launch of the Post 2015 UN Development Agenda and the MDG Review Summit scheduled for 2013, both aiming to feed into subsequent multilateral conversations to decide a successor to the MDGs. Considering the high expectations around SDGs and some of the proposals that were on the table, Rio+20 has offered us a modest outcome to say the least. Several key areas that started this discussion were lost over the course of the negotiations. One of them is that of the thematic areas that the SDGs should focus on. The original Zero Draft text, and later the proposals tabled by Columbia (with Peru and the United Arab Emirates) and the European Union, all detailed a list of key priority areas. Following this, many expected that Rio+20 would propose a set of thematic areas and the principles that should underpin the development of the framework. This did not happen. Another area filled with disagreement was on how the SDGs would be linked to the post-MDG process. Many groups wanted Rio+20 to clearly define the way in which the Post 2015 campaign, work around the MDGs review,
5
RIO+20
The work in the run up to 2015 stands as a unique opportunity for both governments and stakeholders to input into this important agenda. It will also be a chance to demonstrate true leadership. All eyes will now be on the appointed Co-Chairs of the Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on post-2015: Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and British PM David Cameron; and the members of the SDGs Working Group, who will be selected shortly. However, in the meantime we must focus on ensuring that an inclusive transparent process is open to all stakeholders, as stated in the Rio+20 outcome. This is fundamental in creating legitimacy and ownership during the agreement and subsequent implementation of the framework. A post-2015 development structure has to be a product of the alignment and convergence of the formal UN processes on SDGs and Post 2015. Ultimately, we want to have a holistic framework that focuses on the integration of the different dimensions of sustainable development. This integration needs to be reflected in both policy and on the ground by different development actors, including governments, private sector and civil society
.
The Road from Rio: Establishing a principal advocate for the needs and interests of future Catherine Pearce World Future Council Addressing global economic woes and protecting national interests often took precedence over the environmental crisis at the Rio+20 sustainable development summit last month . Long term focus or integrated solutions in the face of false dichotomies were absent from the negotiations. Rio showed us that if anything, the need to establish a principal advocate for the interests and needs of future generations, an Ombudsperson for Future Generations, is all the more pressing and apparent. Despite the considerable support of many governments who fought right up to the final hours of negotiations to keep this proposal in the Outcome Document, it was with huge disappointment that member states were unable to overcome the short-term orientation of policy making, grasp some innovative, bold solutions and agree to establish an Ombudsperson or High Commissioner for Future Generations. Instead, the UN Secretary General has been invited to present a report to consider how to take into account the needs of future generations. No-one, least of all Mr Ban Ki-moon wishes to see another report for the pile marked ‘Unread’. The status of this report, the expertise and input it gathers and the process by which it is written will need to be carefully considered in order to help move this agenda forward and broaden understanding of how such institutions can contribute to sustainable development. An ambitious set of action oriented recommendations should be included. As well as building upon government support for this initiative, there is still a clear need to raise awareness of the concept of intergenerational equity, meeting the needs of future and present generations, and how this can be easily and practically applied. Establishing Ombudspersons for Future Generations at national and international levels is relevant in the regard. We have identfied a number of roles for this institution.
6
•
be responsive to citizens, thus increasing trust in policy implementation and government accountability, and combating high levels of political apathy;
•
provide space to share and inform others of analytical evidence and research;
•
facilitate coherence between separate pillars of government;
•
hold government departments and private actors accountable; and
•
balance short-term interests with the long-term interests of society as a whole.
RIO+20
At the international level, a High Commissioner for Future Generations would be expected to be an active advocate with vision, leadership, moral authority and inspirational direction. This includes providing unique roles to some of the Rio outcomes. It could add value and visibility to the proposed high level political forum by providing an independent, moral voice to the issues at hand, strengthen the science-policy interface through facilitating co-ordination with scientific and research institutes, applying different measurement tools and data into decision making processes, (especially since the need for redefining growth to deliver sustainable development was recognised in Rio, with a programme of work building upon existing initiatives to go beyond GDP being launched under the UN Statistical Commission). It could also help shape the programme of work in defining and effectively implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. The growing recognition of intergenerational responsibility at the national level is encouraging, not least with long standing examples in Hungary, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere but also with many new institutions springing up. An environmental Ombudsman has recently been appointed in the Philippines. The new Ombudsperson, Luzon Gerard Mosquera, supported by a full environmental team will handle all cases involving violation of environmental laws. At the original Earth Summit of 1992, the Government of Malta formally tabled the resolution for ‘a guardian for future generations’. While it did not make the final declaration at the time, Malta has recently introduced a recommendation for its own Guardian for Future Generations as part of its current domestic Sustainable Development Bill. The decision to establish a Sustainable Futures Commissioner in Wales was taken in 2011, by the Welsh Assembly, largely as a consequence of the UK Government’s withdrawal of funding for the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission. The Government of Montenegro, based upon its own research on tackling our sustainability challenges and bringing these issues into the mainstream has also recently chosen to establish its own Ombudsperson for Future Generations. Given this momentum, the World Future Council will continue to promote the establishment of Ombudspersons for Future Generations at global, regional and national levels, actively engaging with civil society organisations and existing Ombudspersons to broaden recognition of the right to a healthy environment for all, including those who follow us
.
