Outreach at UNCSD Informal Informals - 2 May 2012

inside: Disasters – a growing problem with differentiated impact Towards a climate resilient state

a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development

out reach.

02 May 2012

www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/

pic: Derek Purdy

contents.

1

Implementing resilience to disaster risks: lessons from Sendai and Sichuan, Cyclone Nargis and earlier transformative disasters

2

UNDP Equator Prize 2012 winners: building resilience at the grassroots

3

Securing healthy soils and stopping land degradation

4

Disasters – a growing problem with differentiated impact

6

Towards a climate resilient state

7

Rio+20, President Dilma and the future of the Amazon

8

A captivating Sunday with IFSD

9

Profile - Clarice Wilson Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

10

5

7

8

Reflections on the negotiations - Tuesday, 1st May pic: Joost J. Bakker

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 Loy Rego

Mainstreaming DRR and Adaptation

Dearbhla Keegan

UNDP Equator Initiative

Oliver Hughes

UNDP Equator Initiative

Whitney Wilding

UNDP Equator Initiative

Pia Bucella

European Commission

Debbie Hillier

Oxfam GB

Janani Vivekananda

International Alert

Paulo Adario

Greenpeace Amazon

Michele Morek

UNANIMA International

Jan-Gustav Strandenaes

Stakeholder Forum

Emma Puka-Beals

Mount Holyoke College

Implementing resilience to disaster risks:

lessons from Sendai and Sichuan, Cyclone Nargis and earlier transformative disasters Loy Rego Learning Practitioner, Mainstreaming DRR and Adaptation

Disasters continue to cause an unacceptable loss of human lives and economic and societal harm. In 2011 alone, 302 disasters caused 29,782 deaths, affected 206 million people and caused losses of US$366 billion. The proportion of the world population living in high risk areas is significant. In the last 30 years, the amount of people living in flood prone river basins increased by 114% and typhoon prone coastlines by 192%. Over half of the world’s cities are located in areas with high vulnerability to seismic risk.

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is different from disaster response and recovery. It is the practice of reducing risks from disasters, through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, reduce exposure to hazards and lessen vulnerability of people, livelihoods and property. DRR protects people’s lives and livelihoods and preserves development gains that are at risk of being lost during disasters. DRR includes preparedness and integrating resilience into development actions at all levels, from communities using indigenous knowledge to protect themselves, to cities, provinces and countries taking sustained action.

Climate hazards result in two thirds of all disaster-related deaths and three quarters of the losses. With adaptation to climate change becoming an increasingly important strategy, improved preparedness and risk reduction against disaster risks is an important element of climate change adaptation (CCA). DRR and CCA have a common aim of reducing vulnerability to climate related disasters and hazards.

DRR has a well-established globally agreed Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), covering the period 2005 to 2015, entitled ‘Building the Resilience of countries and communities to natural disaster risks.’ This builds on the foundation of the Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World adopted at the mid-point of the International Decade for Natural Disaster reduction (IDNDR). DRR has 22 years of organised effort since IDNDR started in 1990, well developed tools and a body of practical experience, including national mechanisms, actions plans and programs, in parallel with the global to local movement for sustainable development since the Bruntland report of 1987.

The HFA has 3 goals:

1. Integration of DRR into sustainable development planning and programs;

2. Strengthening institutions, mechanisms and capacities for increased resilience; and

3. Integrating

DRR into response and recovery.

emergency

The 5 priorities for action under the HFA are:

1. Ensuring that DRR is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis;

2. Identifying, assessing and monitoring disaster risks and enhanced early warning;

3. Using education, knowledge and innovation to build a culture of safety and resilience;

4. Reducing the underlying risk factors; and 5. Strengthening disaster preparedness for response at all levels.

The progress made is tracked using voluntary reporting by 130 countries to the HFA Monitor and a civil society counter report called Views from the Frontline (VFL), which are both based on the same set of 20 targets and indicators, and vigorous exchange of views and partnership building at global, regional and national forums held approximately once every two years since 2005.

A lot of the action in countries is implemented by national action plans and programs on DRR, which are developed and implemented by a coalition of multi-level governments, UN agencies, CSOs, and national technical and academic institutions and the media. Linking these DRR plans to National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs and promoting collaboration between the disaster and climate change institutions is another strand in the movement.

