Post-Rio to Post-2015

inside: Post-Rio to Post-2015: Planning International Stakeholder Engagement The Future We [THE PEOPLE] want a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development

out reach.

13 November 2012

Be PaperSmart: Read Outreach online www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach

pic: NYC DOT pic: NYC DOT

contents.

1

Co-Chairs’ Statement - Post-Rio to Post-2015: Planning International Stakeholder Engagement

3

The Future We [THE PEOPLE] Want

4

A multi-stakeholder approach to transforming economic development in the Carribean

5

Full Steam Ahead

6

Civil Society Involvement in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: The Promulgation of Meaningful SDGs

7

Means of implementation for Sustainable Development

8

Peace and security: the fourth dimension of a future development framework

9

'Nothing about us, without us': Some perspectives on the Post-2015 Development Agenda

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 (acutter@stakeholderforum.org ) You can also follow us on Twitter: @stakeholders

1

1

3

127

OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Farooq Ullah

Stakeholder Forum

Jeannet Lingan

Stakeholder Forum

Editor

Amy Cutter

Stakeholder Forum

Co-editor

Jack Cornforth

Stakeholder Forum

Print/Web Designer

Matthew Reading-Smith

Stakeholder Forum

Editorial Advisors

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Farooq Ullah

Stakeholder Forum

Sascha Gabizon

WECF International

Oliver Greenfield

Green Economy Coalition

Emily Benson

Green Economy Coalition

Lalanath de Silva

The Access Initiative Sustainable World Initiative

Melanie Nakashian Sluyter

Stakeholder Forum

Ed Barry Nicole Leotaud

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)

Henri Valot

CIVICUS

Co-Chairs’ Statement

Post-Rio to Post-2015: Planning International Stakeholder Engagement Farooq Ullah Stakeholder Forum

Oliver Greenfield The Green Economy Coalition

Key conclusion: Working with governments, the UN System and other stakeholders, we must seek to achieve coherence and integration across all decision-making processes within the post-Rio+20 and the post-2015 development agenda time period. The aim must be the establishment of one development agenda, which works towards producing a single set of global goals for post-2015 and puts sustainable development at its heart. This includes ensuring ever greater inclusivity of all stakeholders within these processes.

Background On 21st and 22nd October 2012, Major Groups and stakeholders from across the globe came together in order to discuss the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (otherwise known as Rio+20) held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, agree on priorities for action in order to accelerate these outcomes, address areas where no progress or agreement was made and advance the post-2015 development agenda.

While it was recognised that Rio+20 has created numerous entry points via new processes for advancing sustainable development, stakeholders focused on five key themes for the event: 1. The new governance architecture post Rio+20, and the potential role of Major Groups, and the space for engagement from local to global levels, most notably the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) established at Rio+20; 2. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the post2015 development agenda, including the role of Major Groups and stakeholders in their design and implementation; 3. The green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, including Beyond GDP; 4. The 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP on SCP); 5. A focus on implementation and delivery of the Rio+20 outcomes, including mobilisation of finance, technology and resource Outcomes and Views The above themes are critical to defining the post-2015 development agenda between now and 2015. In discussing these themes, three clear outcomes of the event emerged: 1. Inform stakeholders of entry points and opportunities to influence in the post-Rio to post-2015 time period.

2. Establish a clear call from stakeholders for integration of the relevant processes. Integration refers not only to providing coherence between the various Rio+20 follow-up processes, but also between these processes

1

and the post-2015 development agenda. Not a single stakeholder expressed an alternative view or concern against such integration.

3. Develop a collection of actions for immediate priority which can/should be taken forward to ensure the momentum created in Rio+20 is not lost and that real progress towards sustainability is achieved. These actions will provide a valuable addition to the public dialogue on the post-Rio to post-2015 period.

Overall, the views that stakeholders expressed at the event can be converged into a few broad points: 1. The need for coherence between the different decisionmaking processes to create one development agenda to which all these processes contribute and combine in order to create a cohesive whole; 2. The need to consider the issues, challenges and solutions as global in nature and universal in application, but also bearing in mind that no one size fits all and any new agenda or framework must take into account the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR).

3. The need for improvements in the opportunities and enabling resources for stakeholder engagement and participation in the post-Rio and post-2015 processes.

This includes, for example, formal mechanisms for engagement, financial support and capacity building programmes; 4. The need to actualise the implementation of the 10YFP for SCP which has now been formally adopted, while other processes are still in pre-implementation phases; 5. Along with governments, stakeholders are key implementers. Therefore, stakeholder engagement in shaping processes and decisions is of considerable benefit to implementation.

