Outreach at UNCSD Informal Informals - 23rd April 2012

inside: Deleting our Rights, Bracketing our Future: Why we need a People's Summit Common but Differentiated Responsibility at Rio+20

a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development

out reach.

23 April 2012

www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/

pic: Benoit Theodore

contents.

1 2 3

Note from the Editors UN Human Rights Chief urges States to inject human rights into Rio+20 Deleting our Rights, Bracketing our Future: Why we need a People’s Summit

4

Common but Differentiated Responsibility at Rio+20

6

Road Map for international endorsement of a Charter of Universal Responsibilities

7

Stable Populations: an Essential Condition for Sustainability

8

Profile.

Calling forth Rights of Nature at the Earth Summit Rio+20

9

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

10

3

4

Principle 10: Time for a global convention

7 pic: Ian Wallace

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 (gmacdonald@stakeholderforum.org or acutter@stakeholderforum.org) You can also follow us on Twitter: @OutreachLive

OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Felix Dodds

Stakeholder Forum

Farooq Ullah

Stakeholder Forum

Editor

Georgie Macdonald

Stakeholder Forum

Co-editor

Amy Cutter

Stakeholder Forum

Editorial Assistant

Jack Cornforth

Stakeholder Forum

Print Designer

Jessica Wolf

Jessica Wolf Design

Web Designer

Thomas Harrisson

Stakeholder Forum

Web Designer

Matthew Reading-Smith

Stakeholder Forum

Editorial Advisors

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Navi Pillay

UN Human Rights chief

Roger Martin

Population Matters

Paul L. Quintos

IIbon International

Doris Ragettli

Rights of Mother Earth

Robert Gibson

City University of Hong Kong

Christine Loh

Civic Exchange

International Forum of Ethics & Responsibilities

Gita Parihar

Friends of the Earth

Sudha Reddy

Note from the Editors Georgie Macdonald and Amy Cutter Editors for Outreach Magazine, Stakeholder Forum

Yesterday’s 42nd Earth Day marked yet another milestone as we approach Rio+20. With over 120 Heads of State and governments now expected to attend the Summit – more than in 1992 – the pressure is now mounting for Rio to deliver. The next two weeks of negotiations serve as one final opportunity for us to ensure that we enter the Summit on a sure footing and produce a successful outcome.

The challenge was best summarised this month by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who stated that “The world stands at a crossroads…we need everyone – government ministers and policymakers, business and civil society leaders, and young people – to work together to transform our economies, to place our societies on a more just and equitable footing, and to protect the resources and ecosystems on which our shared future depends.”

MEETING

Rio+20: Second round of 'informal-informal' negotiations on the Zero Draft of Outcome Document

Rio+20 offers us an opportunity to make the right turn and change our course towards a just and sustainable transition. Ban Ki-moon went on to note that “sustainable development recognizes that our economic, social and environmental objectives are not competing goals that must be traded off against each other, but are interconnected objectives that are most effectively pursued together in a holistic manner…We need an outcome from Rio+20 that reflect this understanding and that relates to the concerns of all.”

Over the next two weeks, the Outreach team will be tracking the negotiations, engaging stakeholders, covering events and gathering articles, in order to provide rich daily insights for those attending the negotiations and those following from afar. To help us target certain hot topics and timely discussions, we will be loosely basing each edition around a series of themes. Today’s theme is Rights, Responsibility and Principles, continuing the discussions that emerged in the March meetings.

We would like to invite our readers to contribute to Outreach over the next nine days and at Rio itself. Below is a list of daily themes, with content deadlines. Articles should be between 500-700 words in length (max. 700) and we can also include images. Please contact us if you would like to contribute articles, or would like more information about Outreach.

.