Mainstreaming DRR into development is advanced through priority implementation partnerships for safer development and prudent governance in many sectors. Disaster proofing the MDGs helps protect development gains from being washed away. While much needs to be done to build the safer world we dreamt of in 1992, progress is real, tangible and potentially transformative, yet not fast-paced enough to address all accumulated risks.

Specific lessons for the implementation of sustainable development can be learnt from the 20 years of DRR experience. There are also opportunities for collaboration of sustainable development and DRR actors at all levels. At a deeper level, as the title of the GSP report so evocatively reminded us, we need both the planet and people to be resilient, We must seamlessly weave this crucial ingredient of sustainability into our development targets and programmes as a critical element in implementing Agenda 21 and the Rio+20 outcomes

.

preparedness,

RIO+20

1

UNDP Equator Prize 2012 winners: building resilience at the grassroots Dearbhla Keegan, Oliver Hughes, & Whitney Wilding UNDP Equator Initiative

The UNDP Equator Prize is awarded biennially to acknowledge and advance community-based sustainable development solutions for people, nature and resilient communities. The award recognises the success of local and indigenous initiatives in improving rural livelihoods, conserving biodiversity, developing sustainable natural resource management and building communities’ resilience to a range of natural and man-made pressures.

The 25 winners of the Equator Prize 2012 were selected from 812 nominations, received in thirteen languages from 113 developing countries worldwide. These groups have faced their unique challenges by developing solutions suited to their local landscapes, cultures and climates. Despite the diversity among the winning initiatives, many shared characteristics can be observed among their approaches to sustainable development.

Not least, the activities undertaken by winning initiatives illustrate the value to poverty reduction of addressing local vulnerability to extreme weather events and building rural communities’ resilience as central components of successful sustainable development.

The story of Association Amsing, an Equator Prize 2012 winner and an initiative of the Elmoudaa community in Morocco’s High Atlas Mountains, is a good example of this. Incidences of flash flooding had often wiped out the village’s water infrastructure, washing away irrigation channels and filling water basins with stones, requiring community members to redirect time, labour and financial resources to structural repairs. Since 2001, with the aid of international partners, the community has constructed a reservoir, water tower, and a system of plastic water pipes buried below ground to provide an irrigation network and bring drinking water to each household in the community for the first time. The Association is now embarking on a program of climate change adaptation activities to build the community’s resilience to future challenges.

Unsustainable land and water management practices in the severely deforested Tigray region of northern Ethiopia had magnified the vulnerability of the region to climate impacts to the point that the agriculturally-dependent Abrha Atsbha community was on the verge of resettlement. Instead, the Abrha Atsbha Natural Resource Management Initiative, another 2012 winner, instituted a range of soil and water conservation activities, including the establishment of ‘closed’ areas to allow reforestation. Vegetation returned quickly, greatly reducing soil erosion and increasing rainwater infiltration into the subsoil. The recharging of groundwater has reduced the community’s vulnerability

2

RIO+20

to the frequent periods of drought they face, allowing this rural community to remain in their ancestral home, better equipped to confront the challenges of a changing climate.

The Alexander von Humboldt Center, meanwhile, has worked through Community Water Committees in Nicaragua’s northwestern departments of Leon, Chinandega and Estelí to improve the sustainability of water use in a region devastated by Hurricanes Mitch (1998) and Felix (2007). With an emphasis on collaborative water resource management and halting deforestation, this initiative has rapidly reduced rates of diarrhoea and water-borne disease amongst community members.

Equator Prize winners have also built local resilience to environmental threats of humankind’s own making. The Shashwat initiative’s work with tribal communities in Ambegaon, in the Western Ghats, India, has helped to mitigate the effects of the Dimbhe Dam, which forced the relocation of thousands of local inhabitants during the 1990s. Resettled communities have been supported in diversifying livelihoods through terraced paddy farming on the area’s steeply sloping hillsides and sustainable fisheries management in the dam reservoir.

The 500-strong population of Namdrik Atoll, located in the Ralik chain of atolls in the western reaches of the Marshall Islands, has reacted to the threat of rising sea levels by diversifying incomes, investing in mangrove planting, and planning for sustainable agriculture. In the face of a threat to their very existence, the members of the Namdrik Atoll Local Resources Committee have maximised the use of the atoll’s 1.7 km² of land to meet subsistence food, water, and livelihood needs.

