inside: The role of country actions: the way forward - Sir David King The Durban package provides an insufficient breakthrough: the role for Rio+20
a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development
RIO+20 15 december 2011
www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach pic: Carlos Nuves
RIO+20
From Durban’s Summer to New York’s Winter
contents. 1
From Durban's summer to New York's winter
2
The Durban package: an insufficient breakthrough
4
Stakeholder engagement at the BONN2011 Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus Conference
5
Women and the Environment: the forgotten Rio Principles?
6
Progress in country actions at the COP: a constructive way forward
8
Learning from the Kyoto Protocol as it limps towards retirement
9
Profile: Calestous Juma
10
Farooq Ullah Head of Policy and Advocacy, Stakeholder Forum
Bringing a solutions focus from Geneva to Durban to New York
However, these processes do continue to offer hope of solutions to some of humanity’s most intractable challenges.
8 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. Outreach is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena and has been produced at international meetings on the environment, including the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and at COP15 and COP16. 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 Sabrina@sabrinachesterman.com) You can also follow us on Twitter: @OutreachLive
10
OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Editorial Advisors Co-Editors
Felix Dodds
Stakeholder Forum
Farooq Ullah
Stakeholder Forum
Georgie Macdonald
Stakeholder Forum
Sabrina Chesterman
Independent Climate Consultant
Sub-Editor
Kirsty Schneeberger
Stakeholder Forum
Design and Layout
Jodie Davies-Coleman
Independent Consultant
Online Design and Layout
Tom Harrisson
Stakeholder Forum
As one United Nations intergovernmental process ends in Durban, another begins in New York. The importance of these conferences is rising as the stakes become more clear daily. The latest science shows us that while we continue to breach key ecosystem processes, inequality and unfairness is growing between and within countries.
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Pooran Desai
BioRegional Development Group
Sven Harmeling
Germanwatch
Calestous Juma
Harvard Kennedy School
Sir David King
University of Oxford
Jeannet Lingan
Stakeholder Forum
Ama Marston
Independent Consultant
Andrew Prag
OECD
Sue Riddlestone
BioRegional Development Group
Farooq Ullah
Stakeholder Forum
The climate change talks in the South African summer ran late but a deal looks likely; at least a deal to talk about a deal. The last gasp outcome will begin talks on an agreement which has “legal force” to be written in 2015 and to come into effect after 2020. However, environmental groups feel that a shortcoming of the deal is that it does little to address the scale of the emissions cuts needed. While in the North American winter, this week begins the next stage in the run-up to the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development next June. This stage (the second intersessional) will focus on the submissions made to the UN by stakeholders to serve as the basis for an outcome document for Rio+20. This meeting will review and discuss the “compilation document”, which is the summary of the submissions to the UN. The objective is to gain better understanding and highlight key messages emanating from the submissions, and produce a “Zero Draft” of the Outcome Document to serve as a starting point for negotiations. A meaningful and substantive Zero Draft is a vital starting point in achieving success at Rio+20. While we hope that the Rio+20 negotiations will be more successful than the Durban talks, heart can be taken from the breakthroughs in the African summer to keep delegates warm and receptive to good ideas and solutions in the American winter. Today and tomorrow's editions of Outreach will track progress at the Second Intersessional daily, with news, comment and features from our correspondents and contributors. ■
pic: Jon Ng
1
RIO+20
The Durban package: an insufficient breakthrough
pic: D'Arcy Norman
Sven Harmeling Germanwatch The UNFCCC concluded in its press release at the end of COP17 that the Parties “have delivered a breakthrough on the future of the international community´s response to climate change, whilst recognizing the urgent need to raise their collective level of ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the average global
• Operationalisation of the Cancún Agreements, through several operational decisions, including on institutions such as the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Committee, the Standing Committee on Finance, concretisation of new processes such as the work programme on loss and damage, and the National Adaptation Plans. Of course there is still a lot of unfinished business to address in the years to come, including scaling-up climate finance to the promised level of USD 100 billions by 2020 mobilised from developed countries to support climate action in developing countries.
What has been achieved in Durban?
