Outreach at UNCSD Informal Informals - 30th April

inside: Sustainable Energy for All: A civil society perspective Hong Kong, China & nuclear development: Implications from Fukushima

a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development

out reach.

30 April 2012

www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/

pic: Derek Purdy

contents.

1

Sustainable Energy for All. What the developed world needs to do.

2

Hong Kong, China and nuclear development: Implications from Fukushima

3

Sustainable Energy for All: A civil society perspective

4

National implementation of the Rio conclusions: The role of National Sustainable Development Councils

5

Rio+20 can and should deliver concrete commitments on fossil fuel subsidy reform

6

Sustainable Energy for All Civil Society Statement

8

Stakeholder Forum announces appointment of new Executive Director Future Africa: Prospects for Democracy and Development under NEPAD

9

Rio+20: Setting out a shared vision on clean energy access

10

Sustainable energy for whom?

11

Japan’s eco renewal

13

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

14

Reflections on the negotiations

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

2

3

6 pic: John Moore

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 Christine Loh

Civic Exchange

Simon Trace

Practical Action

Traci Romine

Oil Change International

Clare Coffey

ActionAid UK

Derek Osborn

Stakeholder Forum

Pascoe Sabido

Friends of the Earth

Bridget Brady

Mount Holyoke College

Farooq Ullah

Stakeholder Forum

Warren Karlenzig

Common Current

Sustainable Energy for All. Derek Osborn Stakeholder Forum

What the developed world needs to do.

The Secretary General’s Sustainable Energy for All initiative proposes three goals for 2030: • Achieving universal access to modern energy services • Doubling the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency from 1.2% to 2.4% per annum • Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global mix from 15% to 30%.

Much of the discussion of this initiative so far has focused primarily on the developing countries and how the first goal could be achieved. This is rightly seen as the top priority for those, mostly in the developing countries, who are still without access to adequate energy at present.

But the achievement of the latter two goals must depend primarily on the domestic efforts of the developed countries, which are responsible for the vast majority of the consumption of energy in the world, and the greatest rates of energy production from unsustainable sources. It is they who need to take on most of the burden of increasing energy efficiency through improving the operation of their own economies, and who need to accelerate the penetration of renewable energy sources in their own economies, if the global targets are to be met.

So far, the developed countries have been conspicuously silent about how they propose to raise their own game on energy efficiency and renewables, in order to meet the Secretary General’s challenge. This is in line with their failure to come forward with stretching new targets for themselves on the rest of the sustainable consumption and production agenda. And the developing countries have been too slow to challenge the developed world’s complacence and shortfallings in this regard.

This needs to change. It is excessive consumption and over-production in the developed world that is primarily responsible for most of the damage to the world’s environment and natural resources. It is foot-dragging in the developed world on promoting efficiency in use of energy and other resources, and in promoting renewables, that is most responsible for the growing likelihood of failing to meet the world’s targets for limiting the growth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is this failure that is causing the most damage to the world’s basic ecosystems – and making the task of achieving sustainable development in the developing world substantially harder.

So my plea to all concerned is: Let the Secretary General’s initiative for universal access to modern energy services be pursued urgently in developing countries, with generous support from the North, as many are urging (with some qualifications about the approach to be adopted as described in this edition of Outreach).

But at the same time, let the initiative’s calls for accelerating energy efficiency and renewable energy be heard more clearly, and addressed more vigorously, where they are most needed – in the developed world that is responsible for most of the problems that overconsumption of energy from traditional sources cause. And ensure that the new, universal Sustainable Development Goals, to be established at Rio, set demanding targets on these matters for the developed world, at the same time as focusing renewed attention on the central development needs of the developing world

.

RIO+20

1

Hong Kong, China & nuclear development: Christine Loh Implications from Fukushima CEO of Civic Exchange The events at Fukushima took place at a time of global revival in nuclear power development, with an estimated 360 GW of additional generating capacity projected to be developed by 2035, on top of the 390 GW already in use. The renewed interest arose mainly due to technological advances in nuclear power, and its potential as a low carbon energy source.

Of particular relevance to Hong Kong, at the time of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, China already had a substantial nuclear expansion programme in place, with half the committed reactors planned in the neighbouring Guangdong Province.

Hong Kong has purchased nuclear power from the Daya Bay nuclear plant in Guangdong since 1994, which contributes approximately 23% of the city’s electricity supply. To reach its carbon reduction goals, the Hong Kong government had proposed to increase nuclear energy imported from China to 50% of its energy mix, along with augmenting the share of natural gas used in its own power plants.

In response to Fukushima, the Chinese government announced a full safety review of its existing plants, although its continuing commitment to nuclear energy was not in doubt. The review was completed in October 2011, and Beijing is expected to publish reports covering safety, governance, and plant expansion.

The Hong Kong government is expected not to push ahead until the national government’s position is clear, particularly as public acceptance of nuclear power may well have been shaken by what happened at Fukushima.

But despite the absence of nuclear plants in the Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong does have a role to play in nuclear safety and governance as an importer of nuclear electricity, an investor in one of China’s nuclear plants, and – most importantly – as Guangdong’s neighbour, since any major accident could affect a large number of people in the Pearl River Delta Region, which includes Hong Kong.

pic: kmichiels

2

RIO+20

Following Fukushima, nuclear power has been typically viewed in one of the four following ways.