These best practice cases of local sustainable development and their fellow Equator Prize 2012 winners are demonstrating that resilience starts at the grassroots level. Community-based adaptation, local leadership, and smart interventions are transforming rural landscapes on the frontlines of climate change. In many cases, these communities are sacrificing short-term economic gains for lasting, durable development. Policymakers attending Rio+20 should take note

.

MORE INFO The twenty-five Equator Prize 2012 winners will be honored at a high-level award ceremony in Rio de Janeiro on June 20, during the UN Conference on Sustainable Development. To read more about this year’s winners, visit

www.equatorinitiative.org.

Securing healthy soils and stopping land degradation Pia Bucella Director for Nature, Environment Directorate-General, European Commission The importance of soils

Soil degradation

Soil is the interface between earth, air and water, and hosts most of the biosphere. As soil formation is an extremely slow process, soil can be considered as a non-renewable resource. It provides us with food, biomass and raw materials, as well as storing, filtering and transforming many substances, including water, nutrients and carbon. In fact, it is the biggest carbon store in the world (1,500 billion tonnes).

According to UNEP's 2012 Year Book, as a result of unsustainable land-use, 24% of global land has already suffered health and productivity decline over the past quarter century; certain types of conventional and intensive agriculture are triggering soil erosion at rates some 100 times greater than those at which soil can form naturally. Since the 19th century, an estimated 60% of the carbon stored in soils and vegetation has been lost as a result of land use changes, such as clearing land for agriculture and cities. The draining of peatlands is currently producing more than two billion tonnes of CO2 annually – equivalent to around 6% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. According to projections by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (USA), urban land cover in more-developed countries could grow by 63% between 2000 and 2030, and by 113% between 2000 and 2050. The situation is likely to be even more critical in less-developed countries, where urban land cover could grow by 170% between 2000 and 2030, and by 326% between 2000 and 2050.

The world's area of fertile soils is limited and is increasingly under pressure from competing land uses for cropping, forestry, and pasture/rangeland, as well as for energy production, settlement and infrastructure, and raw materials extraction. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), due to growing population and land degradation, only 0.20 hectares of arable land will be available per person in 2020, less than half than that available in 1960 (0.43 hectares). By 2050, only 0.10 hectares will be available.

Towards Rio+20

Soil is important for mitigating climate change.

Waterlogged and permafrost soils hold major stocks of carbon, but due to lowering of the water table and thawing of permafrost, may instead become major emitters of greenhouse gases. In addition, proper management of soils can reduce disaster risks by contributing to resilience against floods and drought through exploiting soil water retention capacity.

At the same time, soils are home to over one fourth of all living species on earth. Soil biodiversity influences the regulation of atmospheric composition and climate, water quantity and quality, pest and disease incidence in agricultural and natural ecosystems, as well as human diseases. Soil organisms may also control, or reduce environmental pollution, and can be used for developing new pharmaceuticals.

In discussions on targets for the Rio+20 Outcome Document, the European Union (EU) has underlined the importance of the social dimension, as well as horizontal issues, in line with its broader position on an inclusive green economy. The initial EU proposal for soil at Rio is to restore land and soil quality to good condition, and manage land and soil resources sustainably, ensuring that food production can meet growing demand, with the target to arrive at a 'zero net rate of land and soil degradation' within an internationally agreed timeframe.

This target could be made operational by minimising erosion, maintaining and possibly increasing soil organic matter, and preventing uncontrolled urban expansion.

This could be facilitated by enhancing the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification through its 10 Year Strategy, using FAO's Global Soil Partnership, and strengthening the scientific basis for soil, land and desertification policy decisions, in particular through the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative.

Over and above specific wording, the EU is seeking a concrete outcome in Rio, to help address global soil and land degradation, protect the crucial ecosystem services that soil and land provide, and feed the growing world population

.

MORE INFO

Contact: Pia Bucella, env-soil@ec.europa.eu

RIO+20

3

Disasters – a growing problem with Debbie Hillier differentiated impact Humanitarian Policy Adviser, Oxfam GB Resilience to disasters and climate change received little prominence in the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation – the disaster analysis now looks very dated. There was no mention of resilience, only five mentions of vulnerability (to anything), and only two mentions of climate change adaptation, but they are now all issues of growing concern.

One key factor is climate change and variability, which is increasing the number, frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events. The number of reported weatherrelated disasters in some of the world’s poorest countries alone has on average more than trebled over the past three decades. The impact is startling. Since 1970, the number of people exposed to floods and tropical cyclones has doubled and average annual global GDP exposed to cyclones and floods has tripled.