PUBLICATION DATES

THEMES

Monday 23rd April Tuesday, 24th April Wednesday, 25th April Thursday, 26th April

Rights, Responsibility & Principles Green economy Food and Agriculture Oceans/Blue Economy Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development Energy Private Sector discussions on Sustainable Development & Rio process Disaster, Risk and Resilience Youth/Earth Debates The Final Sprint to Rio

Friday, 27th April Monday, 30th April Tuesday, 1st May Wednesday, 2nd May Thursday, 3rd May Friday, 4th May

CONTENT DEADLINE (5PM EST EACH DAY) Today’s edition Monday, 23rd April Monday, 23rd April Tuesday, 24th April Wednesday, 25th April Saturday, 28th April Saturday, 28th April Monday, 30th April Tuesday, 1st May Wednesday, 2nd May

RIO+20

1

UN Human Rights Chief urges States to inject human rights into Rio+20 Navi Pillay UN Human Rights chief

As negotiations on the Rio+20 Conference outcome enter a critical phase, UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay has urged all United Nations Member States to ensure that human rights are thoroughly integrated in the discussions and in any final outcome.

Twenty years after the adoption of the landmark Rio Declaration, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development is due to convene in June this year. Regrettably, said Pillay in a letter sent to all UN Member States, the draft outcome document of the Rio+20 Conference fails to take sufficient account of human rights imperatives.

“In recent years, people have taken to the streets in every region of the world, passionately demanding their fundamental human rights – in many instances at great personal risk,” Pillay said. “For Rio+20 to be successful, its outcome must ensure that explicit human rights safeguards are in place.”

Pillay warned that incoherence between international human rights standards, environmental strategies and economic policies can undercut all three.

“Strategies based on the narrow pursuit of economic growth without due regard for equity and related environmental, social and human rights considerations, will both fail in their economic objectives, and risk damaging the planet and the fundamental rights of people,” she said.

The High Commissioner noted that there were numerous examples of projects aimed at sustainable development seriously impinging on the rights of already vulnerable communities, leading to landlessness, homelessness and economic dispossession.

pic: Espen Faugstad

because it was “thoroughly infused with human rights considerations essential to sustainable development.”

She called on all Member States to commit to ensuring full coherence between their international human rights obligations and efforts to advance the green economy.

“All policies and measures aimed at advancing sustainable development must be firmly grounded in the right to development, based on the principles of participation, accountability at the national and international level, nondiscrimination, empowerment and the rule of law,” Pillay said.

“Public and private sector actors must exercise due diligence, including by conducting human rights impact assessments. They must take particular care to prevent and remedy any negative impact on the human rights of vulnerable and marginalized groups, including indigenous peoples, minorities, migrants, people living in poverty, older people, individuals with disabilities, and children.

Empowerment of women, the protection of their rights, and their meaningful participation in decision-making must be assured.”

Pillay added that States must ensure that explicit attention is paid to protecting the human rights to food, to water and sanitation, to health, housing and education, and to participation in public affairs.

“Technocratic processes have excluded women from decision-making, economic and social inequalities have been exacerbated, indigenous peoples have seen threats to their lands and livelihood from some emission reduction schemes, scarce food-growing lands have sometimes been diverted for the production of biofuels, and massive infrastructure projects have resulted in the forced eviction and relocations of entire communities,” she said.

“A strong outcome at Rio, seamlessly integrating the environmental, social, economic, and human rights elements of sustainable development, will do much to help us advance our collective mission to create a world free from fear and from want,” the UN rights chief added.

“Simply put, participatory, accountable, nondiscriminatory and empowering development is more effective, more just and ultimately more sustainable.”

MORE INFO

Pillay said that the 1992 Rio Declaration has been celebrated for its integrated approach to economic development, social development and environmental protection – and

.

“I look forward to being a part of this important process.”

This text was adapted from a press release from the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights published on 18th April 2012.

For the full text of Navi Pillay’s letter to Member States, please visit: www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/HRAndClimateChange/Pages/

HRClimateChangeIndex.aspx

2

RIO+20

Deleting our Rights, Bracketing our Future: Paul L. Quintos Ibon International

Why we need a People’s Summit

I think the best way to appreciate the need for a People’s Summit in Rio is to look at what happened at the last round of discussions in March.