Day two of the event was focused on the development of a Framework for Action to enable Major Groups and stakeholders to engage with the post Rio+20/post-2015 processes, and to stimulate the implementation and delivery that is urgently needed. Working together, the event participants developed many strong action points.

It should be noted that these actions should not be taken as consensually agreed amongst all participants. In fact, some actions may indeed be conflicting. However, what is important is that these actions feed into and become a part of the public discourse and debate on what needs to be done to advance sustainable development from post-Rio to post2015 and beyond.

A full list of the actions developed by stakeholders at the event is provided in the Event Summary document. An amalgamated list of the actions is given on the next page to demonstrate what such a Framework for Action could look like:

Actions for Stakeholders: 1. We must engage with our own networks, other networks and strategically engage with untapped networks to encourage stakeholders to participate in the post-Rio and post-2015 processes.

2. We must engage with the processes actively with a particular focus on the high level political forum (HLPF) as the main governance body for post-2015/SDGs, and insist on openness, transparency and participation of stakeholders.

3. We should seek to work together to centralise information and decentralise via social media.

4. We should seek to build coordination and coherence across the development agenda engaging all groups, youth.

5. The Major Groups should develop Terms of Reference that clarify roles, mandates, and ensure an open, participatory, transparent, inclusive, and effective process, taking into account regional and gender balances, among other issues.

Assessments and consultations on how to integrate underrepresented constituencies could support this process.

6. We must acknowledge, in approaching both SDGs & post-2015 agenda, the intrinsic linkages between the sustainable development and poverty eradication agendas: environmental system preservation (i.e. national resource management) as an inherent necessity for human development.

Actions for National Governments: 1. We call for Member States to actively work toward the integration of the SDG process with the post-2015 process or explain why not this is not being done. More broadly, governments must actively seek coherence and integration of all relevant international policies and processes related to the sustainable development agenda (e.g. climate, finance, etc.).

2. We call on governments to make the post-Rio+20 and post-2015 processes open, participatory, transparent, inclusive, and effective. Ensure that civil society is given access to information, included in the decision making process, and able to increase accountability to decisions.

3. We ask national governments to create consultations and fora with stakeholders across countries and processes, and provide resources and funding for stakeholder engagement.

4. Government must ensure that post-2015 consultations involve all countries, not only developing countries. The consultation process should be open, participatory, transparent, inclusive, effective, and should include assessments and recommendations of the sustainable development situation at the national level. National consultations should also include parliamentary debates.

5. We would like to see governments clarify the ownership, institutions and financing of sustainable development encouraging a shared ownership across national government departments. Governments should give the highest priority to designing, monitoring, and implementing sustainable development policies, as well as enhancing or establishing National Councils for Sustainable Development (NCSDs) and establishing mechanisms to link the NCSDs with the global agenda.

Actions for the UN System/UN Agencies: 1. The UN should provide Major Groups and stakeholders with capacity building programmes and processes, as well as sufficient funding for engagement and facilitate communication tools for engagement. There should be a balance between regional and central support, and a focus on empowering grassroots and youth participation.

2. We expect the UN to formalise Major Group consultations on all post-Rio processes, creating opportunities for stakeholder engagement and ensuring access to information and decisions. The UN must commit to making information available to everyone – making conversations more public and clear, including through online campaigns, national dialogues.

3. We want to establish or strengthen Major Groups engagement mechanism(s) with UN institutions, including ECOSOC and the HLPF on sustainable development and establish adequate funding mechanisms. All parties much ensure meaningful Major Group/stakeholder participation building on best practices of UN institutions.

4. We want to see the UN be clearer in helping business, government and civil society become equal partners in the developing and delivering the development agenda.

5. The UN must ensure, in both post-Rio and post-2015 processes, the acknowledgement of the intrinsic linkages between the sustainable development and poverty eradication agendas: environmental system preservation (i.e. national resource management) as an inherent necessity for human development.

Overall, the stakeholder event was an important milestone to bring the “Rio+20 family back together� for the first time. As the Rio+20 Outcome Document acknowledges, sustainable development requires the meaningful involvement and active participation of stakeholders.

Ensuring the stakeholders are informed, capable and engaged will be key to not only the design of any solutions to our currently challenges, but also to their implementation. Therefore, it is apparent from this event and its consultations that a key element of success going forward must be the drive for ever greater inclusivity with clearer and stronger stakeholder engagement.