Measuring what matters: Developing a coherent global framework of performance indicators Sarah Nolleth The Prince of Wales’s Accounting for Sustainability Project It is becoming clear that globally accepted ways of measuring success – whether in terms of profit or GDP – are not currently providing governments, businesses and other organisations with the information and signals needed for them to take the right decisions, given the environmental and social challenges that we face in the twenty-first century. Our current performance measurement systems often lead to the impression that we must choose between promoting economic growth, protecting the environment, or developing human happiness and well-being. This would be shown to be a false choice if environmental sustainability and social well-being were appropriately included in measures of economic success. As the environmentalist and author, Paul Hawken once commented “at present, we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP”. Encouragingly, there was recognition at Rio+20 that, if we are to achieve the sustainable economy we so urgently need, we require new ways to define and measure success for businesses, governments and the global community. We need a measurement framework which incorporates economic growth, social equity and wellbeing, and environmental sustainability, that, at the same time, provides a common set of goals for action by business and governments at the local, national and global levels. References to improved performance measurements at
We are already some way into this journey, and many governments, organisations and businesses are already working on improved performance measurement systems. However, there is currently a danger that despite good work being done at all three levels, progress could be held back by a lack of co-ordination, with limited focus currently on how progress in one area will be aided by, and is dependent on, that in the others. SDGs at the global level are unlikely to be achieved if they are not reflected in national performance measures and, in turn, at the corporate level where many of the changes will be implemented. It is therefore vital that any targets that are developed at a global level are aligned with the goals being developed by countries at a national level and similarly at a corporate level. The journey to a sustainable economy will be challenging enough and we do not wish to put additional obstacles in our path. By aligning the information used by governments, businesses, investors and other stakeholders around the same broad objectives, decisions made at each level of our economy should reinforce, rather than contradict, those at other levels. There is therefore a need for greater collaboration between those working on each area so that the resulting performance measurement systems work together to drive change.
Activities of The Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project (A4S) A4S held an official side event at Rio+20 in collaboration with The International Integrated Reporting Council, The Green Economy Coalition and Stakeholder Forum to highlight the need for greater collaboration between groups working on improved performance measurement systems at the global, national and corporate level. This followed a meeting in London on 30th May hosted by HRH the Prince of Wales at which a high level working group of governments and other organisations working in this space was formed to help drive linkages between these processes.
MORE INFO each level of our economy all survived the negotiations to feature in the Outcome Document which confirms:
7
•
A commitment to develop a set of global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);
•
recognition of the need for broader measures of national progress to complement GDP; and
•
recognition of the need for improved corporate metrics and the desire for companies to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.
RIO+20
Accounting for Sustainability (A4S) was set up by HRH The Prince of Wales in 2004, “to help ensure that we are not battling to meet 21st century challenges with, at best, 20th century decision making and reporting systems”
.
To learn more visit: www.accountingforsustainabilioty.org Contact measuringwhatmatters@accountingforsustainability.org for more information on the high level working group.
What happened to governance at the Summit? Jan-Gustav Strandenaes Stakeholder Forum IFSD – the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development – and good governance came out of Rio+20 strengthened. As one of the main agenda-points it enjoys an entire section in the Outcome Document, ‘The Future We Want’. References to governance are interspersed throughout the document and already in paragraph 10, in the first section aptly called ‘Our Common Vision’ it states that: ‘We acknowledge that democracy, good governance and the rule of law, at the national and international levels ... are essential for sustainable development ... that to achieve our sustainable development goals we need institutions at all levels that are effective, transparent, accountable and democratic”. What will replace the CSD? Several options were discussed to upgrade the present Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). As often is the case in multilateral negotiations, a compromise position wins the day. Hard negotiations resulted in an agreement to create a ‘high-level political forum’. Its key features are outlined in paragraphs 84, 85 and 86. These paragraphs reveal a number of decisions to strengthen governance in sustainable development in the future, and a number of functions are listed in paragraph 85 which the new mechanism should perform: provide political leadership, make sure the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development is carried out throughout the UN system, execute dialogues, develop action oriented agendas, follow up and implement decisions stated in Agenda 21 and the JPOI, and emphasise and use science and evidence based decisions to develop mechanisms that will allow for ‘appropriate consideration of new and emerging sustainable development challenges’. The last function is important as this was one of the agenda items identified by General Assembly resolution (24th December 2009) calling for the summit. What do paragraphs 84-86 promise? They promise to establish a mechanism that should elevate the importance of sustainable development. The mechanism is loosely named a ‘forum’, but is written with lower-case letters, indicating that it is neither placed in the political hierarchy of the UN nor given a political designation with a mandate - yet. Paragraph 86 directs the UN to establish a process to develop the forum, the question is – how far will this process go? Should the process outcome result in establishing a Forum, such as the Forum on Forests, another functional committee of ECOSOC. A Forum within the UN system is treated like a functional committee of ECOSOC. This is the exact
8
RIO+20
same position that CSD enjoyed in the intergovernmental hierarchy and would accordingly not be a move to strengthen IFSD. Qualifications for governance Paragraph 84 qualifies the position of the new mechanism: it will be a ‘high level position’ with ‘universal membership’. This is more than a subsidiary level mechanism and indicates reporting to the General Assembly and ECOSOC. The UN seems to function better and is more at ease with itself when reference can be made to and lessons learned from something which already exists and functions. The Peace Building Commission – a mechanism established as an intergovernmental advisory body by GA resolution (30th December 2005) following decisions made at the 2005 World Summit – could function as such a reference.