There we witnessed a systematic attempt by some powerful states to weaken, ‘bracket’, or outright eliminate nearly all references to human rights obligations and equity principles in the Outcome Document for Rio+20.

Let’s take the section on Food. One major power has proposed to remove text that refers to the ‘Right to food and proper nutrition’ while others would like to see the ‘Right of everyone to have access to safe, sufficient and nutritious food…’ bracketed. Text that refers to increasing agricultural productivity or improving access of small farmers to global markets is accepted, but references to ‘Promoting access to land particularly for women, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups’ or ‘specific attention must be paid to challenges faced by poor smallholders, women and youth including their participation in decision-making…’ are contentious.

The same story goes for water. Some States would like to delete the ‘Right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation’ from the text. But they agree to ‘efforts to improve access’ because this can be met through the privatisation of water utilities in order to encourage private investment. Whereas rights assign the duty to the state.

It’s not just human rights that are under attack. Principles already agreed upon in Rio in 1992 – the Polluter Pays Principle, Precautionary Principle, and Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) – are also being bracketed.

CBDR is particularly contentious with developed countries which are trying to eliminate prescriptive language that would commit them to the provision of finance, technology transfers and capacity building in support of sustainable development effort in the South.

pic: Sergiu Bacioiu

Language hinting to the need for reform of International Financial Institutions, the multilateral trading system and the big banks are being dismissed as beyond the remit of Rio. What happened to integrating the three pillars?

The powerful States are consistently opposing prescriptive language that would commit governments to take action on what they claim to support in principle. On the other hand, they are pushing for private sector investments and initiatives to fill in the gap left by the public sector.

If all the attempts from these States to remove rights, eliminate equity, whittle down Rio principles and avoid concrete commitments to meaningful reforms in social, economic and environmental policies and governance are successful, then what are we left with?

The narrative emerging from these negotiations can only be understood in the context of the current global economic crisis. New investment outlets, markets, sources of raw materials and new ways of squeezing more profits from the toil of working people are desperately being sought out.

But governments can’t easily privatise if we assign clear obligations on states to ensure universal access to water, which is what rights imply. They can’t expand to biofuel plantations if there are safeguards in place to respect customary land use rights and practices of indigenous peoples. They can’t speculate on commodities and derivatives if we have financial regulations in place, and they can’t aim for ever expanding capital accumulation if we insist on the redistribution of resources and environmental space within planetary boundaries.

That’s why we need a People’s Summit!

A space where people can more freely and openly discuss and question the fundamental underpinnings of the global economic and political order, embrace new paradigms for development and sustainability, and explore truly transformative solutions, not the false solutions that we have heard so far in the preparatory negotiations.

But we can’t abandon the official process either. We have to send a resounding message to our leaders that we will not allow them to ‘delete’ our rights and ‘bracket’ our futures. We must not allow them to backtrack on the Rio principles and on human rights obligations. We must make it clear to them that this is not the future we want!

.

RIO+20

3

Common but Differentiated Responsibility at Rio+20 Robert Gibson Adjunct Professor, School of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong Action on climate change has been weakened by disagreements on sharing responsibility between countries. Rio+20 should provide an equitable basis for future agreements by defining how the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) applies to individuals and agreeing that the responsibility of each country should be the aggregate of the responsibilities of its residents.

The concept of CBDR was enshrined as Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration at the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

This reads: … In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.

The Rio Earth Summit also produced the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) creating a list (Annex 1) of ‘developed’ countries incorporating CBDR in its principles: The Parties [i.e. Countries] should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol required developed countries to reduce their emissions while developing countries only needed to report their emissions. The USA refused to ratify this agreement partly because it considered the lack of symmetry would create competitive distortions.

4

RIO+20

Since the Kyoto Protocol, arguments over CBDR have been one of the biggest barriers to action on climate change.

Most developing countries have refused to agree to anything which they consider to contravene the CBDR principle.