This document reflects the views of the two organisations co-chairing the meeting and represents a synthesis of the diversity of views expressed by participants over the duration of the event. This has not been consulted with, or endorsed by, the Major Groups and stakeholder constituencies. We hope this statement will contribute to more open and inclusive work on the post-2015 development agenda.

2

The Future We [THE PEOPLE] Want Lalanath de Silva The Access Initiative Four months after Rio+20, civil society has begun to engage with the outcome document entitled ‘The Future we Want’. Three key decisions made at the Rio+20 Conference need the attention of civil society. These are (a) sustainable development goals (SDGs) (b) the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) and (c) strengthening of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In an effort to catalyse civil society input, Stakeholder Forum recently held a two day meeting, Post-Rio to Post-2015: Planning International Stakeholder Engagement, which brought forth many good proposals on all three of these issues. This article addresses the imperative of civil society participation in shaping how these three decisions are implemented.

The idea behind SDGs is that the international community would establish goals with regard to important ecosystem services and natural resources so that we would have a yardstick to measure progress. However, there is a parallel process underway at the UN for renewing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The MDGs come to an end in 2015 and the question of what they would look like post-2015 looms large. Should SDGs and MDG coexist? Should they be folded into one process?

These are some of the questions being asked at the UN. Irrespective of what the final responses to those questions might be, there are two propositions that need to find a central place in the process adopted for developing the goals. First, the process needs to be transparent at all stages. Often UN decision-making dives into a closed black box during the negotiation stage. This is no longer acceptable in the new world of open government, public accountability and information technology. Second, civil society must be included in the deliberations at all stages.

The UN has a system where civil society is divided into nine major groups. Problematic as this system is, it is the only mechanism for including civil society in the UN system. Major groups must be given a voice and a seat at the negotiating table when the goals are developed. They should not be excluded at any stage of that process.

Turning to the High level Political Forum (HLPF), a viable and attractive proposal was made by civil society at the recent Stakeholder Forum meeting. The HLPF should be tasked with regularly monitoring and assessing progress in achieving the Post-2015 goals and recommending timely corrective action when progress is weak. Setting new Post-2015 goals for the world will only be effective if it is accompanied by transparent, inclusive and accountable governance mechanisms. The Forum should be supported by a secretariat that facilitates governmentled multi-stakeholder dialogues at the local, national, regional and international levels. These dialogues should be transparent and inclusive and span thematic areas

3

as well. The dialogues should be informed by progress reports on the goals from UN agencies, governments, civil society and an independent Representative for Future Generations. The assessments and recommendations from the dialogues would feed into a Ministerial gathering that would take place every second and third year. This gathering would bring together Ministers covering finance, environment and social development portfolios. Every Fourth year, Heads of State would gather to ensure that key policy decisions are made to move the goals forward.

The Ministerial and Head of State meetings will also be transparent and inclusive of civil society and the public.

The whole will constitute the High Level Political Forum. to the detriment of links between present and future generations.

Finally, the Rio+20 outcome document mandates the strengthening of the UNEP. Clause 88(h) of the outcome document mandates UNEP to ‘(e)nsure the active participation of all relevant stakeholders drawing on best practices and models from relevant multilateral institutions’ and further mandates UNEOP to explore ‘new mechanisms to promote transparency and the effective engagement of civil society.’ In 2013, the UNEP Governing Council will have to fashion how these mandates are translated into action. UNEP must develop mechanisms such as open data portals that would allow much greater transparency for the information it holds as well as for the decisions and decision-making processes it adopts.

UNEP needs to develop new mechanisms that expand civil society participation well beyond the current major groups model, ensuring that citizens at all levels can have their voice heard. There are other evolving models in the multilateral system that should be examined. Civil society must be vigilant about these new developments and mandates.

A multi-stakeholder approach to transforming economic development in the Caribbean Nicole Leotaud Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) Rio+20 has come and gone with little difference seen or anticipated by the men and women walking the streets in the Caribbean. Their preoccupation is not with international meetings and grand (or bland) statements. They are concerned about the daily challenges of increasing poverty and economic inequity, crime and drugs, threats from natural disasters, and continuing degradation of the natural resources that provide the basis for our key economic sectors and wellbeing. People are frustrated with the current direction and want a change.