1. Nuclear energy is unsafe.

2. Nuclear energy itself may be safe, but the residual risks are just too high when something goes wrong.

3. Nuclear energy can be safe but the nuclear industry, governments and regulators cannot be trusted to manage risks responsibly.

4. Nuclear energy is safe and systems and institutions operating and regulating it can be well-managed.

As a result, countries with nuclear power have had different responses to the disaster. Japan, Germany and Italy, for example, are withdrawing their support of nuclear power, focusing on the associated risks; while China, the US and France are focused on the need to reduce carbon emissions and improve energy security. In many cases, thorough reviews of nuclear plants are underway.

Countries also differ in how they finance these plants.

Britain relies on private sector funding alone, the US offers conditional loan guarantees and in China, the development, expansion and financing of nuclear energy is tightly controlled by state authorities. Irrespective of who owns the investment, Fukushima reminds us that in the event of a serious accident, a public response will be needed, which in turn requires the use of public resources.

The degree of public acceptance of nuclear power differs from country to country. Where reactors are sited also make a difference – when proposed sites are on or near to existing reactors, they may be more acceptable.

Hong Kong cannot avoid taking a position on nuclear energy, because it is already a major nuclear user. The government and public must play an active and positive role as the outcome affects the city’s energy future. To participate effectively in these deliberations, however, requires an understanding of energy and basic literacy in nuclear issues. Hong Kong should take an active interest in nuclear safety and nuclear governance issues – irrespective of whether, or how much, it imports from its neighbour – as nuclear energy exists and is expanding in Guangdong. Hong Kong should consider exploring how it may be able to play a positive and constructive role in China’s management and development of nuclear power

.

Sustainable Energy for All: Simon Trace A civil society perspective CEO of Practical Action For the past 7 months, a High Level Group, nominated by the Secretary General, have been trying to convert the vision of the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative into a programme of action that could be endorsed and built upon at Rio+20. To this end, a series of events have seen the initiative start to gather momentum, including a high level energy summit in Brussels last week at which the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, announced the Commission’s intention to support 500 million people getting access to modern energy supplies by 2030. The German Government added a pledge to finance the expansion of services to a further 100 million by the same date.

Last week, the SE4All High Level Group met in the margins of the Clean Energy Ministerial meeting hosted in London by the UK Government. Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg and Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell, addressed the group and made their own modest pledge of a further £25 to £50 million to support access to renewable energy supplies in the developing world.

The High Level Group also met with civil society for a consultation on the initiative last Wednesday (25th April), which was hosted by international NGOs Practical Action, ONE and Christian Aid. Six of the members, led by Helen Clark, ex-Prime Minister of New Zealand and current head of UNDP, met with around 60 representatives from environmental and development NGOs in London, to exchange views on the initiative and explore the role for civil society in the project.

There was almost universal agreement amongst the civil society organisations present that the goal of universal energy access is progress in itself and that the initiative taken by the UN Secretary General to promote this – and the issues of renewables and energy efficiency – in the political agenda, is to be welcomed.

However, areas of concern for NGOs do remain. Among environmental NGOs, there is a sense that the goals for energy efficiency and renewables are not ambitious enough and may be out of line with the goal of keeping global warming within 2°C (although a forthcoming Global Energy Assessment report by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis is expected to conclude that the three goals are consistent with a pathway towards 2°C, but would require further action between 2030 and 2050, such as the introduction of rigorous carbon pricing, to complete the job).

There is also an issue around the ‘technology neutral’ stance that the initiative has taken and whether the unintended consequence of this will be to allow contested technologies such as nuclear, biofuels and large scale hydropower to be promoted as sustainable alongside other, less controversial, technologies.

Finally, there is a sense amongst NGOs that the High Level Group has so far put too much emphasis on the role of large scale private sector actors. Whilst it is not disputed that without private capital and expertise the goals are unachievable, there is concern that the part of national governments, civil society and small scale social enterprises have not been given enough emphasis and that their voices have not been heard sufficiently to date. NGOs argue that without their fuller inclusion in the process, the long term success of the initiative is in doubt.

The panel accepted the notion that goals could be more ambitious and consultations more inclusive, but argued that the process to date had been dictated by the pace and politics necessary to try to force the issue onto the Rio+20 agenda, an outcome that is by no means assured.

The event concluded by looking at better mechanisms for the High Level Group to engage with civil society and national governments in the developing world, which were seen as a pre-requisite for future progress. And, for some, the lack of clarity on the science behind the energy efficiency and renewables goals, together with the technology neutral stance, will remain an obstacle

.

MORE INFO Practical Action uses technology to challenge poverty, working with poor women and men around the world.

Visit: www.practicalaction.org

pic: Lollie-pop

RIO+20

3

National implementation of the Rio conclusions: Derek Osborn Stakeholder Forum

The role of National Sustainable Development Councils

As June approaches, it will be increasingly important to consider how the various initiatives and agreements agreed at Rio+20 can be carried forward and implemented on the ground.

The primary responsibility for implementation will, of course, remain at national level. It will be for each country to interpret and prioritise how global goals should be applied at home, to establish the means for pursuing those objectives and monitoring progress and to establish appropriate institutional arrangements to engage both government and civil society actors in the implementation work.

At the same time, no country exists in perfect isolation, and all have much to learn from the experience of others.