All countries are exposed to natural hazards, but low income countries have less capacity to absorb and recover from disaster-inflicted economic losses than more developed and diversified countries. Although Least Developed Countries contain only 12% of global population, they accounted for 40% of all casualties related to natural disasters, during the period 2000– 2010. And whilst absolute financial losses are higher in developed countries, they take a deeper toll in developing countries. In South Asia, flood losses relative to GDP are approximately 15 times greater than in OECD countries.

Disasters are both a cause and outcome of poverty.

Disaster-blind development will not be sustainable In order for development to be truly sustainable – economically, socially and environmentally – it must be resilient to disasters.

Disasters hinder development from an economic perspective. The impacts of disasters can be pervasive and lasting. The 2010 floods in Pakistan caused US$9.7 billion in damage to infrastructure, farms and people’s

4

RIO+20

homes. The economic impact of Thailand’s 2011 floods is set to be upwards of US$45 billion. Annual disaster losses in Colombia represent roughly 1% of GDP, comparable to the cost of the armed conflict. Ethiopia lost US$1 billion to drought annually between 1997 and 2007: set alongside the US$1.3bn per year that the country received in international assistance, the need for drought risk reduction is abundantly clear.

Disasters hinder development from a social perspective.

Disasters cause social upheaval and loss of social capital.

They often lead to negative coping mechanisms, such as taking children out of school, transactional sex, early marriage, selling of assets (often women’s assets are sold first), and gender-based violence. Disasters are an equity issue, as the burden of impact is disproportionately borne by socially marginalised and vulnerable people and communities. Malnutrition shocks caused by drought, borne primarily by women and children, can permanently impact brain development in children; one key study found that the loss of stature, schooling and potential work experience from children in Zimbabwe, due to drought and conflict, resulted in a loss of lifetime earnings of around 14%.

Disasters hinder development from an environmental perspective. The direct environmental impact of disasters is obvious, such as the destruction of unprotected land by storm surges and floods, or desertification due to drought.

Moreover, an unprepared community’s reaction to disaster often involves rapid depletion of ecosystem resources.

Drought-stricken communities are led to overgraze or deforest their land, and communities which have lost fields to flooding start cultivation on marginal land that was previously shrubland or pasture. International disaster response, such as refugee or internally displaced persons (IDP) camps, also places stress on natural resources, such as water and wood. By preparing communities for disaster, disaster risk reduction (DRR) reduces the need for these kinds of disruptive responses.

Disaster Risk Reduction – unrealised potential Disaster risk reduction is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters. It is not a sector, but an approach. When applied consistently to all development activity, it ensures that communities and nations are prepared for extreme events and are also taking steps to mitigate their long-term vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards.

Numerous analyses, including the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) Global Assessment Reports, Views from the Frontline, and the Mid Term Review of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), point to a significant amount of activity on risk reduction. Progress has been reported on disaster management, strategies, preparedness and response, but much less on reducing the underlying risk factors, and factoring disaster risk into national and sector planning and public investment.

Whilst 80% of countries have disaster laws, these are often focused on managing the response to disasters, rather than on risk reduction and mainstreaming risk management throughout government departments.

According to the Global Network on Disaster Reduction, there is no evidence of systemic change happening at the local level at the scale required to reduce the increasing stock of disaster risk. At the current level of activity and trends we will see a substantial increase in disaster losses by 2015. Business as usual is not an option.

The framing of disaster resilience in future agreements As well as the specific outcomes from the June Conference, the Rio+20 process is obviously a key curtain-raiser for the post Millennium Development Goal (MDG) framework, and the post HFA framework (whose timeline also concludes in 2015), and consultations are beginning on both. Therefore, there are major opportunities for debates at and around Rio, to shape the future developmental discourse.

It is clear that the process of developing new agreements is the key to its legitimacy. A new instrument must be informed through participation, inclusivity, and a bottomup approach – we should not seek to emulate the process

which created the MDGs. It is therefore not appropriate to develop a clear proposal at this stage. Nevertheless, there are some core elements which can be outlined now for discussion with wider groups: Values/principles. Some key principles likely to underpin future agreements include well-being, equity, sustainability, universality, participatory – and to this must be added resilience. Sustainable development will not be achieved without an understanding and reduction of risk. A further option is to take a rights-based approach. The right to protection and relief from disasters is clearly implied in international law, framing DRR in this way enables communities and individuals to call the duty bearers to account through designated institutional arrangements.