However, while the need for a new direction is widely acknowledged, the obstacles to shifting to a new paradigm are formidable in the Caribbean. A major factor is the political disincentive for change. Although elections across the Caribbean in the past few years have often resulted in a shift in political leadership that reflects the widespread societal demand for change, few politicians are prepared to take substantive leadership towards changes that could alienate powerful interest groups that benefit from the current paradigm. Divisive partisan politics in most countries reduces the ability of any government to achieve the political consensus required to make major policy shifts.

Leadership for change clearly cannot come from government alone.

There is a tremendous role for Caribbean civil society to play in national and regional development through engaging in partnerships with government and the private sector to advocate for, develop and test new approaches to economic development.

The Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) has been facilitating a multi-stakeholder process across the Caribbean since 2010 to elicit ideas on what a new economic paradigm would look like in the Caribbean context. The collective vision developed is of an economy ‘that aims for long-term prosperity, rather than solely for growth, through equitable distribution of economic benefits and effective management of ecological resources. It is economically viable and resilient to both external and internal shocks; self-directed and not driven by external agendas or funding opportunities, and self-reliant by being based predominantly on domestic production and investment... is pro-poor and generates decent jobs and working conditions that offer opportunities for self-advancement for local people.’

4

Caribbean people are also committing themselves to work together towards this vision by analysing practical strategies and approaches, testing these in sectors and countries across the Caribbean, and building knowledge and capacity for economic transformation.

This will be addressed by a Caribbean Green Economy Action Learning Group that has been formed, bringing together leaders with a diversity of perspectives and experiences from across key sectors (e.g. tourism, agriculture, energy, mining, culture, services). They come from civil society organisations (national, regional and international and including community-based organisations [CBOs], non-governmental organisations [NGOs], academic institutes, media and labour), government agencies, private sector, technical assistance agencies and donors from, or actively working in, the Caribbean.

This multi-stakeholder group and process will in turn engage wider networks in sectors and countries across the Caribbean. Change will be driven by, and for, Caribbean people.

Sharing knowledge and influencing international efforts will continue to be important. CANARI is partnering with the Green Economy Coalition to learn about key international policy issues and opportunities that can be useful to the Caribbean process, as well as to share ideas emerging from the Caribbean that can help to ground international discourses in local realities. International economic policies and structures need to be reformed to enable and support greater self-sufficiency and resilience within the Caribbean.

An endogenous and participatory approach to economic transformation in the Caribbean is the only way to bring about real change at the policy level as well as on the ground in the Caribbean. This will need to be supported through reform of international policies and structures so that they can better enable achievement of the Caribbean’s vision of economic development that is equitable, ecologically sound, economically viable and resilient, self-directed and self-reliant.

For more information contact: Nicole Leotaud nicole@canari.org Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) www.canari.org

Full steam ahead Emily Benson Green Economy Coalition The first is that while the international SCP agenda is critical, the processes that governments put together on the national level will be where the changes really take force. Accordingly, stakeholders would like to see multi-stakeholder consultative committees established to work with their governments. We would also like to see avenues of participation for smaller, grassroots organisations to take an active role on the SCP agenda, particularly because informal work and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) play such a critical role in developing countries.

The UN system is not a nimble machine. It takes time for the engines to warm up, for the cogs to start turning and for the direction of travel to be agreed on. Even when you can detect signs of movement, you can be sure that there will be another period required for tweaking, rewiring and realigning different parts of the machine before it can inch forward. But, when the UN system does finally lurch into life, its sheer force and size tends to propel activity on a much grander scale.

In the case of sustainable consumption and production (SCP), the wheels are already in motion.

A second rallying point raised in the discussions focused on the need for much greater cooperation and collaboration – amongst the UN system and between governments – on this agenda. For many around the table there was a lack of clarification on how the SCP agenda fits into the conversations on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). What is the relationship between SCP and the green economy agenda? And how are the different UN entities working together on these themes?

After months of negotiation on the part of governments, Major Groups and stakeholders, a ’10 Year Framework Programme’ (10YFP) was agreed upon at Rio+20.

The 10YFP is a global framework for action to enhance international cooperation to accelerate the shift towards SCP in both developed and developing countries. It will provide capacity, along with technical and financial assistance, to developing countries to make the shift. It will encourage the implementation of SCP projects and replicate and scale up practices worldwide, contributing to the decoupling of environmental degradation from economic growth.

Finally, many noted that unless we can establish ways of measuring our progress towards SCP then it will be very difficult for different stakeholder groups to contribute affectively. In short, we need scorecards at the local, national and indeed global level that will allow us to track progress. The SDGs might provide one of the ways that we can monitor progress at the global level so it would make sense for national and local goals to be aligned with similar objectives.