Major Groups and civil society governance The importance of civil society is integrated and emphasised throughout the Rio+20 Outcome Document and must therefore be given a prominent position in the new mechanism. Paragraph 84 prescribes: ‘building on the strengths, experiences, resources and inclusive participation modalities of the Commission on Sustainable Development’; the reference here is to the entire life of the CSD, from 1992 through to CSD 19 in 2011. This is further elaborated in function ‘h’ of Paragraph 85 where transparency, implementation and further enhancing the consultative role and participation of Major Groups are important elements. The meaning of these paragraphs cannot be misunderstood, they entail complete and inclusive participation modalities for civil society with the best practices from two decades of CSD activities as minimum standards.
UNEP – in better shape than ever High levels of ambition characterised the initial attempts during the Rio process to upgrade UNEP as the primary global institution on environment with a powerful mandate. Efforts were made at an early stage to upgrade UNEP to a specialised agency, but this proposal was met with too much opposition on formal and political grounds to succeed. Still UNEP came out of the Rio process strengthened. UNEP’s position now reflects the growing understanding of environment among the nations of the world. The Outcome Document links environmental protection and healthy ecosystems to the well-being of both people and planet, as well as to poverty eradication and such language is not often seen in documents at GA level receiving wholehearted support from G-77 and China. This is in many ways a first. UNEP – in command of the environmental dimension Paragraph 87 gives UNEP the mandate to work on International Environmental Governance (IEG), indicating there is indeed a difference between International Sustainable Development Governance (ISDG) and IEG, with ISDG given to the high level forum. This establishes beyond doubt that the environment is the responsibility of UNEP, and that UNEP should be responsible for the environmental dimension throughout the UN when working on integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development. The new and strengthened UNEP will have universal membership, possibly better funding, strengthened capacity to pursue and develop its science base, provide capacity building to all nations and help develop environmentally sound technologies. The Summit also decided to establish a 10-Year Framework Programme on Sustainable Consumption and Production, and UNEP will again focus on these issues. UNEP has also been asked to explore new mechanisms to promote transparency and engagement with civil society and increase its effort to disseminate information. Lastly, the Summit mandated UNEP to strengthen its regional presence and be the unquestionable environment coordinator of the entire UN system. Governance – not all a success Governance issues have undoubtedly contributed to making ‘The Future We Want’ an important document.
In some instances however, it did not live up to the expectations and ambitions it should embrace at this stage in history. Civil society invested substantial energy and creativity in bringing the ideas of an Ombudsperson for the Future Generations into the document. Their efforts were timely and sagacious. The result of their exertions was the many references to this issue throughout the negotiation process, but the official outcome was merely to ask the Secretary-General to start a process leading to a report on the issue. More had been expected, perhaps more will come? Governance – recognising a paradox The complexity of governance has also established - inadvertently perhaps, - a small paradox which is actually an ideological question of massive dimensions – are humans at the centre of nature or is it the other way around? Paragraph 6 has a focus on humans and places them in the centre of all development, whereas paragraph 39 recognises the rights of planet Earth. If anything, this gives the world of governance a new and politically untested challenge, and a challenge that will need to be formulated into language that eventually will fit the multilateral system. Governance gaps to be filled The biggest gaps are still found in the areas of economic development and trade. Paragraph 252 reiterates all the same that: ‘We acknowledge that good governance and the rule of law at the national and international levels are essential for sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and hunger’. Almost reminiscent of the discussions in Johannesburg on the issue which nearly resulted in making the environment subservient to trade, the paragraphs in the Rio Outcome Document deal with trade issues in a rather bland and docile manner. It is as if trade is such a revered and powerful force in the world that nature and humans need to respect its dominance, no matter what. Another weak point is the lack of governance issues and subsequent language in relation to the green economy discourse and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, these two elements now represent two of the most important of the 15 processes that the Rio outcome has set in motion
.
Be PaperSmart: Read Outreach online 4 easy steps to using the Quick Response (QR) Code
9
RIO+20
To reduce our paper use, we are encouraging our readers to move online and access Outreach on our newly optimised website: www. stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach or download each daily edition using a Quick Response (QR) code displayed here.