In the last 20 years, many different national approaches have been adopted to try to advance sustainability. And there are still common elements needed everywhere for effective implementation of the sustainable development agenda. The emerging text for the Rio Summit has already identified a number of positive recommendations about how countries can carry forward implementation, including: • National strategies for sustainable development and greening economies to guide decision-making and implementation of sustainable development goals and other commitments at all levels; • Capacity building at all levels, including in particular at regional, sub-regional and local levels; • Redefining and redirecting the role and responsibilities of the corporate sector and others to give greater weight to sustainability objectives; and • Establishing or strengthening appropriate multistakeholder institutions such as national sustainable development councils to promote and disseminate the sustainable development approach more widely, enable participation of all stakeholders and hold governments to account on their sustainability performance.

At a meeting held on Saturday (28th April), organised by the Government of Finland and Stakeholder Forum and partners, experience was shared about the role and function of existing national sustainable development councils in countries around the world. A new proposal for establishing a Global Network of National Councils for Sustainable Development was launched (www.ncsds. org). And principles of key elements or success criteria for these councils were identified; these included:

4

RIO+20

• High level membership of Councils in leading sectors of society, and ready access and respect at top levels of Government, Parliament and other sectors of society.

• Sufficient independence from government to be able to raise issues and challenges, but sufficient closeness to government to be regarded as helpful advisers.

• Sufficient resources and capacity to be able to commission authoritative studies of key sustainability policy issues, and offer evidence-based recommendations.

• Sufficient capacity to monitor indicators and other evidence of advancements on sustainable development, including progress on national and international sustainable development goals.

• Mandate and ability to reach out to all sectors of civil society and to local and regional levels as appropriate to build effective partnerships for dialogue and action on sustainable development issues.

The primary focus of national sustainable development councils will naturally be on progress towards sustainability in their own countries. But they may have a good deal to learn from sharing experience between themselves, and may on occasion have good reason to collectively pursue particular issues at the international level with the UN or in other international fora. The meeting noted that there is some convergence of objectives and functions between these national economic and social committees and national sustainable development bodies, as the former are tending towards adding a concern for the environment and for sustainable development to their earlier agendas, whilst the latter are seeking to move away from a primarily environmental focus, towards managing the economy as a whole in a more sustainable manner. Those present at Saturday’s meeting, therefore gave full support to the idea of developing an international network of national sustainable development councils, and asked for a more developed concept paper about the network and how it would function, to inform more detailed discussion amongst national sustainable development councils represented at Rio+20.

This evolution could both assist and be assisted by the creation of a new UN Council for Sustainable Development or a reformed UN ECOSOC if either emerges from the Rio+20 negotiations. Such a new UN structure might convene regular dialogues with the Network as part of its outreach to major groups and civil society around the world on sustainable development issues, and work together to ensure the outcomes of Rio+20 are implemented at the level it is needed the most; on the ground

.

Rio+20 can and should deliver concrete commitments Traci Romine on fossil fuel subsidy reform International Finance Campaign Director, Oil Change International A global consensus is emerging on the need to eliminate the estimated US$750 billion - but potentially US$1 trillion – in public funds spent each year on fossil fuel subsidies. This year, Rio+20 presents an important opportunity to solidify this consensus and turn political commitments into action.

Since 2009, when G20 leaders – followed by APEC – called for the removal of inefficient subsidies, there have been numerous statements calling for their elimination.

Some 53 countries have committed to removing fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term. Echoing these calls, the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability (GSP) unequivocally called for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies in their consensus report, Resilient People Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing.

Co-chaired by the presidents of Finland and South Africa, the panel was comprised of major policy makers from 20 nations, including the European Union, United States, Brazil, India, China, the Russian Federation and others. The report make recommendations to ‘phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reduce other perverse or trade distorting subsidies by 2020’.

The Rio+20 outcome document, The Future We Want, can go a long way towards advancing international action and support for fossil fuel subsidy phase out. A coalition of civil society organisations are calling on governments to retain and strengthen the Rio outcome text with: • A strong reaffirmation of the political commitment to phase out production and consumption fossil fuel subsidies.

• Agreement to full transparency, including regular ongoing reporting of existing fossil fuel subsidies, as well as expenditures and actions to phase out subsidies.

Scale of fossil fuel subsidies Some work is now underway to quantify global fossil fuel consumption and production subsidies. Producer country subsidies are up to US$100 billion, and consumer subsidies are estimated by the International Energy Agency to top US$630 billion in 2012. It should be noted that these estimates do not include the public funding of more than US$15 billion that multilateral and national development banks direct towards fossil fuels each year.

Furthermore, there are large gaps in these numbers, resulting in uncertainty in the current dollar amounts of subsidies going to fossil fuels. This uncertainty highlights the need for transparency and an agreed international reporting process.

The benefits of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies In a Global Subsidies Initiative review of six respected modeling and empirical studies of fossil fuel subsidy reform, all of the studies examined ‘found that fossilfuel subsidy reform would result in aggregate increases in gross domestic product (GDP) in both OECD and non-OECD countries. The expected increases among the studies ranged from 0.1% in total by 2010 to 0.7% per year to 2050.’ In a world rocked by fiscal and economic crisis, fossil fuel subsidy reform is a smart strategy.

The abolishment of fossil fuel subsidies would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming.