Some developed countries have refused to take additional commitments to reduce emissions, as they consider these will reduce their ability to compete with rapidly growing developing countries.

International shipping as an example of CBDR preventing action on climate change International shipping provides an example of how contention around the principle of CBDR can limit action to mitigate climate change. The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) has proposed putting a carbon price on the emissions of all international shipping, with most of the money raised being used to fund mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. It has highlighted that: • Its proposal meets the CBDR principle by the way money is spent rather than how it raised.

• If the carbon price only applied to shipping flagged in developed countries then ship owners will reflag their vessels in developing countries to avoid it. This would make the scheme ineffective.

The ICS proposal would have raised the cost of emissions from shipping and incentivised reduction of these emissions. More significantly it could have raised substantial funds to help developing countries invest in low carbon technology and adapt to climate change. Developing countries, however, considered that having a carbon price apply to ships flagged in their countries would contravene the CBDR principle. They therefore blocked this proposal in meetings of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the UNFCCC.

How CBDR applies to individual citizens To see the way forward on this issue, it is helpful to consider how the arguments that justify CBDR at country level apply to the position of individuals.

1. Firstly, carbon emissions, unchecked for long enough, will destabilise the climate, adversely impacting the standard of living and life expectancy of everyone. It is therefore in the interest of all individuals to fund action to achieve low carbon prosperity and thus reduce the risk of destabilising the climate.

2. The following arguments for the greater responsibility of developed countries apply equally to individuals: • Developed countries currently release greater per capita emissions and place more pressure per capita on the environment and so should pay more. Similarly, individuals with higher consumption place more pressure on the environment and so should pay more.

• Developed countries are richer and so can afford to help fund mitigation and adaption activities in developing countries. Similarly, individuals who are wealthier can afford to spend more on preventing the climate from being destabilised.

3. The argument that developed countries have ‘historical responsibility’ due to their higher historic carbon emissions appears reasonable for countries which have a continuous existence but is not tenable when applied to individuals. For example, consider two individuals with similar assets and consumption: • If one of them lives in Bangkok and the other in Paris should they pay different amounts on their carbon emissions?

• Does the answer change if they have different nationalities or have moved to their current country of residence during their lifetime?

• Does the answer change if they have lived all their lives in one country but their parents, or grandparents moved there from another country?

• What should be the position for people who are half French and half Thai some of whom live in Paris and some in Bangkok?

The conclusion from asking these questions is that, with one minor exception, there is no reasonable or practical way of distinguishing the responsibility of individuals.

The minor exception is that people in a developed country may have more responsibility due to benefiting from infrastructure whose construction caused past carbon emissions. This, however, is part of the argument that those with a higher standard of living should pay more for action to reduce the risk of destabilising the climate and is not, therefore, an additional reason for differentiating the responsibility of individuals.

Given the above points we conclude:

1. Any individual, regardless of nationality or country of residence, should pay for the carbon emissions of their activities which are part of ‘rich world lifestyles’ - including using fossil-fuelled transport, eating meat frequently and heating/cooling living spaces of more than modest area per person - and the money generated should be used to create low carbon prosperity.

2. The responsibility of a country should be the aggregate of the responsibility of its residents.

3. As there is more enjoyment of ‘rich world lifestyles’ in developed countries and more action required to achieve low carbon prosperity in developing countries there should be a flow of funds from developed to developing countries. As a result, individuals with poor living standards due to living in developing countries should benefit from funds flowing into those countries to help them achieve low carbon prosperity.

Strengthening the CBDR principle Rio+20 should act on these conclusions by updating Principle 7 in the Rio Declaration as follows: States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation caused by the current differing levels of resource consumption of their citizens, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. All States acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development is determined by the pressures the living standards of their citizens place on the global environment and by the technologies and financial resources they command. Developed countries acknowledge the higher average living standards of their citizens, and their greater access to technologies and financial resources, increases their responsibility.

This revised CBDR principle can then become the basis for negotiation within the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action under the UNFCCC to increase the contribution of emerging economies to climate change mitigation, in line with the increase of wealth and consumption of their citizens.