Targets. Baselines, monitoring, indicators and targets are crucial to build accountability, good analysis, and effective actions, and are a key requirement for any subsequent agreement. The ‘Expected Outcome’ of the HFA is the starting point for any future agreement - ‘The substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and countries’. However for it to be workable, this must be matched by baselines and objective monitoring.

Mainstreaming. Goals in other sectors, such as water, food and energy, should explicitly recognise the potential impact of disasters and climate change, and seek to mitigate their impact.

In this way, the future opportunities on disaster resilience are double-sided: • Disaster resilience should be embedded into any future framework on development – without this, development cannot succeed.

• New goals and agreements provide an opportunity to go beyond the incremental progress of the Hyogo Framework for Action, to provide stronger international political pressure for DRR

.

MORE INFO

pic: European Commission DG ECHO

• Oxfam (2011): Times Bitter Flood: trends in the number of reported natural disasters • UN ISDR (2011): Global Assessment Report • UNCTAD (2010): The least developed countries report 2010: Towards a New International Development Architecture for LDCs • Oxfam (2009): Band Aids and Beyond: Tackling disasters in Ethiopia 25 years after the famine • Alderman, Harold, John Hoddinott and Bill Kinsey (2004): Long Term Consequences of Early Childhood Malnutrition • Dercon, Stefan and John Hoddinott (2003): Health, Shocks and Poverty Persistence - United Nations University Discussion Paper

RIO+20

5

Towards a climate resilient state Janani Vivekananda International Alert

In the last few years, there has been a slow but steady increase in awareness of the links between conflicts and environmental degradation. It is now recognised that climate change consequences are likely to accelerate or multiply conflict risks in fragile or conflict-affected states when they interact with other pre-existing features.

Moreover, fragile and conflict-affected states are often too weak to cope with climate change effects.

In this context, building a peaceful state involves taking environment issues into account, while the impacts of climate change should be addressed through strong governance institutions.

The main challenge now is to translate these findings into practice. International Alert’s latest Practice Note ‘Conflict Sensitive Responses to Climate Change in South Asia’ sets out some emerging lessons for policymakers and practitioners, highlighting the three key factors that are required to shift the way climate change issues are currently addressed.

Adopting a conflict-sensitive approach Climate change adaptation policies need to be conflictsensitive in order to minimise the negative effect they could have on security and social order, and instead optimise their potential to promote socio-economic development, better governance, and peace and stability.

Adopting a conflict-sensitive approach involves understanding the security, operational and social contexts, and being aware of the impacts the interventions will have in this circumstances. To do so, climate-related programmes should take social order, power and governance into account, and avoid pitting groups against each other. This requires carrying out socio-political and economic - as well as environmental – analysis of the actors, and context causes and dynamics before any intervention.

Promoting resilience and adaptability instead of adaptation as a set of techniques To go further than the ‘do no harm’ approach, conflictsensitive adaptation also needs to aim at improving the context in order to build the foundations for lasting peace.

Doing so requires promoting a ‘resilience-protectionresponse model’ that would take all the aspects of resilience into account, instead of seeing climate change adaptation as a technical exercise. Yet, the main response to climate change issues has been though technical environmental fixes, leaving the impacts of the environment degradation on the political and social systems remain unaddressed.

6

RIO+20

Shaping relevant adaptation policies would involve going beyond the direct environmental consequences, linking them to their impact on the political and social realities. It would require focus on the linkages between development, peace and climate resilience in order to address the multidimensional aspects of vulnerability.

Confronting interlinked problems with a cross-sectoral approach instead of compartmentalising and sequencing Promoting conflict sensitive adaptation and risk reduction, involves working across sectors to promote better governance institutions and to reinforce the relationship between the citizens and the state.

This requires another shift in policy-making at the international level. Instead of compartmentalising and sequencing policy areas - which is inefficient and leads to an issue of conflicting priorities - responses must address the complexity of interlinked problems. For example, building resilience to variable and uncertain water resources should involve, not just addressing water supply issues, but also look at resource governance systems, and the institutions’ ability to level social inequalities.

Moving towards a climate resilient state goes beyond the environmental issue itself. It involves adopting a conflictsensitive approach, not only to prevent climate change adaptation policies from doing harm, but also to re-shape the context in order to decrease vulnerability levels by consolidating governance institutions. Rethinking peacebuilding, emergency and development policies, in the light of this comprehensive approach, requires deep evolution from policymakers and NGOs, and a better coordination between the various stakeholders.