The IEA, in their World Energy Outlook in 2011, found that if fossil fuel consumption subsidies in developing countries only were phased out by 2020, global primary energy demand would be cut by nearly 5% and CO2 emissions by 5.8%, or 2.6 gigatons.

Finally, reducing fossil fuel subsidies would also create local environmental benefits. Although there is less research quantifying these benefits, reducing point source pollution, often associated with fossil fuel energy sources, could provide substantial air quality and water quality improvements, in addition to reduced greenhouse gas emissions

.

• Commitment to assistance and safeguards for developing countries, as well as poor and vulnerable groups.

• Establishment of a deadline for fossil fuel subsidy phase out by 2015.

• Agree to the establishment of a platform or centre of excellence to equitably and transparently guide fossil fuel subsidy reform.

RIO+20

5

Sustainable Energy for All Civil Society Statement The undersigned agencies would like to bring the following urgent issues to the attention of the United Nations Secretary General’s High Level Group on Sustainable Energy for All and of governments who can support effective sustainable outcomes for people living in poverty and speed the transition towards a zero-carbon global energy sector.

UN Goals for Sustainable Energy for All by 2030: • Achieving universal access to modern energy services; • Doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and • Doubling the share of renewable energy in the global mix

Increased access to clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy is essential for poverty reduction. For this reason we strongly support the aspirations of the UN International Year of Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) and welcome the increased political attention that this Initiative brings to this issue.

SE4All commitments made from 2012 should clearly demonstrate how they will deliver its objectives through an accountability framework with effective and transparent monitoring and evaluation (see below).

International leadership and support: Poor countries and the world’s poorest people will need substantial assistance to achieve universal energy access from clean, safe, reliable and affordable sources, as well as moving their energy sectors away from dirty fossil fuels. Industrialised countries must lead by providing poor countries with the appropriate finance, technology and capacity building to deliver local development within the framework of an ambitious SE4All Initiative, as well as ensuring that their own energy sectors are on track to be zero-carbon by 2050.

However, we also note that the goals as they currently stand are inadequate to achieve the level of change required to tackle both energy poverty and dangerous climate change.

In light of this, we call on the Panel to view the current SE4All goals as a starting point for the higher levels of ambition needed to bring about effective change.

Universal access: The UN Year of SE4All must prioritise universal access and the eradication of energy poverty. This must focus on access to the full range of energy services, and recognise that decentralised systems with community participation are often the least-cost and most effective way to deliver clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy.

Successful development requires access programmes to be integrated with wider development strategies and tailored to suit local needs and realities.

Delivering climate targets: The three goals must be commensurate with the agreed goal of keeping the global temperature rise as far below 2oc as possible, recognising that even this agreed limit is not safe for many countries and people in the developing world.

New commitments: SE4All should deliver additional benefits, including financing, rather than simply serving as an umbrella for existing projects. New

6

RIO+20

pic: Reto Fetz

Ensuring Success To date, the initiative has not provided clear definitions of its objectives and implementation plan. To be successful, the initiative needs to address:

active role in all stages of policy design as well as implementation, especially within priority countries.

Civil society should also be fully supported in devising and implementing its own scalable projects to deliver an ambitious SE4All initiative.

• Definitions of access Universal access must be defined in terms of access to clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy services with demonstrable development benefits, measured in terms of achievement of minimum standards for each of the principal energy services people need (a total energy approach including lighting, cooking, water heating, space heating, cooling, information and communications and small, medium and micro enterprises). Simple power supply metrics are insufficient.

• National targets and plans While global energy access targets are needed to ensure global cooperation, further detail at a national level will ensure successful implementation.

SE4All should give financial and non-financial support to governments who wish to engage to formulate clear, executable plans to deliver on nationally-appropriate short- and mid-term targets, developed through multistakeholder processes with a focus on local, people-centred development outcomes.

• Technology neutral policy and safeguards SE4All must ensure the selection of technology to deliver the three goals adheres to clear social and environmental criteria that protect people and ecosystems from negative impacts. In particular, we would be extremely concerned over the inclusion of large scale hydro power and industrial biofuels in the definition of sustainable energy. Technologies should be locally appropriate and reflect the needs of poor people at household, enterprise and community level. The default option should be towards clean, sustainable solutions, allowing poor countries and communities to leapfrog dirty development pathways.

• Accountability To ensure effective delivery, SE4All needs to identify an appropriate, inclusive forum to coordinate and review progress towards achieving energy access for poor people. SE4All also needs to have defined channels of accountability, based on clear progress indicators and a clear and transparent process of monitoring and evaluation. Indicators must recognise that energy access does not simply mean ‘number of homes electrified’ or ‘number of cookstoves distributed’, and should be formulated from the knowledge and expertise of those on the ground, including energy users, local communities and energy access practitioners.

• Civil society participation To date, there has been very limited engagement of civil society in outreach around SE4All, in particular in the global South. This has greatly weakened the legitimacy of the initiative as well as undermining the credibility of proposed projects and the possibility of their success. If the Initiative is to gain widespread support, global civil society needs to be fully consulted through a clear and accountable process which recognises Rio Principle 10, that ‘environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level’. Civil society should play an

We trust that the Secretary General, the High Level Panel and supportive governments will take our comments in the constructive spirit they are intended, with the aim that SE4All becomes a truly transformational initiative meeting the urgent challenges of energy poverty and climate change.