1. Download a QR code reader on your phone or tablet 2. Open the QR code reader 3. Scan the QR Code with your camera 4. Today's Outreach pdf will automatically download to your phone or tablet
Manifesting a future beyond Rio+20: Seeding a global citizens movement Ashwani Vasishth, Ramapo College of New Jersey Ashish Kothari, Kalpavriksh, India The official Rio+20 outcome was - somewhat predictably - a bit of a disappointment. However, the real seeds of progress were sown on the sidelines. A number of events at the People’s Summit held the promise of effective citizens’ action towards sustainability and equity, building on the past and carrying on into the future. One of these was the initiation of a host of Peoples’ Sustainability Treaties, dealing with a range of issues and actions, starting from the very local, going all the way up to the global. The low expectations for the outcomes from formal process suggested that an alternative centre of energy needed to be created. Uchita de Zoysa, a sustainability activist with a history of engagement pre-dating the original Earth Summit in 1992, conceived the idea to develop a set of Peoples’ Sustainability Treaties, with the hope to coalesce the thinking of civil society organisations (CSOs) in the direction of a strong social movement towards an alternative and desirable future. The basic idea was to establish a network of Treaties, with each Treaty being driven by a collaboration of partners, and with all the Treaty circles being linked together through a loose coalition structure. Uchita reached out to a handful of individuals, who were themselves part of existing networks, to seed the Treaty process. The process was then thrown open to CSOs. By the time Rio+20 commenced, 14 Treaties were already established and a Synthesis Report had been created. During Rio+20, a series of side events were organised, both for the overall process and for specific Treaties. From these a common Manifesto emerged, encompassing both a set of broad principles and a framework for action that CSOs could converge around, even while retaining their own diverse objectives and strategies. The Manifesto was then opened up for endorsement by both CSOs and individuals. The objective of the Treaties, from the very start, was to focus on the post-Rio+20 process while building on many years of work done across the world. The question we asked: what needed to happen, post-Rio, for the world to transition toward an authentically sustainable future? What would we, as engaged though somewhat disenfranchised partners in the process, like to see happen over the next few years? The answers began to emerge quite clearly.
Three areas of concern stood out strongly. Firstly, the recognition that the official process was largely disregarding issues of equity as they pertained to the poor and disenfranchised. Secondly, that the focus on the green economy was almost entirely centred on global economic or political actors (corporations and governments) and disregarding the significance of localism (anchored in communities, both rural and urban). Thirdly, the recognition that democracy, already stunted by an almost exclusive focus on representative politics, was being taken even further away from everyday people. Our Manifesto points to three sets of solutions and actions to overcome these problems: Equity and sustainability for all are the overarching demands from the world of civil society, and must be the foundation of any collective global response. We call for equity within generations, equity across generations, and equity between humans and nature, respecting the rights of both. Localising our economic systems, decentralising governance, and advancing sustainable lifestyles and livelihoods must become the new social order of sustainable societies. Localism is the theme emerging across the board, linked to the principles of devolution, of decentralisation and of subsidiarity, turning localism into a world-wide movement which must be the key to unpacking many of the complexities we face. A Global Citizens’ Movement is the collective response towards transitioning to a sustainable world and linking the local to the global. All sections of society must converge upon their visions and convictions, finding common ground for collective action that can bring about the transformation required to ensure planetary wellbeing for all, humans as well as nature, and the envisioning of a new global governance order. In conclusion, this much has emerged from the Rio+20 process so far: we need a Global Citizens Movement focused on equity and the linkages between localism and globalism. And all of this can, indeed must, happen independently of actions by nation-states engaged in the official Rio+20 process
.
Only One Earth: Now available as an ebook Last month we announced the release of Only One Earth, a new book that sheds light on where Rio fits on the path to sustainable development. We are happy to announce that the book is now available on your Kindle or Nook. Only One Earth takes retrospective look at successes and failures in the environmental movement in the last forty
RIO+20
10
and a look ahead to what critically needs to happen at Rio+20 and beyond. This book offers recommendations that everyone concerned with the global collaboration process should know. For more information click here.
National Councils for Sustainable Development: Jack Cornforth Implementation post-Rio Stakeholder Forum As the events of the Rio+20 Conference begin to fade in the memories of its (by now hopefully revitalised) participants, for most of us, the task of implementing the Summit’s outcomes will begin in earnest. While many stakeholders involved in this multilateral affair were less than impressed by the lack of ambition and urgency in the compromise outcome text, there is nonetheless the opportunity for each country to interpret and prioritise how the recommendations in ‘The Future We Want’ should be applied at home. Moreover, the translation of Rio+20’s somewhat abstract objectives into workable policies, the tools for monitoring progress and the appropriate institutional arrangements to engage both government and civil society actors in the work of implementation, can only be established at the country level. In many cases, therefore, National Councils for Sustainable Development (NCSDs) are excellently positioned to play a leading role in furthering sustainable development post-Rio, especially where it counts the most - on the ground. Stakeholder Forum and partners are therefore continuing to work on the development of a Global Network of NCSDs. This has to date involved mapping the world’s wide range of highest level national authorities on sustainable development and begun to facilitate the sharing of experiences of best practice and lessons learned. Over time, it is hoped that the Network – governed by the democratic will of its member Councils – will explore the benefits of collaboration between Councils and engagement with the UN system as a collective entity. The Network was launched at an event in New York last April, which explored the guiding principles and success criteria for effective NCSDs, as well as their role in linking Rio+20 to domestic sustainable development strategies. Following on from this event, Stakeholder Forum convened a NCSDs Conference during the Summit itself in June to further discuss the purpose and modalities of the Network, continue to explore how NCSDs can help ensure the implementation of the Rio outcomes and how the Network can assist national bodies to do so. In the first half of the event Peter Davies, Sustainable Futures Commissioner for Wales outlined his country’s ground-breaking strategy to legally insert sustainable development at the centre of all government decisions and activities of public bodies. This systemic shift in focus from mere promotion to a duty to deliver sustainable development is exactly the sort of best practice we would hope other NCSDs across the world could directly
RIO+20
11
benefit from understanding in more detail. Ella Antonio, President, Earth Council Asia-Pacific gave a detailed insight into the region’s differing types of Council. This of course included the Filipino experience, a country with one of the world’s longest established NCSDs, whose ‘Strengthening the role of Major Groups’ section was emphasised as one of the central factors to the Council’s success and longevity. Marlehn Theim, Chair of the German Council for Sustainable Development, echoed the sentiment that the role of civil society is crucial to both the survival and legitimacy of NCSDs. Close relationships with the Association of German Business, academic institutions and the Federal Statistical Council were also clear strengths of the German example. The panel session in the second half of the Rio event focused more directly on the Network itself, identifying some important principles and modalities which will be key to its success: •
Clearly articulate the benefits of joining;
•
Be a tool for all stakeholders and institutions to use to improve the sustainability practices of their respective nations, no matter what stage of development their Councils are at;
•
Help NCSDs enable decision makers and the general public understand why sustainable development is directly beneficial to both collective and individual interests;
•
It is imperative to respect the culture, history and context of each national example – promotion of ‘one size fits all’ templates should be avoided;
•
Determine how the Network links itself to other knowledge sharing sustainable development platforms;
•
Provide an opportunity to develop sustainable development governance at the national level – an area which UN process has been weak;
•
Identify typologies of NCSDs but not too strictly - directly comparing Councils is unlikely to be beneficial.