.

MORE INFO The concept of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ referring to the emissions of individuals was proposed by Shoibal Chakravarty, Ananth Chikkatur, Heleen de Coninck, Stephen Pacala, Robert Socolow, and Massimo Tavoni in "Sharing Global CO2 Emission Reductions Among One Billion High Emitters."Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (July 6, 2009)

pic: NASA Goddard

RIO+20

5

Road Map for international endorsement of a Charter of Universal Responsibilities Sudha Reddy International Forum of Ethics & Responsibilities

Since the first international conference on environment in Stockholm, forty years ago, it has become clear that the two pillars of the international community – the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – are no longer sufficient to deal with the growing interdependence of humanity and the biosphere. With the present incapacity of our societies to curb development, and the failure of the international intergovernmental community to make the decisions most needed to protect our future, the adoption of a third pillar has become urgent.

Over the years, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been the starting point to define these rights in a broader sense, including the economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, which are part of human dignity and social justice. However, responsibility is the hidden face of rights and a fair balance between rights and responsibilities is at the core of any true democracy and bio-civilization.

All the reflections about the great transition that we are facing due to the shortcomings of the present development model, underline the fact that beneath the different crises there is an ethical crisis, with personal short term material interests and violent power relations being celebrated by the present economic and political ideology, at the expense of relations of reciprocity, compassion and caring, within society, and between humanity and nature.

We need common ethics that have deep roots in our different cultures, philosophical or religious traditions, and reflect the interconnectedness of our universe to run our fragile and only planet. Responsibility – reciprocity, caring and management of the commons – is at the core of communities, and hence this common ethic.

Therefore, even the poorest persons and communities claim, not only their rights, but also their responsibility – towards children, elders and the commons – as the expression of being a citizen.

6

RIO+20

Responsibility is also the core of any social contract between socio-professional groups and the rest of the society, whether it’s scientists, professionals, civil servants, farmers or children. It mitigates corporatist or sectoral interests, or loyalty to a limited community without the conscience of being part of a larger one. The very concept of co-responsibility reflects, from the local to the global level, this idea of a social contract.

Over the last fifteen years, the international negotiations have failed even when our long term survival is at stake.

As a result of the heterogeneity of the state members of the UN, all the major states have opted for consensus conferences with a de facto veto right for every country.

International negotiations have therefore become mere bargaining between leaders that are only geared by their national interests and claiming their sovereignty. They have become truly negligent of the common good. This cannot be changed except if the international community truly acknowledges our global interdependence and its corollary, the principle of universal responsibility.

Ethics are the link between personal inner convictions, which orient our choices and help us solve ethical dilemmas, and the law, which is the expression of rules agreed upon by a community as binding for personal and collective behaviour. Common ethics combine the influence of personal choices and orientation of the law.

A Charter of Universal Responsibilities has the potential to stimulate responsible behaviour at the individual and collective levels, be a common ethical reference for the different communities, institutions, stakeholders and people in positions of power and authority, and the basis for international and national laws.

Therefore, representatives of the global civil society must: • Urge the governments which will participate in the Rio+20 conference in June 2012 to put the discussion on the draft of a Charter of Universal Responsibilities and the adopt a road map for an international endorsement by the UN General Assembly of a binding Charter within the coming three years on the institutional framework agenda of the conference; and • Support the ‘Call on Governments’ issued by the International Network of Ethics and Responsibilities and cascade it through different networks.

MORE INFO Find the draft of ‘Charter of Universal Responsibilities’ & ‘Call on Governments’ on the International Forum of Ethics & Responsibilities website: www.ethica-respons.net

.