MORE INFO To contact the coalition of above-signed civil society organisations, please contact Pascoe Sabido (pascoe. sabido@foe.co.uk) or Alison Doig (adoig@christian-aid.org)

.

RIO+20

7

Stakeholder Forum announces appointment of new Executive Director The Board of Directors of Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future – an international organisation working to advance sustainable development – is pleased to announce the appointment of Farooq Ullah as the new, incoming Executive Director.

Ullah is currently the Head of Policy and Advocacy at Stakeholder Forum. He will take over from the outgoing Executive Director, Felix Dodds, on the 1st September 2012. Dodds is stepping down after 20 years in the post.

“I could not be more pleased with this appointment,” says Philip Dobie, Chair of Stakeholder Forum’s Board of Directors. “Farooq has an extensive background and understanding of sustainable development and the issues facing the Earth and its people. He also has the vision and determination to take Stakeholder Forum into a new era.”

Dobie also praised outgoing the Executive Director, “Felix’s tireless dedication as a champion of international sustainable development over the years has made Stakeholder Forum a leading organisation in the field.”

Stakeholder Forum has been engaging with UN processes on sustainable development since 1987, and has been

working towards the Rio+20 Earth Summit for a number of years. Ullah has been key in positioning Stakeholder Forum as a bridge between civil society and governments to ensure successful outcomes of Rio+20.

Before joining Stakeholder Forum in September 2011, Ullah was at the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) for nearly five years. Ullah worked on strategic assessment at the SDC; analysing public policy, sustainable operations and procurement, strategy, governance and decision making, in order to hold the UK Government to account and improve its sustainability performance. Key elements of this work included policy advice, stakeholder engagement and capability building.

In all, Ullah has eight years of public sector experience at international, national and local government levels, as well as private sector consultancy experience.

Currently, Ullah is also Specialist Advisor to the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee and a member of the Alliance for Future Generations.

Additionally, he is a founding member of Brighter Future; a climate-change action group in London.

Ullah holds a BComm in Management Science from the University of Alberta and an MSc in Public Policy from the London School of Economics

.

Future Africa: Prospects for Democracy & Development under NEPAD Book by Hesphina Rukato, former Co-chair of Stakeholder Forum International Advisory Board (2000-2001), former Deputy Chief Executive Officer of NEPAD Secretariat (2005-2009), and Advisor for Environment and Tourism to the South African Government (2002-2005).

Set up in 2001, The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) is a socio-economic programme of the African Union, whose priority is poverty eradication and regional integration, as envisioned in the Constitutive Act of the African Union (AU). Amongst many strategies, regional integration is to be attained through the implementation of specific sectoral programmes, particularly in the area of infrastructure development, as well as intra-African trade.

Regional economic communities (RECs) were designated as regional pillars for delivering on NEPAD objectives. In addition, capacity building of RECs, and member states were identified as critical ingredients for the success of NEPAD. Resource mobilisation, both external, and more

8

RIO+20

importantly domestic, is a key thrust of NEPAD, as are the principles of African ownership and leadership of the NEPAD process. Most critical to the attainment of the AU vision, is the commitment by African leaders to create the preconditions for Sustainable Development, focusing on democracy and good governance.

The purpose of this book is to therefore record and document the processes, dynamics, and factors that have influenced the evolution, successes, and challenges of NEPAD over the past eight years. The book analyses these processes, dynamics and factors, with a view to make recommendations on how the AU and related processes and structures should take into account the integration of NEPAD into AU structures and processes. It highlights the decisiveness and sacrifices that have to be made by Africans, if Africa is to claim the 21st Century. The book also serves as a contribution to Africa’s knowledge generation agenda.

.

Future Africa: Prospects for Democracy and Development under NEPAD is now available in paperback

Rio+20: Setting out a shared vision on clean energy access Pascoe Sabido International Climate Campaigner, Friends of the Earth

Last week, London was the epicentre of clean energy access, with a meeting of the High Level Group from the UN’s Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative and the Third Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), which had 23 energy ministers from leading economies attending. To pull these two important meetings together, Friends of the Earth and the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group brought together participants from both, to join civil society organisations from North and South, in exploring how to reach Rio+20 with a shared clean energy access vision.

The speakers were: Helen Clark, Administrator, UNEP and Ex Prime Minister, New Zealand (SE4All); Abeeku BrewHammond, Board Chairman, Energy Commission of Ghana (SE4All); Geoffrey Kamese, Senior Climate and Energy Programme Officer, National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) Uganda; Jeremy Leggett, Founder and Chairman, Solar Century and Solar Aid (CEM); Pascoe Sabido, Sustainable Energy Advisor, Friends of the Earth Europe; Chaired by Joan Walley, MP (Chair, Environmental Audit Committee).

Shared vision The challenge of creating a shared vision was underlined the day before, at the SE4All civil society consultation: Friends of the Earth’s Executive Director, Andy Atkins, spoke on behalf of environmental NGOs on the risk of SE4All’s low targets and acceptance of fossil fuels as ‘sustainable energy’ – which could lock-in generations of carbon emissions and make it impossible to stop dangerous climate change. NAPE’s Geoffrey Kamese – relating it to his native Uganda – called for clean, safe, affordable technologies to avoid destroying millions of lives and livelihoods across Africa. High Level Group member and UNDP head, Helen Clark, accepted that access should be as sustainable as possible, while Abeeku Brew-Hammond showed that, in Ghana, energy access was often met through renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The role of civil society and energy users will be key for the initiative’s success and the panel recognised that their exclusion has been damaging for legitimacy, as well as reinforcing the ‘single solution’, business-led approach seen in the official documentation. The inclusion of these voices requires an effective process at country-level and depends on governments working with all stakeholders.