So, the next question is: how can stakeholders and Major Groups most usefully engage with this framework as it moves forward? What is our role? What can we do that governments cannot do? This was the focus of the working group discussion on the 10YFP held at the Post-Rio to Post-2015 meeting in New York. The discussions were wide ranging but there were a number of points that all could rally around.

The SCP agenda is already underway and is gathering speed. Let’s get on board and make this journey count.

Outreach at COP18 GET YOUR PAPERLESS COPY Stakeholder Forum will be publishing daily editions of Outreach at the 18th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP18) from 26 November to 7 December, 2012, in Doha Qatar. COP18 will be a PaperSmart conference so we are encouraging our readers to access Outreach electronically in one of the following ways:

5

•

Sign up to the daily email newsletter here to receive each edition of Outreach direct to your inbox

•

Bookmark the newly mobile-optimised Outreach website: www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach

•

Follow the Outreach team on Twitter @stakeholders

•

Want to contribute an article? Email Amy Cutter acutter@stkeholderforum.org

Civil Society Involvement in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: The Promulgation of Meaningful SDGs Ed Barry Sustainable World Initiative Many members of civil society felt that the Rio+20 final outcome document was a disappointment, but many also believed that the call to establish sustainable development goals (SDGs) creates an important and potentially transformative opportunity to positively shape the global human development agenda. Since 2000, when the adoption of the Millennium Declaration gave birth to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), a renewed focus on human development has improved the lives and prospects of hundreds of millions of people living in severe poverty. Many fear, however, that those gains may be lost without a stronger focus on sustainability and a new approach to development.

As the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 Development Agenda reported to the Secretary-General earlier this year, ‘Continuation along previously trodden economic growth pathways will exacerbate inequalities, social tensions and pressures on the world’s resources… There is therefore an urgent need…for new development pathways.’ The proposed SDGs are regarded by many as the best vehicle for responding to that pressing need.

With respect to the development of the SDGs, Paragraph 248 of the Rio+20 outcome document calls for an inclusive and transparent process that is open to all stakeholders.

Although the members of the Open Working Group (OWG) on SDGs have not yet been named (at time of publishing, 6th November 2012), and the operating modalities of the OWG are yet to be set, the process will include, and greatly benefit from, ongoing participation and thoughtful engagement with civil society stakeholders. Indeed – as often noted by UN agency staff – ideas that foster transformational change require the kind of creativity and out-of-the-box thinking that typically comes from civil society.

Although much work has been done on the basic principles and thematic content of the proposed SDGs, this stage-setting process is far from concluded. There are numerous and varied opportunities for meaningful civil society engagement in the post-Rio+20 UN development processes. For starters, civil society will have an opportunity to engage with the UN Post2015 development agenda. This development track – and the UN System Task Team and High Level UN Panel that are riding these rails – is specifically focused on what happens to the MDGs beyond 2015. This MDG-focused process, which is preceding the formal SDG development track by several months, recognises the need to build upon the success of the MDGs by incorporating sustainability as a fundamental principle of development. Rather than creating two sets of global goals, it is possible that these groups will recommend

that the MDGs be revised and transformed into a comprehensive set of SDGs that expand the human development agenda, while also recognising the need to make development durable and sustainable for future generations.

Civil society will also have an opportunity to engage in the SDG process itself. The OWG will soon be appointed and shortly thereafter ‘…will decide on its methods of work, including developing modalities to ensure the full involvement of relevant stakeholders and expertise from civil society…’

It is expected that this process will be broadly inclusive and that it will consider and incorporate a diversity of civil society perspectives and recommendations. The OWG will be supported by a UN inter-agency technical team, but it will also receive input from satellite ‘expert panels’, and regional economic commissions. Ideally, this entire process should afford ample opportunity for meaningful civil society engagement.

Other opportunity tracks for civil society include the UN Development Group Country and Thematic Consultations setup under the Post-2015 process, the ongoing UN MDG review processes, and informal dialogues that are facilitated by the nine major groups established under Agenda 21. Additional engagement tracks may be created in the future. Stakeholder Forum, along with a network of supporting NGOs, has proposed the establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory group on sustainable development goals.

As we collectively address the challenging task of designing meaningful SDGs, it is important that we keep in mind the implicit distinction between the MDGs and SDGs. The former have largely been focused on the human development imperative, while the latter must recognise environmental concerns and resource limitations, and the corresponding need to ensure that human development is sustainable in terms of posterity and the planet. Creating a forward-looking development agenda that is also sustainable from a sound resource management perspective will require the full and active involvement of civil society.