Stable Populations: an Essential Condition for Sustainability Roger Martin Chair, Population Matters part of our finite planet. Conversely, building ever more schools, hospitals and roads just to maintain standards for an ever-expanding population brings no additional benefit to anyone; so it is not real ‘investment’, it’s just running to stand still – as every African Education Minister knows – and leaves less money for actual improvements; so longterm poverty persists.

pic: UN/ Kibae Park

Population is a sensitive topic; but anyone genuinely concerned for the planet their children will inherit cannot ignore it. Everyone has a right to take control of their own fertility and have as many children as they wish. But they also have a responsibility to take account of how their choices affect everyone else. The fact remains that, on our finite and degrading planet, population growth is, together with consumption, a multiplier of all our environmental and resource problems. These all become harder, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more people.

As Kofi Annan has said: “Population stabilization should become a priority for sustainable development.”

The environmental impact of recent growth – unprecedented in human history – is huge. Our numbers have more than tripled to 7 billion in my lifetime, still growing at 80 million per year or 10,000 per hour, and projected by 2050 to be between 8.1 and 10.6 billion – a range of 2.5 billion, or the Earth’s entire population in 1950. Each additional person needs more food, water, and energy and produces more waste, CO2 and pollution (the rich consuming and polluting more than the poor, of course). So all population growth: increases soil exhaustion, erosion, desertification, habitat destruction, deforestation, aquifer depletion, climate change, sea level rise, and chemical or pathogenic pollution; and reduces the finite and dwindling natural resources available per person. There is an ethical principle behind the saying: “It’s no use reducing your footprint if you keep increasing the number of feet”.

The economics matter. Smaller populations can sustainably consume more resources per person than larger ones, while remaining within the biophysical limits of their

Yet population growth is a variable, not a ‘given’. Clearly sustainable prosperity will be far easier to achieve, the nearer to 8.1 billion the population stabilises. All it needs is priority, and resources: in developing countries for (strictly non-coercive) family planning and women’s education and empowerment programmes; in developed countries for public information programmes/incentives, aiming to balance individual reproductive rights (which must be respected) with social and environmental responsibilities to current and future generations. Ending unintended pregnancies – 40% of the total – could achieve the goal.

Resources for family planning are the key. There are currently 215 million women (and rising) with an unmet need for family planning. Yet total world aid for family planning is only 10% of the Goldman Sachs bonus pot, and EU aid for family planning is only 0.4% of total EU aid – derisory figures. Priority for family planning is low, partly because the ‘population’ problem has in recent years been marginalised as one largely of sexual and reproductive health and women’s rights; whereas in reality it affects the long-term prospects of success for all programmes across all Departments. The additional cost of meeting the unmet need for family planning, some $3.4 billion per year, is about half what Americans spend on Halloween.

The implications for Rio+20 are clear. Ignoring the population multiplier guarantees ultimate failure for all sustainable development initiatives, since ever-rising populations will overwhelm any development gains. The conference must recognise this, and include priority for family planning among its key recommendations. “Family planning could do more good for more people at less cost than any other known technology” (UNICEF).

The consequences of continued silence on this key issue will be grim. Indefinite population growth being physically impossible, it is certain to end at some point. But this can only happen: either sooner by fewer births; or later by more deaths. Maurice Strong, Secretary of the first Rio Earth Summit, put it bluntly: “Either we reduce our numbers voluntarily, or nature will do it for us brutally”.

.

RIO+20

7

profile.

Christine Loh

How did you get to the role you are in today and what advice would you give aspiring earth champions?

Nationality: Chinese Country of residence: Hong Kong

Current Position: CEO of

non-profit think-tank Civic Exchange

I founded Civic Exchange in 2000 after I stepped down from the legislature in order to focus on policy research to find solutions to problems, including environmental/ecological issues. For aspiring Earth Champions, I would like to say that they are on the right path because restoring ecosystems is one of the most important things humans can do today.

What do you believe should be achieved at Rio+20?

The world faces problems that are global in nature. Climate change, extreme weather events including flooding and drought, biodiversity loss, desertification, famine, financial crisis, terrorism and war. It is necessary that humanity come together to solve these problems collectively.

Although we are not yet very good at it, we are learning to act as a species on a planetary scale in order to ensure the future is sustainable.