However, overall and against the background of the current geopolitical situation, the achievement from Durban is a major step forward which provides opportunities. In Durban, Parties managed to counter attempts - in particular by the USA - to shift the world away from a multilateral rules-based system towards a mere voluntary pledge and review approach. A crucial element in the endgame dynamics of Durban has been the emerging strategic alliance between the EU and particularly vulnerable countries, in particular the small island states and the Least Developed Countries. But also the emerging economies South Africa, Brazil, China and India have played an overall much more constructive role than for example the USA, Canada – which waited until after the conference close to announce its planned withdrawal from Kyoto - or Russia. Eventually, all Parties agreed to work in the coming years towards a universal legally-binding agreement.
At the end of the longest COP ever, Parties agreed a comprehensive package of decisions, which can be categorised into three groups:
Negotiations, action and alliance: the strategic triad to build on Durban
• Contours of the future regime: with the establishment of the new “Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action”, a process has been launched which aims to result in an overall comprehensive legally-binding agreement for all Parties (“develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC applicable to all Parties”); this agreement shall be negotiated until 2015 and shall come into effect and be implemented from 2020;
After the ground has been laid to close the gap on a binding agreement, it is crucial to close the remaining emissions gap as well as the closely associated climate finance gap. It must be ensured that negotiating an agreement for post-2020 does not result in postponing further mitigation ambition until post2020. That would definitely mean the bells would toll for the funeral of the 2°C objective.
temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.” This statement quite well categorises a breakthrough which is insufficient to put the world on a track to stay below 2°C temperature increase, but which nevertheless provides a better foundation for a safe climate future than a failure in Durban would have meant.
• Extension of the Kyoto Protocol: it was decided to have a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, with a so far undetermined end date (2017 or 2020); however, some rules still need to be worked out in the course of 2012, including the specific mitigation targets that Parties will apply; it is also not yet clear which Parties will finally be part of the 2nd commitment period;
“
In the UNFCCC context, a number of elements have been agreed in Durban which will hopefully combine to increase Parties' ambition, despite the fact that some relevant rules have been watered down in the last days of negotiations.
“
2
RIO+20
mitigation and adaptation policies and support for these. This will also be required to pressure those countries which usually hinder progress.
What role for Rio+20?
reductions from Annex I countries by 2020 (compared to 1990); • Under the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, a workplan on enhancing mitigation ambition has been launched to explore options for closing the ambition gap; Parties and observer organisations are invited to submit by 28 February 2012 their views on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition; • The so-called Review will assess the adequacy of efforts undertaken by Parties towards the objective of staying below 2°C, will draw on inter alia the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC and will be carried out from 2013 to 2015; thereby its results will feed into the legally-binding agreement to be negotiated. However, closing the gaps will not be achieved through the UNFCCC process alone. An interlinked strategy of negotiations, actions and the consolidation and strengthening of new alliances will be required.
In the UNFCCC context, a number of elements have been agreed in Durban which can hopefully be combined to increase Parties' ambition, despite the fact that some relevant rules have been watered down in the last days of negotiations (such as on guidelines for mitigation reporting, or inclusion of emissions from forest management):
Action: All governments, regions, communities, private sector and civil society need to increase their efforts in order to show that more mitigation ambition is possible. Particularly relevant examples include Germany´s attempt to phase out nuclear energy while at the same time keep its relatively ambitious mitigation targets of 40% absolute reduction by 2020. At the same time the world even more has its eyes on China and hopes for the success of initiatives such as the low-carbon development which cover areas with 300 million inhabitants. The EU now faces its litmus test, by showing whether it will be able to scale up its ambition to 30% emission reduction in the first half of 2012.