International donors can lead this shift, by making their funding mechanisms more flexible, promoting the importance of research and analysis before intervention, and addressing the various cross-cutting areas of peacebuilding and development in a comprehensive way, instead of compartmentalising and dividing their funds between what they see as discrete priorities. It also involves shifting from a short-term perspective to a longterm one and better addressing people’s needs, while taking extreme care of improving national capacities, instead of bypassing them.

If implementing these recommendations is a challenge, the significant shifts in the World Bank approach, expressed in the 2011 World Development Report, may be seen as a great window of opportunity for Rio+20

.

Rio+20, President Dilma and Paulo Adario the future of the Amazon Campaign Director of Greenpeace Amazon When I received the UN Forest Hero award in New York earlier this year, it was a proud moment for me as a Brazilian. As I stood next to others who worked to protect forests in Indonesia, Cameroon, Russia, and Japan, I thought of my home: the Amazon.

In 1992, as the first UN Earth Summit was coming to Brazil, I joined Greenpeace to develop a campaign to protect the Amazon, which contains half of the remaining tropical forests on earth. When I think back over the last twenty years, I see how many things have changed, and yet how some things have stayed exactly the same.

In the twentieth century, as humanity made significant technological and economic advances, we also created technologies and economies that rapidly increased the destruction of thousand year old forests. In just over fifty years, we lost about half of all the tropical forests on earth. Today, an area of tropical forest the size of a football pitch is lost every two seconds.

Years ago, we fought to protect the Amazon for the people and animals who lived in, and depended on, the forest.

But as the engines of destruction improved, so too did the science on the Amazon. We now know that the Amazon contains a quarter of all terrestrial plant and animal species on earth, with many species found nowhere else, and new species still being discovered. Roughly a fifth of the world’s freshwater comes from the Amazon and pic: Alistair Howard

the rain it generates supports agriculture as far as the Midwest United States. We rely on foods and materials originating from the Amazon, and if you are unfortunate enough to get cancer, the medicine that treats it could have come from the Amazon. In short, science has shown us that what was once considered a nicety is now essential to maintaining all life, including human life, on earth.

I remember being unable to safely depart a ship docked in Belem in the 1990s, due to angry mobs that had been organised to oppose our effort to stop deforestation. Ten years later, I was walking the beautiful streets of Belem freely during a World Social Forum festival with my wife.

Zero Deforestation was now supported by the vast majority of Brazilians, we were making progress towards that goal, and the economy was better off for it.

Brazil spent most of this decade hailed as a global leader in sustainable development, for its success in significantly reducing deforestation while simultaneously growing its economy at a fast rate. As an agreement to save the climate was collapsing in Copenhagen, President Lula pledged to reduce deforestation in the Amazon by 80% by 2020. By 2011, deforestation in Brazil had decreased to its lowest level since records were first kept in 1968.

Sustainable development was not some lofty unattainable goal, but one that Brazilians had showcased as a path for the rest of the world.

However, last week, Brazilian legislators passed a law that would allow deforestation to increase, while also providing amnesty for illegal deforestation in the past. For the first time in many years, deforestation has increased in certain Amazon States. Modeling from Sao Paulo University indicates that the new law could lead to the deforestation of an additional 22 million hectares. Brazil’s Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA) has estimated that the additional emissions likely to result from the new law would make it impossible for Brazil to reach its reduction target announced in Copenhagen by President Lula, and his then-chief cabinet minister, Dilma Rousseff.

While science has shown us that protecting the Amazon is not a nicety, but a necessity; there remain some politicians and companies willing to sacrifice our collective future for their short term interests.

President Dilma has publicly pledged to protect the Amazon, and Rio+20 has put the spotlight on her and Brazil like never before. Nearly 80% of Brazilians opposed the Forest Code changes and citizens have been calling on the President to totally veto the amendments and instead commit to achieve Zero Deforestation in the Amazon by 2015 at Rio+20. If she does, she would become not just a Forest Hero, but a Brazilian hero for the rest of the world

.