One area in which Rio+20 has seemingly advanced the sustainable development discourse at the international level has been the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders throughout the process. Nevertheless, progress in increasing dialogue with stakeholders is in general significantly less marked at the national level, and is therefore a critical challenge that NCSDs can address and is something the Global Network - with the appropriate leadership and support - will be able to make all the more likely
.
Corporate sustainability reporting: A glimmer of hope Jeannet Lingan Stakeholder Forum
The months ahead are set to be challenging, not least because much of the implementation of sustainable development will rely on financing and inputs from the private sector, and,
reporting was seriously watered down after strong opposition from countries such as the US, Canada, and G77/China. The negotiations ended up with a statement only encouraging companies to integrate sustainability information in their reporting cycle; and a call for industry, governments and relevant stakeholders to facilitate action for the integration of sustainability reporting and develop
as we know, there were no commitments to agree on a global policy framework to ensure corporations conduct their activities in alignment with sustainable development principles and human rights. The dialogue on a CSRA convention and the agenda on sustainability reporting Stakeholder Forum in partnership with Vitae Civilis (Brazil) worked on facilitating a platform for ideas around enhancing the accountability of the private sector in sustainable development to be heard within the Rio+20 process (Dialogue for a Convention on Corporate Social Responsibility and Accountability). We organised several side events and workshops during the preparatory meetings in New York and the conference itself in Rio. Ultimately, we focused on following up the proposal to agree on a Global Policy Framework that would require large and listed corporations to develop and publish their sustainability reports, as a first step to address transparency and corporate accountability. Sustainability information is indicative of how companies manage social and environmental impacts, and embed longterm thinking into their business decisions. Many governments have developed policies mandating or strongly encouraging companies to publish these reports. Stock exchanges in many emerging markets are incorporating sustainability reporting as part of their listing rules. In spite of these efforts, the number of corporations reporting on sustainability issues is still very low. Bloomberg estimated that from almost 20,000 companies that use their terminals, less than a quarter publishes Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) data of sufficient quality and consistency. In view of this and in order to level the playing field in which corporations manage these issues, several sectors were calling for a global policy framework which would trigger a process of harmonisation of sustainability reporting frameworks and mandate governments to implement policies and policy tools to make sustainability reporting a requirement for large corporations. Sustainability reporting in the negotiations Throughout the negotiations, the paragraph calling governments to agree on a framework for mandatory
RIO+20
12
models of best practice with support of the UN system. This is now known as paragraph 47. Considering the lack of ambition in the whole Rio Document, and the strong opposition of certain groups calling for the paragraph to be deleted, it can certainly be viewed as a glass half full. Room for optimism and a possible way forward In spite of this, a positive sight in Rio+20 was the active involvement of a progressive sector of businesses and investors. A coalition of more than 40 investor institutions were calling for a Convention on Corporate Sustainability Reporting and actively engaged in the negotiations; the World Business Council for Sustainable Development published a press release with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) asking governments to strengthened the paragraph on reporting. This was unthinkable twenty years ago and it shows how the sector is evolving and also recognising that governments have an important role to play in setting up the rules and levelling the playing field for their activities. Furthermore, on 20th June, just one day after the Rio outcome was agreed, Denmark, France, South Africa and Brazil launched the group ‘Friends of Paragraph 47’ responding to the call for action of paragraph 47 . A roadmap is still to be devised, but it is important that governments from both the North and the South are taking this step to move the agenda forward.
It has been very encouraging to see the collaboration and mobilisation of investors, NGOs and other stakeholders actively involved in the sustainability reporting agenda towards this common objective. Looking ahead, we think that some of the most immediate tasks will be: •
‘Friends of paragraph 47’ should involve different stakeholders and aim to expand the core government group and support base. It should strengthen the case for the implementation of policies mandating sustainability reporting for large corporations.
•
Make sure that reporting on sustainability issues has an impact on corporate practices and that the information published is a meaningful accountability tool.