Brew-Hammond gave examples from Ghana of clean cooking and productive uses of energy, which were greatly helped by strong existing civil society networks – which brought women’s empowerment organisation, such as Abantu, alongside local business.

Exploring alternatives Friends of the Earth asked the question ‘what would a people-centred approach to energy look like?’ The answer was clean, decentralised, access-driven and delivered with empowered local communities, not just by business. Clark acknowledged that community-based approaches are indispensable and could be the best departure point, and called for a mix of solutions in delivery and financing, with countries given direct access to finance. Jeremy Leggett emphasised its importance, underlining that access to credit was vital, given the high upfront costs of renewable technology, and remains a major barrier.

Learning on the road to Rio As many of the panel members agreed, the message from London was that engagement of civil society and involvement of community voices at all levels is vital to the success of the SE4All initiative. The next step is to ask how we can do this and what lessons – both good and bad – and existing examples of best practice, can we learn from.

For example, the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Treaty, signed between the European Commission and countries fighting illegal logging, gives civil society an equal voice alongside government and industry and has helped establish extensive civil society networks.

As Andrew Steer, special envoy for climate change at the World Bank and High Level Group member, eloquently summarised: if we want energy access on the agenda in Rio, we need to work together. That’s why including the voices of civil society and energy users at the community level is so important. Without them we will see no meaningful collaboration, no legitimacy and no long-lasting sustainable solutions to energy poverty and climate change. But include them, and Rio+20 could mark the beginning of a clean energy revolution that could meet the needs of the planet and its inhabitants. The first step: a clear, defined and inclusive process for engagement and participation

.

RIO+20

9

Sustainable energy for whom?

Clare Coffey Policy Advisor, ActionAid UK

Momentum seems to be gathering around the Rio+20 energy discussions, thanks to the UN Secretary General’s initiative on Sustainable Energy for All. The initiative sets out three specific objectives on doubling renewables and energy efficiency improvement rates, as well as securing universal access to energy. The three objectives could well be reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals, which are tipped as being the main outcome of the June Summit.

While a true commitment to securing energy for all has to be welcomed as a means to fulfil basic human rights, there is justifiable concern that the initiative will not in fact achieve that. Instead, the fear is that the sustainable energy initiative will be used as a way of promoting inappropriate industrial scale energy facilities in developing countries, worsening the situation of the world’s poorest and only benefitting big companies.

There are particular concerns around the inclusion of large scale biofuels and hydro, as well as nuclear among ‘renewable’ energy definitions. Human rights abuses linked to EU biofuels policy are the subject of an ActionAid report, Fuel for Thought: addressing the social impacts of EU biofuels policies, launched last week in Brussels.

According to this, biofuels are the most significant driver of global land acquisitions, with International Land Coalition data suggesting that 37 million hectares of land have

10

RIO+20

been taken globally for biofuels. Biofuels have also played a significant factor in world food price spikes and volatility – with the IMF, World Bank and eight other international organisations calling on G20 countries to remove biofuels mandates and subsidies. Hundreds of millions of people have been adversely affected by biofuels, undermining poverty reduction and economic development efforts.

Staggeringly, biofuels are also no answer to climate change. For the EU alone, official biofuel plans could result in annualised additional emissions of 65 million tonnes CO2, which would be like putting another 29 million cars on Europe’s roads.

In fact, there is much to be learned from the EU. In 2008, the EU reached an agreement for 20% renewable energy by 2020, including a 10% sub-target for renewable energy in transport. This has turned into a de facto biofuels target and has been the cause of huge controversy ever since, with governments now struggling to extricate themselves from the situation. The Rio+20 negotiators must learn from these mistakes and ensure that biofuels are ruled out of the sustainable energy discussions. Anything else would be unforgivable

.

MORE INFO www.act.ai/fuel4thought

Japan’s eco renewal Warren Karlenzig President of Common Current

This article was previously published in China Dialogue:

www.chinadialogue.net

From rolling blackouts to radioactive soil, post-tsunami reconstruction faces many challenges. But the path to recovery is looking distinctly green. I’ve returned from a sobering United Nations-led tour of six tsunami-damaged communities and two radiation-impacted cities in northern Japan. The obvious conclusion: the tnuclear accident is forcing Japan to go green.

Steps include the launch of a new renewable energy national feed-in tariff, which starts in July. Meanwhile, the governor of Fukushima, Yuhei Sato, told us that renewables will be the ‘key factor’ in the revival of his devastated prefecture.

Though little planning for integrating this economic and energy transformation is in evidence yet, we did witness fragmented signs that Japan can provide a developednation role model for resilience in the face of cultural, energy system and environmental devastation.

Organised by the Nagoya, Japan-based UN Center for Regional Development (UNCRD), we travelled for a week as part of a fact-finding mission with UNCRD director Chikako Takase and her staff. The mission was called ‘Reconstruction Towards Sustainable Communities’ and my role was to advise Japanese community leaders on green economic development recovery strategies and opportunities. I had met with a range of clean tech energy companies and urban planning and design firms in preparation, as well as the US Department of Commerce.