RIO+20

7

A captivating Sunday with IFSD Jan-Gustav Strandenaes Stakeholder Forum

On Sunday 29th April, Stakeholder Forum and UNEP organised a one day workshop on a Rio+20 agenda issue that has gone from being an ordinary, processrelated discussion, to a hotly contested theme. IFSD – the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development – has become an issue fraught with passion, positions and bracketed language, with delegates eager to expose its intricacies and civil society adamant about the inclusion of human rights. The final week of Informals before Rio+20 is likely to be largely dominantly by IFSD, and the workshop was a serious effort to shed some light on the facts behind the IFSD debate, and offer ways forward.

Some sixty people, among them nearly ten representatives of governments, participated in the workshop. The first half of the day dealt with international environmental governance issues, with a focus on how to strengthen UNEP. The second half centred on international sustainable development governance, with a specific focus on whether it should be incorporated into ECOSOC or covered under a new and separate entity. The panels were made up of a wide group of experts, representing a multitude of organisations and countries: UNEP, IGES – Institute of Global Environment Strategies, Stakeholder Forum, World Resources Institute, the ETC Group, the World Future Council, France, Switzerland and Mexico. The audience participated actively in plenary debates following each presentation. The last panel of the day explored four proposals to strengthen the global institutions on sustainable development: a convention on Principle 10, a framework dealing with the appraisal of the Precautionary Principle as applied to new technology, a convention on corporate social responsibility and the establishment of a High Commissioner for Future Generations.

Let us upgrade UNEP to...?

There was general agreement on the need to strengthen UNEP, but not on how. Should UNEP be upgraded to a specialised agency? If so, its mandate would have to be renegotiated, potentially weakening its directive as the primary UN programme working on environmental issues.

Further discussion centred on the funding of UNEP, which has historically been inadequate. Would universal membership help to guarantee predictability of finance?

As a programme, UNEP receives funding from the UN core budget, however as a specialised agency, this would no longer be the case. Would a specialised agency be in a better position than a programme to fundraise? A specialised agency would also need to be ratified by each Member State – a cumbersome process. As summarised by one panellist, the questions are many, and the answers not sufficient to create majority support for an upgrade.

8

RIO+20

pic: CIMMYT

ECOSOC or a new Council – what is best for sustainable development?

In the afternoon, there was unanimity on the need to increase the status of sustainable development within the UN. The panellists expressed a mutual interest in seeing an institution capable of integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development and strong enough to attract high level representatives from financial, economic and social institutions all over the world. Opinions were split over whether this should be achieved by ECOSOC or a Sustainable Development Council. Advocates for a Council argued that, although these sustainable development is reflected in ECOSOC’s mandate, the body is overburdened, underfunded and has lost political credibility. Conversely, concerns were raised that a Council would not be able to avoid prioritising green issues, to the detriment of the other two dimensions and that Council decisions could perhaps be diluted as it would have to report back to the General Assembly through the second or third Committee. A further concern raise was the potential for ECOSOC to be stripped of all its functions if sustainable development issues were transferred to a new Council. However, it was pointed out that the ratio of sustainable development to different thematic issues dealt with by ECOSOC is 1:4, making this unlikely. On the contrary – relieving an overburdened ECOSOC of these tasks has the potential to improve its functioning and ability to fulfil its original mandate.

To conclude the day, the final panel asked whether the world was ready to operationalise the Precautionary Principle, establish a global convention on Rio Principle 10, develop and adopt a convention on corporate social responsibility or establish a High Commissioner for Future Generations?

The overwhelming impression from the participants was yes. Rio+20 provides us with a unique opportunity to create a governance system capable of delivering the future we want. This is an opportunity we must not squander

.

MORE INFO www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/SDG Paper Jan Gustav.pdf

profile.

Clarice Wilson

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

I started out advocating for the establishment of a recycling progamme at my high school in Kenya.

Seeing my interest, my biology teacher gave me copy of the first UNEP Global Environment Outlook and I was hooked. I decided to focus my career on the environment and while my perspective has shifted and evolved since those high school days, I’m still engaged in searching for answers to the ‘big questions’ on how to advance the development of Africa, while learning from the past and instituting sound environmental policies that safeguard the continents’ resource future.

Nationality:

Sierra Leonean

Country of residence: Kenya

Current Position:

Programme Officer, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Looking specifically at your work, why is research into green cities so important?

I am from Sierra Leone, which endured a civil war in the 1990’s. One of the effects of the war was overcrowding of the capital, Freetown, an already strained city. This is a trend that is being experienced in many cities, as people migrate from the rural areas seeking better opportunities. We must aim to provide adequate standards of living, ensuring that resources are being managed in a sustainable an equitable manner, and that the urban areas are managed as part of the wider ecosystem.