•
Encourage more spaces for a conversation on a future international framework on corporate responsibility and accountability that addresses other aspects of corporate accountability such as human rights, liability and redress
.
Doing more with less: Lessons learned from the CEO Water Mandate Lauren Koopman, PricewaterhouseCoopers While policymakers at all levels of government continue to grapple with natural resource conservation – and consider solutions to bleak water availability scenarios – water consumption, scarcity and quality are increasingly issues of concern for companies across the globe. Corporate operations, supply chains and community partnerships stand to benefit tremendously from collaborative water stewardship, and at the same time they face significant threats if they choose not to act. Numerous corporations in the developing world have stepped in to bridge the water infrastructure gap: between 2000 and 2007 the number of people served by private water operators in emerging markets almost doubled from 94 million to more than 160 million. While business is playing an integral role in supporting sustainable development through access to potable water and sanitation, the new expectation for water will be on measurement and disclosure. We live in a world where vast amounts of information is widely accessible and corporate transparency is fundamental to leading companies. Businesses must now meet the escalating water data demands and expectations from consumers, investors, regulators and the NGO community. In 2007, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon created the UN’s Global Compact CEO Water Mandate that sets forth in driving public-private partnerships designed to assist companies in disclosing water policies and practices, as well as focusing on stewardship in direct operations, supply chains, collective action, public policy and community engagement. The effort is a direct reflection of the corporate sector’s understanding of their role in water stewardship in the face of dwindling natural resources.
RIO+20
13
At Rio+20, members of the UN CEO Water Mandate joined together with representatives from businesses of all sizes and sectors to discuss water risks and solutions. Leading companies spoke on how they are addressing water disclosure and how that practice has evolved in relation to overall water stewardship initiatives in recent years. PwC Sustainable Business Solutions works with the UN CEO Water Mandate to draft guidance for standardising corporate water disclosure. This will in turn offer common metrics that can begin to harmonise practices and provide guidance for aligning water disclosure to stakeholder expectations. Access to water is being challenged across the globe – with some regions facing bleak conditions. For businesses, measuring, reporting and analysing water data in operations, supply chains and related communities, will help to uncover both opportunities and risks, therefore informing enhanced management of water resources and helping to ensure license to operate. Ultimately, tools and strategies that support more sophisticated corporate water disclosure will enable businesses to more effectively minimise water-related risks and impacts and bring positive change for the future
.
MORE INFO Lauren Koopman is a director with PwC’s Sustainable Business Solutions, focusing on corporate water management.
Rio+20 word clouds Neil de Laplante To help give us different perspectives on the Rio outcome document, the following word clouds have been created to show the most or least commonly used words throughout the text.
Rio+20 Outcome Document
Action related language
RIO+20
14
Health related language
Beyond Rio+20: NGO key focus areas Wael Hmaidan Climate Action Network - International (CAN-I) In light of short-term politics and traditional benchmarks, Rio+20 could easily be described as a lost opportunity. Despite over one hundred Heads of State attending the conference, no new political will was created and the Outcome Document itself was agreed upon before they even arrived. Barely any new commitments are included in ‘The Future We Want’ and, unlike 1992, no treaties were signed nor any major new agencies or funds created. Instead of agreeing on actual numbers and targets, new processes were established to agree on numbers and targets at a later stage. In other words, what Rio+20 mainly did is kick the ball a few years further down the line. In the aftermath of Rio+20, it is important for us as civil society to follow the various processes coming out of the Conference, most notably the development of post2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs process has already begun and the time is therefore now for us to start engaging. At the UNGA this September, an open-ended Working Group on SDGs will begin its work, starting with the setting out of their terms of reference, which is to be based on recommendations from the UN Secretary-General. The next 3 to 6 months are therefore crucial in influencing the set-up of that process. Beyond this, the next high profile event to take place will be the MDG review Summit (high level event of the UNGA) in New York on 23rd September 2013. Finally, an end Summit in 2015 is currently planned for the signing of the SDGs.
Ban Ki-moon’s Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative was only noted in the Outcome Document and thus weaked. Nevertheless, SE4ALL is being used as a prototype and could feed into the development of other SDGs as part of the post-2015 development framework. SE4ALL is based on three goals: universal access, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. The metrics for this initiative are very weak and based on what politicians will action. Also relevant to the energy issue is the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, which was one of the key demands of civil society. The final text on fossil fuel subsidies is not inspirational or ambitious. Nevertheless, it is the first time in a UN context where phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is mentioned. The momentum created within civil society must continue, building upon several global initiatives on this issue already underway. For example, several countries, including Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Luxembourg, Ethiopia and Costa Rica, have formed a fossil fuel subsidy reform group, which will be expanded in the coming six months. The group will create strategies and plans for how to phase out fossil fuel subsidies with the aim of presenting them at the UNFCCC COP 18 in Doha, Qatar. Other elements of the Rio+20 Outcome Document that civil society should keep an eye on include: 1. The adoption of the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, which is an agreed paper that needs to be implemented. This element is being led by UNEP and civil society has not been especially involved so far. 2. The agreement on corporate sustainability reporting. 3. Going beyond GDP to measure well-being, which is due to be reviewed by the UN Statistical Commission but with no clear timeline.