• Both the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action decision as well as decisions on the Kyoto Protocol clearly recognise the existing ambition gap, with the Kyoto Protocol decision referring to the well-known IPCC range of 25 to 40% emission
Alliances: Building on the game changer role of newly emerging alliances of progressive countries, it will be crucial in the next years to strengthen these coalitions through concrete action as well as joint negotiation strategies, towards transformative
Since the legal frameworks have been set, Rio+20 has the chance to step in, in order to help closing the emissions gap. The key role is to promote the mental and factual paradigm shift that lowcarbon and climate-resilient development provides tremendous opportunities and in the end are the only way towards sustainable development. Of course they will look different from country to country. Governments and other stakeholders should build on the many promising initiatives that exist around the world and should seek to scale them up in order to initiate the transformation towards green economies which harness the opportunities that a resourceefficient and ecological economy can entail also for the poor. Green economy roadmaps can help identify potential for further increasing the ambition as soon as possible. Strengthening global environmental governance can help building the international frameworks required to effectively support those who are willing to move forward. The proposal made jointly by the EU and AOSIS to convene a high-level Ministerial Forum during Rio+20 to consider policies and ways to increase the aggregate level of mitigation ambition, with a view to informing the new UNFCCC work programme, could be another element of how Rio+20 could be of use. Durban has shown that it is still possible that the world unites in the face of urgent threats, Now Rio+20 can do its share to infuse the energy required for an upward spiral. ■
FOR MORE INFORMATION Sven Harmeling is the Team Leader of International Climate Policy, Germanwatch (harmeling@germanwatch.org).
3
4
RIO+20
Stakeholder engagement at the BONN2011 Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus Conference Jeannet Lingan Senior Project Officer, Stakeholder Forum
Preparation for the conference included an international multistakeholder engagement process which aimed at providing a space for stakeholders to contribute to the conference’s outcomes, and ultimately to the recommendations being brought to the Rio+20 Summit by the German government.
The stakeholder consultation process took place between September and October, and collected feedback on the key issues a nexus approach should take into account, as well as the roles that governments, civil society, the private sector and others should play in connecting the three securities. The results of the consultations were put forward by stakeholder representatives during the conference, actively flagging issues policymakers will have to take into account if the Nexus approach is to ensure poverty alleviation, socioeconomic inclusion and environmental protection.
Civil Society Inputs to the Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus Conference Stakeholders agreed upon the importance of mainstreaming water, energy and food security as a poverty eradication strategy, and the need for a coherent and harmonised policy response. A Nexus approach was viewed as essential to discussions at the forthcoming Rio+20 Summit. Some of the messages coming out from stakeholders include a strong consensus that decision-making around the three securities should integrate a Human Rights Based Approach. In this argument, a Rights Based Approach is more than a legal guarantee for access (which is important) but it is also a tool to focus upon the needs and expectations of the most marginalised sectors by guaranteeing transparency, meaningful participation and access to mechanisms for legal redress where rights have been violated. Stakeholders also sought to emphasise the importance of
Ama Marston Independent Consultant While both environmental and gender equality issues are identified as key to achieving sustainable development, they have seen the least progress in the sustainable development agenda since the first Rio conference in 1992. With a convening of world leaders in June to revisit the sustainability agenda, it is time to place women’s participation, particularly in natural resource management and tackling of emerging challenges like climate change, at the centre of global discussions.
The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus Conference took place between 16 and 18 of November, 2011 in Bonn, Germany. With approximately 500 delegates from governments, intergovernmental organisations, civil society and the private sector in attendance the objective was to bring together stakeholders from the water, energy and food sectors. The key aim was to develop an understanding of the interdependecies between these three securities and discuss solutions, incentives and elements for an enabling environment to secure access to water, energy and food for the poorest sectors, efficiently use (scarce) resources and adequately value and protect the services provided by ecosystems. This position will be put forward in the Rio+20 process as part of the Green Economy discussions.
Preparatory Process
Women and the Environment: the forgotten Rio Principles?
Women make up 70% of the world’s poor, a large portion of whom are reliant upon the environment around them for their livelihoods and health. In many countries around the world women spend many hours a day in search of water and wood or dung for fuel, limiting their ability to go to school or participate in livelihoods activities outside the home. governance for the successful implementation of a Nexus approach. Governance failures and insufficient regulation of the private sector were linked to a variety of negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts. Corruption, food price speculation and unsustainable resource use were highlighted as particularly harmful factors. Strong regulatory frameworks will be essential if the Nexus approach is to be realised meaningfully. Emphasis was also placed upon the role of women, with gender raised as an important crosscutting issue for Nexus policies, programmes and institutions. A Nexus approach should guarantee women equitable access to and control over land, energy and water resources, engage women in decision-making and leadership at all levels, and upscale women-led enterprises and productive activities. Finally, the role of education and knowledge was highlighted. Policymakers should acknowledge the role played by individual behaviour in determining the success of nexus policies, and exploit education as a tool for driving social reform by instilling progressive environmental values and strengthening participation and empowerment. Making education a basic right is a precondition for sustainability.