I was joined by experts from five countries: Japan, Australia, Bangladesh, Thailand and the United States.

One fellow American represented the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It seems our contingent was somewhat of a novelty. I was told by the UN and the US Embassy in Tokyo that we were one of the first (if not the first) from outside the three affected prefectures to meet with local leaders on reconstruction and postdisaster management planning.

The tsunami-scoured coastal cities where some 20,000 died – even now, bodies are being discovered by white ships trolling the coast and on land by locals – are focused on the future of survivors. We visited temporary housing and retail developments, modular constructed units complete with such personal flourishes as lanterns, public benches and landscaping. They house locally owned businesses, from bars to barbers to fishmongers, which were wiped out by the tsunami.

Three hundred thousand people in this region were driven from their homes by the “tsunami attack”. Communities have submitted reconstruction plans to the national government and these proposals are in the process of being approved for funding. But actual rebuilding will not begin for years. The ground is still unstable or sinking in the coastal cities due to the 9.0 subduction earthquake (meaning one tectonic plate went under another, causing one plate to sink).

Meanwhile, waste-management issues, including removal of radiation and salt-contaminated soil and debris from the tsunami, bedevil everyone from small farmers to civil authorities. In one city, 106 years worth of waste was piled around what used to be the town centre. The rest of Japan is disinclined to accept much of it, because of potential radioactivity.

When and if they are able to build, the plans of two tsunami-ravaged cities stand out for being smart growth models. Ishinomaki was a pre-tsunami city of about 160,000: 4000 were killed by the tsunami, the most deaths of any city in Japan. Its entire port and low-lying downtown areas were virtually annihilated, with the odd building and remnant inexplicably standing, such as a domed cartoon art museum and, most bizarrely, a Statue of Liberty replica formerly housed in a pachinko parlour.

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE

pic: Jun Teramoto

11

RIO+20

Japan’s eco renewal (continued) CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Ishinomaki has a plan to virtually wipe clean its remaining ‘ghost’ downtown to create a mixed-use residential and commercial zone that will be two to three times denser than before, according to city leaders we met. The city hopes to be better protected from the coast through site elevation, barriers and other features. The more vexing question is how to keep its young people from leaving the area for Tokyo and other big cities to the south: transitoriented redesign will be one factor making younger citizens less likely to flee.

Another critical planning issue is how male-dominated Japan intends to ensure that all its citizens- Including women, the elderly and handicapped – in disaster-struck communities are part of the process of designing their future.

Rikuzentakata, a city of 22,000 (2,000 died in the tsunami), has plans to make ‘new energy’ a key part of its redevelopment. This city which was reported to have been ‘wiped off the map’ by 19.2 metre-high waves, is today pursuing national government subsidies and private investments to create large-scale distributed generation of renewables, including solar PV, land and marine biomass and offshore wind.

Together with other nearby communities, Rikuzentakata is studying how to trade domestic carbon credits for reduced emissions. The city's quest for zero waste and zero carbon-dioxide emissions also has it exploring industrial ecology strategies: using fish bones, tsunami debris wastes or other byproducts such as waste heat as inputs for new processes.

We also toured a small community-supported organic farm in southern Fukushima Prefecture, outside the town of Iwaki. A volunteer group had recruited helpers the previous summer to remove radiated soil, and the farmers showed us how recent radiation tests had come up negative. Meanwhile, the ‘hot’ soil they had dug out and scraped away was still heaped in a pile, because the national government would not remove or receive it, as the farmers had been led to believe they would.

Prior to the Fukushima disaster, Japan relied on nuclear energy for 25% to 33% of its needs. This summer, the last two remaining nuclear plants operating in Japan (out of 54) will be shut down, at least temporarily, and there are many signs throughout the nation that electric power is already in short supply. Although outdoor temperatures were hovering between zero and four degrees Celsius, we attended multiple meetings circled around one or two kerosene heaters, in buildings using almost no electric light, without the use of central indoor heating. Is this a glimpse into what a business-as-usual energy future looks like in other industrial countries?

One meeting in a luxury high-rise hotel in Minami Sanriku had a planned blackout for two hours while we met with business and community volunteer leaders, along with the hotel’s owner, who had sheltered and fed 400 community members after the tsunami (the bottom two stories were damaged, but the rest of the building was habitable). Staff handed out heavy winter parkas so we could continue our discussions in relative warmth.

Besides jackets, Japan has been using technology to cope with its new dilemma. Utility sponsored websites and mobile apps let people know exactly when to conserve the most, which they have been doing by hanging wet clothes to dry in south-facing windows or balconies, and by curtailing use of light, heat or appliances. So far, Japanese society has reduced its energy use to meet a 30% power deficit, but the margin between rolling or planned blackouts and power is paper thin, even in Tokyo.

Our delegation will now work with UNCRD to develop recommendations based on our visit to Tohoku’s three stricken prefectures. My prediction is that Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima will remain in the global consciousness long into the future, not just for their triple disaster, but also for the lessons they underscore for all of us as we venture into an uncertain future for energy, water, food, and shelter in the wake of disasters, natural or not

.

Lunch found us back in Iwaki, eating at a small take-out place in someone's home. Although every item served was organic and local, including mushrooms, for once in my life this type of fare made me lose my appetite.