However, the SDGs are not the only important process coming out of Rio. Also to be launched is a negotiation process to establish a high level political forum on sustainable development. This forum was a compromise following the inability of states to reach an agreement on a new Sustainable Development Council, but it is hoped by some that this forum could still lead to the formation of a body with a similarly strong mandate. This forum will provide high level political guidance and possibly determine the agenda of the UN-led sustainable development process. Civil society must therefore follow these discussions closely.
RIO+20
15
In addition to working on the different elements of the Rio outcomes, NGOs should also rethink their approach and explore how they can become more effective. For example, one key area that civil society can improve in is the link between the environment and development movements. At the moment, there is a divide between the two at a government, UN, and NGO level, and it is essential that this relationship is strengthened and not weakened further
.
Partnering for the future: Stakeholder Forum’s plans for the future Farooq Ullah Stakeholder Forum Following on from Rio+20, it is likely that many organisations involved with sustainable development are undertaking some existential exercises. That is certainly true for Stakeholder Forum. Rio+20 had been our central focus for around two and a half years. Leaving aside the debate on the relative merits of the Rio outcomes, there is clearly much to be done to make the world a more sustainable place. As Stakeholder Forum gears up for the next phase of its own existence in a post-Rio+20 world, I write to share with you some of our thoughts and plans for the future. Without a doubt, the post-2015 development agenda is a crucial process in defining the future of international cooperation. But these discussions must not start from scratch. Instead they should build on the momentum and the thinking flowing from Rio+20. For example, much time, thought and energy in the process went into exploring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Losing this work and reinventing the wheel is at best inefficient and at worst a waste of precious time. The challenge for post-2015 will be to properly and fully integrate the development and environment agendas; that is essentially sustainable development. We have been working on this challenge since Stockholm in 1972 without any great success. Both our global environmental impacts and the inequality gap continue to grow unabated. Post-2015 must address these issues and reconcile the need to improve the quality of life of all people to an acceptable minimum standard based on human rights and equity, and do so remaining within global environmental limits. Underpinning all of this are the spectres of the two Rio+20 themes; the green economy and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD). The green economy had a rough ride at Rio, and rightfully so. It still lacks definition and specifics. There remains much mistrust of the concept from the ‘Global South’ who view it as a Northern paradigm being foisted upon the South for environmental protectionism. While on IFSD, Rio has
RIO+20
16
begun processes to establish a high-level political forum and reform UNEP. However, they both need to urgently be given some proper thought. For example, the high-level political forum is due to meet in September 2013. That does not leave much time to design its architecture, flesh out its functions, define its membership and detail its modalities. Both themes require serious further work if they are to be considered meaningful outcomes of Rio+20. Rio+20 has not been the pivotal moment in history we wanted; that much is certain. Ultimately, time will tell whether or not Rio was a success. And while it has given us new hooks from which to hang future work, it is clearer than ever that time is not on our side. We are sitting on an ecological time bomb. In line with the challenges outlined above, Stakeholder Forum is planning to undertake a variety of work programmes over the next two and half years to advance sustainable development, promote participatory decisionmaking and help shape the post-2015 development agenda. The points below outline key elements of this work: •
There is a need to continue on SF’s Global Transition 2012 work to provide greater clarity on the green economy concept in order to catalyse a global transition to an economic system that maximizes wellbeing, operates within environmental limits, and is capable of coping and adapting to global environmental change in an equitable manner. Our work in this area will include refining and applying principles of green economies, establishing Regional Hubs to enable the transition on the ground and working with stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding around the issue of inclusive growth in order to ‘make growth good’.
•
•
•
•
RIO+20
17
Rio+20 offers an opportunity to begin the process of creating a policy framework for corporate sustainability reporting which encourages, and where appropriate, requires all listed and large private and public companies to take sustainability issues into account in conducting their activities, and to integrate sustainability information within their reporting cycles. Stakeholder Forum has been working with partners to create a dialogue and enhance thinking on this issue. Going forward we will continue to facilitate and build a coalition on corporate reporting with governments, UN bodies and stakeholders in order to introduce national approaches to reporting frameworks – producing guidelines and communicating best practice and set up a high level advisory board to look at the development of a global framework on reporting that includes the harmonisation of existing initiatives. Good governance is key to sustainable development. Stakeholder Forum has run the Sustainable Development Governance Network (SDGN) 2012, which has provided influential think pieces from stakeholders on key and diverse issues relating to sustainable development governance. And as sustainability governance experts, Stakeholder Forum has a dual role using its expertise and convening power to further engender and improve the dialogues around governance reforms begun in Rio. For example, we will work to help develop and implement institutional architecture for governance at the international, national and local levels that provides coherence and integration. Furthermore, Stakeholder Forum will work with partners to improve and facilitate multi-stakeholder models which ensure meaning participation of all stakeholders in new intergovernmental processes and sustainable development decisions. In April 2012, Stakeholder Forum, along with partners, launched a process to build a Global Network of NCSDs. This programme has two aims. The first is to address a shortcoming of Rio+20; implementation at the national and local levels. This is an opportunity to use existing institutional infrastructure to ‘bring Rio+20 home’ and understand how Rio+20 can be delivered on the ground. The second aim is to set up a Global Network of the highest level national sustainable development institutions, that transcends Rio+20 and seeks to share best practice, disseminate information, build capacity and enable coordinated implementation of sustainability principles over time. We hope to establish a new level of global sustainability governance geared toward national delivery. Stakeholder Forum recognises that the post-2015 timeframe is a crucial period for the planet and its people. Determining a new development agenda must be an urgent priority for the international community. It needs to draw on learning from the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) and address multiple interlinked global challenges. Key to the post2015 development agenda will be the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are a key outcome of Rio+20. Stakeholder Forum has been involved with many aspects of this work, particularly the SDGs. Post-Rio, we will work with key partners (especially those in the developing countries) to ensure that different processes feeding the post-2015 agenda are linked up and integrated to ensure good outcomes. This includes working towards only one, single set of global goals. Building on Rio is vitally important, we must not let the momentum ebb nor the plethora of good ideas wither. But there is also a need to push the boundaries of sustainability into new frontiers to make it the holistic, integrated approach it needs to be if we are to see the real results and benefits it can deliver. And so we also intend to continue to pioneer new areas of sustainable development. I feel that has always been one of our key strengths. Some of the proposed new projects include: •
Sustainable Development and the Law – Using legal instruments to deliver sustainable development as duty and a right.