More info www.worldwewant2015.org

6

Means of Implementation for Sustainable Development Sascha Gabizon WECF International/co-organising partner of the Women’s Major Group An international agreement without means of implementation is not going to achieve results. The Rio+20 outcome document ‘The Future We Want’ is weak on ‘means of implementation’, but the limited commitments allow for some progress.

•

Financial Transaction Tax (also called the Tobin Tax on international financial transactions) and Currency Taxes: est. US$ 50 - 150b/year. Eleven courageous countries in the European Region are already proceeding with a Tobin tax.

During the consultation meeting in New York held over 2021 October 2012, a small working group focused on these commitments and how the Major Groups and stakeholders can call for concrete implementation steps to be made.

•

Diversion of fossil fuel subsidies (based on 2010 subsidy levels): est. US$ 300b/year. An estimated US$ 6-7 billion is spent on fossil fuel taxes annually.

In many countries these act as a poverty reduction measure, so diversion of these subsidies would require other measures to be put in place. The most effective would be a global Social Protection Floor.

Brazil has pulled 50 million people out of extreme poverty with its social protection floor instruments.

•

Closing of Tax Havens globally est. US$ 40b/year.

Two areas in particular in the means of implementation section of the Rio+20 Outcome Document merit a closer look: •

Finance: Paragraph 255, Paragraph 257

•

Technology: Paragraph 273 and 275

It should be noted that these paragraphs need to be considered in the context of the first two chapters of the Outcome Document, which reaffirm the Rio Principles of 1992. Discussions on technology need to take into account the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and those on finance must be based upon the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ and the principle of ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’.

Finance No financial commitments for sustainable development were made at Rio+20. Instead, governments have agreed to ‘establish an intergovernmental process under the auspices of the General Assembly’ which will prepare a report on an ‘effective financing strategy for Sustainable Development’ by September 2014. They will do so with input from financial institutions, the UN and ‘other relevant stakeholders’.

A number of recommendations on new financing sources have already been presented, including on new issuance and leveraging of Special Drawing rights. Other options, which have the potential to generate up to US$1000 billion per year, include:

7

•

30% reduction in all national military expenditures (based on 2010 expenditures): est. US$ 500 billion/ year. Costa Rica, which has no military, instead invests in education, health and environmental protection, advancing development and strengthening its economy.

•

Overseas Development Aid (ODA) of 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) in OECD countries and 0.35% of GDP from emerging economies (BRICs): est. US$ 100b/year.

But more is needed. In particular, corporations need to be called upon contribute to poverty eradication and protection and clean up of our environmental commons.

Further proposals include: •

0.01% tax on global chemical industry turnover: est.

US$ 4b/year. With an estimated 900,000 deaths caused annually by exposure to harmful chemicals and pesticides, and 2 million illnesses, this is only a drop in the ocean. The revenue should go into a global fund to improve health protection and the management and clean up of harmful chemicals.

•

Extractive industry taxes of 50% or more. Extractive industries should be held responsible for the resource depletion, pollution and destruction of livelihoods they cause. Australia has passed an extraction tax, as have Bolivia and Ecuador, and Norway has a $600 billion ‘Oil Fund’.

Technology All too often, obsolete technologies that have the potential to create more damage than benefits have been ‘sold’ to developing countries. Sometimes these are even labelled as ‘green’ technologies. Recent scientific research on the cancer risk associated with genetically modified organisms and the potential ecosystem damage from geoengineering indicates that new technologies might have unacceptably high costs for public health, the economy and global ecosystems. There is growing support therefore for an independent assessment of technologies that could facilitate developing country access to independent data on the true risks and costs of technologies. At the same time, truly environmentally beneficial technologies should be made accessible to all countries, in order to achieve the transition towards sustainable economies. In the Rio+20 Outcome Document, governments have asked the Secretary General for recommendations for a facilitation mechanism for environmental technology transfer by September 2013 and for strengthened assessment of unintended negative impacts. This is an important starting point for action towards more sustainable development.

Peace and security: the fourth dimension of a future development framework Melanie Nakashian Sluyter New York University and Major Group for Children and Youth The most substantial lesson to be learned from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is that violence and fragility have been the most severe impediment to their achievement. Not one fragile or conflict-affected State has achieved a single target. And although the Millennium Declaration includes a chapter on peace and security, this was not incorporated into the goals.