12

pic: Jun Teramoto

RIO+20

Room

Title

Organisers

1:15-2:45

B

The Power of One Child – Global Action Classroom

Earth Child Institute

1:15-2:45

7

Advancing the Sustainability Science Agenda: To Support Sustainable Development and the Green Economy

Chief Scientists Office, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1:15-2:45

3

From Harmful Subsidies to Safe Subsidies

Greenpeace International

6:15-7:45

B

New York + 20: Youth led action for sustainable development

Columbia University Coalition for Sustainable Development

1:15-2:45

7

Moving Towards Meaningful Private Sector Contribution to Sustainable Development

Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future

1:15-2:45

B

Taking Natural Capital into account: how can SDG’s, Green Economy Roadmaps and National Sustainability Plans properly maintain and value the Earth’s Natural Capital as part of a post-Rio+20 framework

BioRegional Development Group

1:15-2:45

3

People and the Planet: The priorities for Rio+20

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

1:15-2:45

7

The role of renewable and clean energy in promoting green economy in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development in LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS

UN-OHRLLS

1:15-2:45

3

The Business Case for Sustainable Development - Realizing Inclusive and Green Growth: Recommendations from the UN-Rio+20 Business and Industry Consultation and Government and Civil Society

Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the UN

1:15-2:45

B

Ocean Acidification and Sustainable Development: A Growing Challenge

Permanent Mission of Monaco to the United Nations

03 May 2012

Date

1:15-2:45

7

Towards an Inclusive Green Economy - A think exchange at the second round of 'informal-informal' negotiations on the zero draft

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Germany

1:15-2:45

3

Natural Wealth Accounting

World Bank

1:15-2:45

3

Creating a sustainable economy: top down and bottom up

Institute for Plenary Synthesis and Commons Action for the UN

1:15-2:45

7

UN-Water Report on Water Resources Management for Rio+20 Summit

UN WATER, UNEP

02 May 2012

01 May 2012

30 April 2012

Time

04 May 2012

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

pic: Sam Teigen

13

RIO+20

Reflections on the negotiations - Friday, 27th April Farooq Ullah

Bridget Brady

The Rio+20 negotiations took a positive upswing on Friday. Finally there was an atmosphere of hope on what could, and should, be achieved. In the spirit of progress, many countries took positive steps to move from previously entrenched positions, and appeared to be open to meaningful negotiations. The discussions on the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) took a step back in order to take two steps forward. Those who made interventions were near unanimous in their agreement that it was essential to put form aside and focus on the functions in order to identify the optimal governance structure required to implement sustainable development. This in turn would unlock the debate on whether a Sustainable Development Council or ECOSOC reform would be a better outcome as an apex body for sustainable development. Equally the hope was that the debate on UNEP would also be advanced through a similar tactic.

Friday’s negotiations in Working Group 2 began with a discussion on the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) at the regional, national, and local levels. In paragraph 59, the G77 was uncomfortable with the mention of the importance of ‘regional, sub-national and local authorities’ and the reference to national monitoring, as national governance structures vary widely and should not be subject to such prescriptive language.

In paragraph 60, Kazakhstan proposed the inclusion of the Green Bridge Partnership, an initiative that was developed by many countries, as an example of cross-regional initiatives for sustainable development. Other countries felt that this example was too specific to include in the text, but may be appropriate to feature in a Compendium of Commitments. The proposal was moved to a new paragraph, 62 ter. Mexico proposed language calling for the prioritising and “strengthening of the UN regional commissions and their sub-regional offices in their capacities.” The EU, the US, and Japan, however, could not support this addition.

Head of Policy and Advocacy, Stakeholder Forum

Mount Holyoke College

The last session was a stock take on the negotiations. The secretariat presented the progress that had been made in reducing the size of the Outcome Document (by 121 pages, a 44% reduction). All interventions applauded the collegiate atmosphere of the talks over the week and gave the Co-Chairs the authority to suggest ways forward in the coming days

.

pic: Reto Fetz

Outreach is made possible by the support of

In paragraph 61, there was disagreement over the inclusion of multi-stakeholder councils and processes. In the discussion of paragraph 62 bis, the EU, the US, and Japan proposed to discuss the issue of an international mechanism for technology transfer in section V (c), and to delete it from this section. Mexico and Belarus supported the paragraph with slight amendments. In paragraph 62, the G77, once again, stressed the importance of recognising “national circumstances and priorities” and acting “in accordance with Principle 7” when discussing political commitment to sustainable development. Yet, this was once more the something that the US was unable to endorse.

In the afternoon session, Working Group 2 shifted from the format of formal negotiations they had taken on throughout the week, to a more informal discussion regarding the role of ECOSOC, the CSD, a Sustainable Development Council, and UNEP. This section of the text, paragraphs 48-51, was skipped over in earlier sessions as some states were not yet ready to negotiate it. States exchanged their ideas on IFSD in order to better understand each other’s views and facilitate later negotiations, while Co-Chair John Ashe took on a more active role in mediating the discussion. Tensions emerged throughout the discussion between strengthening the environmental dimension of sustainable development and integrating all three; and between strengthening existing institutions and creating new ones. At the end of the day, Working Group 1 and 2 came together to discuss the progress of negotiations so far and the next steps in moving forward

.