The Nexus towards Rio+20 and Beyond The next months will be pivotal if the recommendations emerging from the Bonn2011 Nexus Conference are to be fully exploited, requiring strong commitment from all sectors to ensure that fundamental changes to the current system are made. This will underpin an effective and inclusive transition to a sustainable development paradigm.■
RIO+20
Women make up approximately 80% of the world’s rural farmers, facing the challenges of a changing environment, while making significant contributions to community food security and agricultural production. However, they own approximately 1% of land globally and have extremely limited access to resources such as credit, seeds and fertilisers, constraining their productive capacity. The burden of women’s labour is only exacerbated by growing challenges such as climate change and the food crisis. As demonstrated by the disproportionate number of women lost in the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, women are more vulnerable to natural disasters. When crops fail or prices skyrocket due to market speculation, women and girls decrease their food intake. They also take on additional work to buy food and ensure food security for their households. In preparation for Rio+20 the UN Secretary General has pointed out that environmental indicators of sustainable development continue to “deteriorate”. Despite the integration of gender issues into the Rio declaration, much of the reporting on sustainable development in advanced of Rio+20 lacks analysis of links between women and the environment or measures taken to advanced progress on the issue. This highlights a fundamental need for strengthening of existing institutional mechanisms to enable coherence and action. There are multilateral, government and civil society efforts underway. However, a number of structural and cultural challenges remain. Institutions in general continue to lack the capacity, knowledge and skills to mainstream gender perspectives in sustainable development and natural
resource management, and in particular in relation to climate change. A lack of women’s leadership and participation in decision-making related to natural resource management and sustainable development is another stumbling block. Women make up only 18% of parliamentary representatives globally. And yet, Michelle Bachelet, the head of UN Women, points out that countries with higher female parliamentary representation are more likely to ratify international environmental treaties. Where women are in leadership, they are often concentrated in social ministries rather than in those responsible for the sciences and finance, both of which have significant bearing on environmental and sustainability decision-making. Furthermore, many of the most notable environmental civil society organisations do not have women in the highest leadership positions or incorporate gender into their work. Fishing, farming and labour organisations also continue to be male dominated. There are even greater challenges for participation in decision making by underrepresented groups such as Indigenous women, migrants and women from rural areas. In addition, women are still less likely to receive education despite some progress made on MDG goals in primary and secondary education. Furthermore, there is far less opportunity for women to be educated in the sciences or trained in forestry, land use planning and other natural resource management skills. A lack of finance presents further challenges towards meeting sustainable development and gender equality goals. World Bank reporting shows that gender inclusion makes development programmes more effective. However, many of the funds set up to address elements of sustainable development and emerging challenges like climate change do not have women in sufficient decision-making positions, and fail to integrate gender let alone dedicating funding specifically to tackle these issues. People speak of having reached the limits of the earth’s capacity and running out of time. We don’t have the same time-bound sense of urgency for gender equality. Despite the challenges, many women have and will continue to make significant contributions to sustainable development. Globally many more are poised to take action and are ready for greater opportunities to take leadership in addressing some of the greatest environmental, social and economic challenges we as humanity face. The time to give them that chance is now. ■
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Ama Marston is a consultant with over a decade of experience in the NGO sector on environment, development and gender issues. Her most recent project is an analysis of progress on sustainable development for UN Women.
5
RIO+20
Progress in country actions at the COP: a constructive way forward Sir David King University of Oxford Following the meeting of leaders and negotiators at COP17 in Durban, the main focus of discussion has been the Kyoto protocol and the need for a binding international agreement on climate change. This, in my view, is a redundant exercise. The real driver for change in climate negotiations is the call for voluntary national commitments that was issued in 2009 at COP 15 in Copenhagen. Indeed, more has been achieved post-Copenhagen and Cancun through voluntary and nationally-agreed carbon emissions reductions than in the 15-year circus of negotiations since Kyoto.