The importance of this lesson is recognised in the UN System Task Team report to the UN Secretary General on the Post2015 UN Development Agenda, published in June, which identifies peace and security as the fourth dimension of the new framework and calls for separate goals on these issues, including a measurable target on violence. Still, a number of challenges remain before the lessons from the MDGs can be effectively incorporated into the post-2015 development agenda.

Armed violence comes in many forms and contexts, ranging from full-on war or illegal occupation, to crime or genderbased non-conflict situations. Its socioeconomic impacts are endless and make successful and lasting development simply impossible. As recognised in the Rio+20 Outcome Document – which states in para 32: ‘countries in situations of conflict also need special attention.’ – the voices of fragile States need to be included in these discussions and understood and prioritised in the post-2015 agenda.

There is a growing body of information on the securitydevelopment nexus and various actors are taking initiative to address such issues that can be used to this end.

The Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, initially adopted in 2006 and now endorsed by over 100 States, intended to form measurable targets on armed violence to complement the MDGs. This led to the Secretary General’s report on General Assembly Resolution 63/23, ‘Promoting development through the reduction and prevention of armed violence’, which compiles Member State submissions on the interrelationship between armed violence and development.

A number of processes have since continued similar work.

The most notable is the g7+, an autonomous forum of fragile and conflict-affected states formed in 2010. They have led the creation of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, which proposes Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals ‘as an important foundation to enable progress towards the MDGs.’

8

However, post-2015 national consultations are planned for only 5 of the 17 g7+ members – and for only 3 of the 7 founders – excluding Afghanistan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan. Although extra support will be needed to ensure the capacity to hold these consultations, it is absolutely crucial that their voices are heard, and that they have the opportunity to contribute to their own futures. The process is incomplete without them.

This leads to another challenge in the transition from the MDGs to the SDGs – while there is a great deal to be learned from the aforementioned existing efforts, they miss the environmental dimension of sustainable development.

The links between peace and sustainability must be understood by all who are involved in shaping the post2015 agenda. Environmental impacts of war may last for generations. Natural resources are often the source of conflict, or may be used as weapons of war. The landscape of armed violence is evolving in the face of climate change, which threatens all types of security. Such 21st century challenges are not to be left in the hands of the Security Council.

Global civil society has already found some possible approaches to prevent this future violence. Reallocating the military budget to social development, as proposed by the International Peace Bureau at Rio+20, must be included in the conversation, no matter how contentious.

In addition to strengthening existing rules of law and rights, there should be room for implementing new law: specifically, Ecocide as the 5th International Crime against Peace. This law, and a commons approach to governance, both respect rights of nature and prevent conflict over resources. Participatory democracy, including youth and women’s empowerment, is also fundamental in fostering a culture of peace and sustainability.

Without peace, sustainable development cannot be achieved. In addition to a goal and target on violence reduction, peace and nonviolence should be integrated throughout the entire agenda, and potentially be considered an overarching goal alongside sustainability.

Civil society must strive to ensure the neglected voices are heard, and we must all take responsibility for our own understanding of the links between peace, sustainability, and our personal areas of interest.

‘Nothing about us, without us’: Some perspectives on the Post-2015 Development Agenda development Henri Valot, CIVICUS I had the chance to attend in Johannesburg the CSO Consultation on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, organised by the African Monitor. The Beyond 2015 campaign was represented by Mr Kudakwashe Dube, from the Disability Alliance, who reiterated appropriately in this context the Disability movement motto: ‘Nothing about us, without us’. If we are to be serious about building a Post-2015 agenda, it has to be done with people!

It is widely known is that seven of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were aimed at what we now call ‘partner countries’, while only one (the 8th) concerned the ‘developed countries’. Therefore, one could say that the MDGs were dictated by donors, written by donors, and made better sense within the Aid Effectiveness agenda and process than in the development agenda. As a consequence, there was very little ownership of the MDGs by development actors, very few countries attempted to localise them and most of the MDGs national reports were actually drafted by officers at UNDP country offices. Even the innovative UN Financing for Development process never really owned the MDGs agenda. And the UN

terms and in importance, reflecting the power shifts in the world. As a consequence, the club of donors is shifting their discourse from ‘aid’ to ‘development effectiveness’.

This shift is welcomed by the civil society community, but one could question the kind of development is needed.