What role does the development of green cities have in Rio+20?

Rio+20 is about the future we want. We already know the urbanisation statistics, with five billion people living in cities by 2030, the development of sustainable cities cannot be left out of the future we envisage. Decisions we make about urban management will have impacts on air quality, water quality, pollution, provisioning of ecosystem services, and a host of other issues.

Human wellbeing and the quality of life in urban areas will depend on what policies we institute to manage urban ecosystems. Rio+20 should proactively look at how to modify existing policies to accommodate these changes and the kinds of policies that can be put in place to optimally manage resources.

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

Rio+20 should result in a clear, action-oriented agenda for addressing sustainable development at all levels. It should not result in the launching of new processes. At the global level, stronger governance institutions are a key prerequisite for enabling transformative change.

This means strengthening the governance structure for sustainable development, including international environmental governance. At the national level, commitments need to be reinforced and supported to progress towards integrated approaches towards national sustainable development.

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 process provides a valuable space for governments to engage on issues that we consider crucial for the determination of the political path that we are going to embark on for sustainable development governance in the future. This cannot be underestimated as the decisions that are made at this level have important implications at the national level. Civil society mobilisation is a very component aspect of this process and to be effective in Rio they need rally around key messages.

Favourite quote: “The definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” ~ Albert Einstein

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar Room

Title

Organisers

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

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

1:15-2:45

03 May 2012

Time

04 May 2012

Date

9

RIO+20

Reflections on the negotiations - Tuesday, 1st May Emma Puka-Beals

Michele Morek

Working Group I discussed new CST paragraphs as they were presented individually, and the Co-chair strongly discouraged delegates from adding additional text or requesting changes in placement until all the text was available.

At the beginning of the afternoon session, the Chair laid down strict ground rules about adding material to the new streamlined text he had prepared. The new material was only inserted at the beginning of each paragraph, therefore the delegates seemed frustrated with the approach, as they did not know what concepts would be included in later on in the text. For a time the Chair resisted adding material or re-editing, almost to the point of paralysis.

Mount Holyoke College

UNANIMA International

Morning negotiations opened with text on business and industry involvement in the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. Many delegates moved to retain text on developing goals and benchmarks for progress in supply chains, while the US and Japan moved for deletion.

There was strong support for the Global Compact Principles.

The G77 focused on streamlining and strengthening paragraphs that were convoluted and had references to multiple themes.

The G77 also noted that emphasis on private sector support created unrealistic expectations, and motioned to move the text to section V, on means of implementation.

In afternoon negotiations on section V, there was disagreement on introductory text addressing implementation gaps and renewing previous commitments. The G77 moved to delete text on goals, targets and gender-sensitive indicators, as it was unclear on what these referred to, while Switzerland, the RoK, Norway, Australia, and Iceland moved to retain.

There was very little support for text on a global green economy roadmap, which was heavily criticized for being a top-down approach that did not take into account different national circumstances and priorities. There was disagreement on implementation through knowledge sharing platforms, and the EU stated that it did not support the inclusion of a separate section on poverty eradication, due to the overarching nature of the issue in the document.

The Major Group statement by Workers and Trade Unions focused on decent work and social protection. Farmers focused on upcoming text including nutrition and knowledge sharing and NGOs expressed extreme discomfort with the green economy. All Major Group statements referenced specific text and suggestions

.

Outreach is made possible by the support of

Nonetheless, there seemed to be universal agreement that the document should mention the achievement of previously agreed-upon development goals, notably the MDGs. The group also agreed that poverty eradication was key to any sustainable development pathway, but the G-77 wanted to add a reference to the three dimensions in that context. They also wanted to add a reference to the ‘right to development’ as necessary to achieve sustainable development.

In a paragraph reaffirming commitment to the UN Charter and international law, there was a strong movement by many parties (including Australia, the EU, Holy See, Lichtenstein, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, and the US) to include a reference to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The G-77 preferred the original, more generic language of the Co-Chair’s text, but proposed a compromise that would borrow language from the MDGs. After a long break for a ‘tri-lateral consultation’, the differing parties tentatively agreed on compromise language that would replace several paragraphs of text.

The session concluded with three Major Groups (Business, NGOs, and Women) having the opportunity to speak, reacting to what they had heard in the discussion, and emphasising their own areas of interest.

.

pic: Joost J. Bakker