•
Environment, Climate, Resilience and Security – Developing the role of sustainable development in preventing conflicts (over increasingly scarce resources), promoting fairness and creating resilience.
•
Delivering the Science-Policy Interface – Promoting better integration of science and policy given new developments in scientific understanding.
•
Sustainable Parliaments - Improving the ability of legislative bodies in holding governments to account on sustainability performance, acting as fora for debates on sustainable development issues and sourcing solutions.
•
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) – Embedding ESD programmes into both formal and informal education systems by working with partners in new and exciting ways to enable countries to achieve ESD at national-level in a globally coordinated manner.
While these projects are not the totality of our plans for the future, I hope it gives a good indication of our intentions. We are excited about our future and the opportunities it holds. However, we cannot do it alone. What is certain is that the key to Stakeholder Forum’s future success, and to the success of sustainable development in general, is the role that partnerships will play in creating an unassailable and undeniable movement (call it a revolution, if you will) for a sustainable future for all
.
Food for thought: Stakeholder Forum at 25 Felix Dodds Stakeholder Forum It seems strange that this will be my last ‘Food for Thought’ for Outreach as Executive Director, after 20 years in the post. As many of you already know, Farooq Ullah will be taking over this September and I am sure he will take Stakeholder Forum to new heights. 2012 is in fact Stakeholder Forum’s twenty-fifth anniversary. Starting originally in 1987 as the first United Nations Environment Programme National Committee, a concept created by the then UNEP Executive Director, Mostafa Tolba. Having seen how successful National Committees had been in raising funds for UNICEF, Mostafa thought this might also be possible for UNEP. It never did manage to raise funds, nor did the other UNEP National Committees…we were much more interested in being ‘policy wonks’. I had the pleasure of being the third Executive Director, taking over from Koy Thompson who had facilitated UK stakeholder involvement in the original Rio Conference in 1992. My new chair was Jonathon Porritt and to say the UK government was less than happy about the pairing of Jonathon and myself is an understatement, but we demonstrated over the years the important work that we could achieve.
Rio ’92, but there was no body to represent regional or state governments and our work in filling this gap is quite an achievement. In 2002, we also played a significant role in the preparations for Rio+10, but it will perhaps be Rio+20 for which we will be remembered for our significant role in advocating for the Summit and supporting the government of Brazil and UNDESA in their preparations. Looking forward, it is my hope that three of initiatives that we took to Rio+20 will become significant parts of the landscape for the future. The first, the creation of a global knowledge network for Councils and Commissions on Sustainable Development; the second, the success of the campaign we are part of for a global framework for sustainability reporting; and lastly, the creation of a high level political forum for sustainable development. If achieved, these would join the ranks with our other great achievements over these last twenty five years.
UNEP-UK became UNED-UK and the first focal point for UNDP in a Northern country bringing together the environment and development community. It was not until the year 2000 that UNED-UK became an international multi-stakeholder platform and changed its name to Stakeholder Forum. As I look back over the twenty years, I believe that Stakeholder Forum has played a vital role in the promotion of stakeholder democracy. Persuading the UN General Assembly in 1996 to adopt stakeholder dialogues for the five year review was a very important victory. It helped establish stakeholders identified in Agenda 21 as a formal part of the process at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Stakeholder Forum’s President Derek Osborn also co-chaired Rio+5 with Ambassador Celso Amorim of Brazil in 1997. There are many other highlights from the last twenty years which I could comment on, but instead I will focus on just a couple where I think Stakeholder Forum has played a crucial role. In 2002, we facilitated the creation a new significant global stakeholder group, that of the Network of Regional Government for Sustainable Development (nrg4SD). ICLEI represented Local Authorities and had done so since before
Outreach is made possible by the support of
Stakeholder Forum believes that the United Nations and its processes offer the best chance to manage this increasingly complex and smaller world that we live in, in a fair and equitable way. We will, I believe, continue to help engage stakeholders to enhance effective multilateral decisions and the implementation of those decisions. As always, an organisation is made up of its assets and for Stakeholder Forum these are its amazing staff, its brilliant Board of Directors, and the support given by its International Advisory Board. They have all contributed to the direction, the values and the achievements which we can all be proud of
.