Rio+20 is one step on the pathway to sustainability. Thus, the most important thing is for a consensus to be reached on a global scale among policy makers.

Following the discussions on rights at the Rio+20 negotiations, why is the inclusion of human rights within international sustainable development so important?

People make things happen. To strive for sustainable development, it may mean existing vested interests are affected. Those advocating for change can face all sorts of pressure to stop.

Thus, human rights – especially of freedom of expression and association – need to be protected.

How important is the RIO+20 process and what do you think the priorities for action should be in 2012 in the run up to the summit?

The Rio+20 process should transcend nationalities and cultures and produce action across public and private spheres to support the transition to a green economy. Before the summit, there needs to be greater outreach in all communities so people know Rio+20 is happening and people can see what they can do on the ground at home. Most people can’t go to Rio but they can log-on and see what happens there and look at the outcomes.

Furthermore, irrespective of the outcomes, communities can still act locally.

Favourite quote: 'Ecosystems functions are more valuable than material consumption'. This is the conclusion from John D Liu, ecological film maker and teacher who will be at Rio+20.

.

Calling forth Rights of Nature at the Earth Summit Rio+20 Doris Ragettli Rights of Mother Earth

8

RIO+20

All humans and other beings are part of Planet Earth, an indivisible, living community of interrelated forms. However, nature is treated as property under current law around the world.

The economic wellbeing and income generation of society can no longer be dependent on the destruction of nature. There are alternative ways, which call forth a quantum shift in thinking and acting on a global level.

Our call is for civil society, corporations, governments and the UN, to recognise nature as a living being, in all its life forms, with the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles rather than being seen as property – a resource to be consumed and exploited.

The time has come for society to restructure the fundamental framework of our governance systems as they relate to the relationship of humans and the environment.

The grassroots movement www.RightsOfMotherEarth.com is delivering thousands of signatures to the Rio+20 Earth Summit and requesting the acceptance and implementation of the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth by all Nations.

We invite you to be the voice for Mother Earth at the Earth Summit Rio+20. Visit our petition site and say yes to Rights of Nature: www.thepetitionsite.

com/1/yes-to-rights-of-nature/

.

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

27 April 2012

26 April 2012

25 April 2012

24 April 2012

23 April 2012

Date

Time

Room

Title

Organisers

1:15-2:45

6

The future Local and regional governments want

United Cities and Local Governments

1:15-2:45

A

Implementing sustainable, humane agriculture

World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), Biovision, foundation for ecological development, International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture (IPSA)

6:15-7:45

7

Rio+20 Issues Cluster on Innovation & 15/15/15 UN - Civil Society Partnership Formula

International Association for the Advancement of Innovative (IAAI) Approaches to Global Challenges

1:15-2:45

A

Environmental Health Initiatives: Innovative Approaches for Building Sustainable Cities

Parliamentarians for Global Action

1:15-2:45

7

Responding to the Global Soil Crisis

Permanent Mission of Australia to the UN

1:15-2:45

4

Reclaiming the ’92 Earth Summit and Revisiting the Rio+20 Agenda

Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group (GEAG); Public Advocacy Initiatives for Rights and Values in India (PAIRVI); Centre for Community Economics and Development Consultants Society (CECOEDECON); and Beyond Copenhagen

6:15-7:45

A

Promoting Rights and Equity through Sustainable Development Goals

IBON International and Both Ends

1:15-2:45

A

SDGs: Evolution or More of the Same?