One just has to read the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, which opens large avenues to the private sector. Today, development remains focused on the pursuit of economic growth, however evidence on the ground clearly indicates that the current model fails to meet the social needs of the people and the environmental needs of the planet. In Angola, for example, two-digit annual growth in GDP is coupled with nonexistent essential services and some of the continent’s highest rates of poverty. History tells us that many ‘primitive societies’ did not allow individuals, families or clans to accumulate levels of wealth or properties that would create inequality and then destroy the social fabric.

Today, we have authorised the opposite: a small number of countries, companies and individuals possessing levels of wealth that are simply incomprehensible to most of us So the question posed to all of us is what should universal development in the 21st Century look like? We know from Rio 1992 and 2012 that it has to be sustainable. There are many approaches to sustainable development, this could, for example, take the form of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but to quote the economist Stefan de Vylder:

had to create the Millennium Campaign in 2003-4 to help build ownership among governments and stakeholders.

This time is over. Dambisa Moyo’s ‘Dead Aid’ says it all, though we question her conclusions. Even African Monitor – established in 2005 to monitor the implementation of the G8 Gleneagles commitments – no longer centres its work on aid mechanisms but on Africa’s untapped economic potential and its governance and accountability. Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is declining in monetary

9

‘The sustainable human development approach starts with the recognition that people’s knowledge, skills, experience, culture, energy and inventiveness are every country’s most valuable resource, and that people and their traditions must be regarded as assets, not liabilities. This approach gives prime emphasis to the role of human beings in their social context. For this reason, a strong civic society, in which norms of reciprocity, co-operation and trust are respected, would be the best way to underpin sustainable human development’.

This is where civil society comes in and why the international dialogue matters to us.

Should the United Nations and national governments only ‘consult’ with civil society, or do we want to mobilise the energy, intelligence and social capital of citizens as equal decision-makers? If we are serious about building contemporary universal goals, can we still ignore the diversity of development and democratic actors?

A few perspectives on the Post-2015 Development Agenda:

And most importantly for us at CIVICUS, accept full and fair stakeholder engagement. We are astonished to hear that the civil society consultation period on the post-2015 agenda will last only six months before the UN Secretary General must report to the 2013 General Assembly, when, at least stage, it is not clear what the agenda is, where and when those consultations will be held and how civil society representatives will be coopted.

1. Accept that universal goals will be extremely difficult to gain consensus on. Donors are no longer the driving force behind today’s development agenda and there is hardly any consensus between the ‘industrialised’, BRICS and least developed countries in any international fora. The United Nations will need to play an extremely difficult mediation role, and it might take longer than the proposed 10 months. New universal goals should nevertheless be established on some essential principles. The goals should be: universally applicable, right-based, aspirational, global, holistic, action-oriented and easy to communicate.

2. Place the economy and the finances where they should be. The economy is far too serious to be left only in the hands of economists. Political power and vision must take control of the finances and of the new economic empires.

3. Redefine development goals in many countries.

Accept that for some de-growth or stabilisation of the economy is necessary. Invest massively in rural jobs, health and education. Learn from the work on Human Rights-based development and enshrine democracy and the rule of law as intrinsic parts of any development processes.

4. Limit the growing inequalities, at the international and national level. Bravely tax multinationals, financial transactions and the ‘über-rich’.

5. Support democratic societies. Social and economic justice cannot be achieved in places where people do not have a say in governance or where governance is conducted by a handful of political and economic elite.

We at CIVICUS will never speak on behalf of all civil society, but can say something on behalf of our alliance, made of small CSOs, national NGO platforms, global NGOs and transnational social movements. What we can do in this post-2015 consultation process is aim beyond collecting CSO demands and acknowledge the role of CSOs as development actors (witnessed by their solidarity, their ability to reach the poorest, their capacity to localise global goals and their common work for key civil rights). With this approach one could expect commitments, ownership and effective participation.

It seems to us that the new goals can only succeed if they are the result of a collaboration, or a contract, between development actors, by which each will clearly identify its roles, responsibilities and engagement modalities.

The current post-2015 and SDGs processes are a major opportunity to redefine multi-stakeholder engagement and participation. This will take time, resources, good will and respect. But this is the minimum condition for us to be, as the poet Arthur Rimbaud wrote, ‘absolutely modern’.

WEBSITE: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 2015 www.sustainabledevelopment2015.org

This website has been set up as an information hub to provide updates, background information and analysis towards the post-2015 development agenda. This site is also intended to act as a platform to connect organisations and stakeholders interested in the processes and frameworks that extend beyond the expiration of the Millennium Development Goals in 2015.

RIO+20

10