WWF-UK

1:15-2:45

7

Rio+20: Towards sustainable agriculture and a world free of hunger - An interactive dialogue with the Rome-based Agencies and the Committee on World Food Security (CFS)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

1:15-2:45

4

Sustainable Mobility on the Road to Rio+20: Priorities and Actions across Major Groups

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)

6:15-7:45

7

Resource Efficient Cities as drivers of change

United Nations Environment Programme- Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (UNEP-DTIE)

1:15-2:45

4

The Future We Want for Rio+20 on Oceans and Seas

UN DPI

1:15-2:45

A

Global outlook and local action: water and energy for sustainable development

Governments of Slovenia, Costa Rica, Cape Verde, Iceland, Singapore, UAE (the Green Group)

6:15-7:45

7

Blue Carbon as a Tool to Mitigate Climate Change and Preserve Key Marine and Coastal Ecosystems

UNESCO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)

1:15-2:45

7

The State of the World Environment told by UNEP’s GEO-5 report and Global Solutions for Sustainability

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1:15-2:45

A

Rights at Risk: Decoding the Green Economy

France Libertes Foundation Danielle Mitterrand

1:15-2:45

4

Planet Under pressure

ICSU-UNESCO-IGBP

Green Drinks NYC presents a new addition in 2012!!

NEW! SPARK Series

If you prefer networking in a more intimate setting and are passionate about particular issues or topics, our Green Drinks "SPARK Series" is perfect for you! This next topic is "Ending the Toxic Shell Game", toxic chemicals in consumer products and what to do about it with Center of Environmental Health Director, Micheal Green! Welcome by Tucker Robbins.

OPEN BAR and SNACKS

Tuesday April 24th, 2012 from 6:30- 8:30PM Held at: "Tucker Robbins Showroom" NY Design Center 200 Lexington Ave bet 32-33rd Sts., Suite 504, NYC

REGISTER HERE:

www.eventbrite.com/event/3264842231?utm_source=SPARK+Event+April+24%2C+2012&utm_campaign=March+26&utm_medium=email

RIO+20

9

Principle 10: Time for a global convention Gita Parihar Head of Legal, Friends of the Earth 20 years ago, on the threshold of a new millennium and in hopes of creating a brave new world, a momentous summit took place in Brazil. The legal frameworks and principles adopted then have set the stage for all environmental progress since. Amongst these were the visionary principles of the Rio declaration. Principle 10 contains a simple but fundamental truth: the best way to achieve good environmental decision-making is through the ‘participation of all concerned citizens’, furnished with rights of information, participation and access to justice.

In the UNECE region, where I am from, this principle was developed and made legally binding through the Aarhus Convention. The European Union then took the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and applied them to its Member States through internal legislation. Sometimes I wonder how it would have been possible to work as an environmental lawyer before this happened. Without legally binding Principle 10 rights I would not be able to access information to understand the negative (and positive) impacts of proposed projects, help members of the public to have their say on development in their area, or challenge bad environmental decision-making in court on behalf of communities (or the organisation I work for), because of the legal costs. Has the ability to do this resulted in more thoughtful environmental decision-making with better outcomes for the planet? The answer in my view is an unqualified yes.

With this in mind, what better way to celebrate Principle 10’s 20th birthday than by giving it a global convention as a home?

This would fling open its doors to the entire population of our

environmentally oppressed planet. While regional approaches and conventions would continue to exist alongside it; a global convention would provide baseline standards for all. As a result, any country that so chose could benefit from better environmental decision-making, whether or not its neighbours wished to do so.

Principle 10 magic is not restricted to the national level. As any member of the civil society constituencies excluded from the climate negotiations in Copenhagen will tell you; our access to negotiations is not treated as a right but instead as a privilege to be granted or withheld at the whim of the particular international institution or process concerned. In our globalised world, it is simply not acceptable for decision-making on the greater environmental good to be made without the awareness and involvement of concerned citizens. A global Principle 10 Convention would play a vital role in developing guidelines to apply Principle 10 at the international level, building on work done through the Aarhus Convention.

I watch attempts to backslide from this wonderful principle with growing dismay. All states must acknowledge the basic legal principle of non-regression, you cannot go back from the standards you agreed 20 years ago. Instead, the opportunity of returning to their first home should be seized. Principle 10 is neither loud nor attention-seeking, but when it is legally binding it quietly achieves positive steps towards sustainable development every single day. And what better outcome from Rio could there be than that?

.

pic: Girl Guyed

Outreach is made possible by the support of