Even before 2009, when President Obama arrived in Copenhagen without the backing of Congress for an international cap-and-trade process, it was clear that Kyoto was over. For a start, the first-round agreement of a 5% emissions reduction from Annex 1 (developed) countries was woefully insufficient, given the scale of the challenge posed by climate change. But more importantly, it has been evident for some years now that the top-down approach to climate negotiations proposed at Kyoto was never going to work. At every climate conference since Kyoto, countries have arrived at the table committed in principle to ratification and global agreement, but in practice many have put their own perceived national economic interests first. Obviously, the scope for progress within this model is severely limited. Now, however, the uncertainties surrounding the Kyoto process have opened the way for an alternative approach to climate negotiations. It is an approach that was formalised in Cancun but was kick-started years previously in the UK under the then Government. In 2003, the UK became the first nation to announce – voluntarily – that it would reduce its carbon emissions, by 60% by 2050. In my former role
as Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, I travelled the world to tell other countries about this commitment, throwing it on the table like a bargaining chip. The idea was to encourage foreign governments to follow our lead and declare their own voluntary targets. And on a number of occasions it worked. In part in response to the UK’s ‘aggressively competitive’ announcements (as they were perceived), the Brazilian Government declared it would halt all deforestation in Brazil by 2025. The Chinese opened the door to lowemission technology, and the European Union Carbon Trading Scheme was signed by all 27 member states. And in the years since Copenhagen and Cancun, 85 countries – together responsible for 85% of the world’s emissions – have now announced voluntary climate commitments. It is this kind of muscular bilateralism which I believe points the way forward for climate negotiations and, ultimately, for an international agreement on emissions reductions. The voluntary national-pathway approach has certainly galvanised leaders in developing countries with Mexico, South Africa and Indonesia, amongst others, announcing commitments in recent years. Even Rwanda, one of the least developed nations in the world, has developed a new Green Growth and Climate Resilience strategy with the aim of achieving sustainable economic development – a strategy conceived by the Smith School at Oxford University together with the Rwandan Government. Rwanda’s strategy was developed over nine months in consultation with hundreds of stakeholders across government Ministries and departments and aims to mainstream low carbon development and climate adaptation into all sectors of the economy. The strategy shows that low carbon development is win-win for Rwanda as it will reduce dependence on imported oil, promoting energy security and growth in the local economy. It also highlights the economic impact of climate change and urgent need to adapt to changes in climate already affecting food and energy production. In this proactive approach, Rwanda has shown vision and as President Kagame said: ‘If it can be done in Rwanda, it can be done anywhere." At side meetings at the COP, progress was reported on actions and commitments in developing countries and others. The South Korean government has taken several giant leaps forward in establishing national policies and actions and promoting global collaboration in setting up the Global Green Growth Institute. The President has set up a Presidential committee on Green Growth and we heard that annually 3% of GDP would be committed to the overall programme. Remarkably, the mayor of Seoul is in the process of greening the city, taking out a major highway and replacing it with walkways and cycle routes and reopening the river through the city. Ethiopia now has a comprehensive strategy for a low carbon economy. Their analysis demonstrates that the biggest emissions are from the agricultural sector and their green growth strategy was completed a
pic: www.photoshelter.com/va/climatechange
“
[The] bottom-up route to tackling climate change will ultimately achieve the internationally cohesive agreements that the Kyoto process has sought – and failed – to deliver.
“
6
RIO+20
month ago and implementation will be included in their five year growth and transformation plan. Brazil has moved on from its national climate change plan developed in late 2008, to the establishment of a full policy including an avoided deforestation target of 72% by 2017. Overall, their commitment is to an impressive 36-38% reduction in GHG emissions (CO2e) by 2020 compared with BAU, and we heard that this amounted to continued economic growth with effective stabilisation of emissions. The UAE also presented their plans for de-fossilising their economy. My vision is that, in the long term, this bottomup route to tackling climate change will ultimately achieve the internationally cohesive agreements that the Kyoto process has sought – and failed – to deliver. Because with 32 countries now participating in lowcarbon trading schemes around the world, we will one day need a single commodity price for carbon to unify these diverse national efforts. With its global influence and powers of sanction, the WTO is more likely to drive this programme forward than the UN. If it were to do so, I strongly believe that by 2020 we could arrive at a single and universally ratified system for carbon emissions reductions (as I think many would agree, far better to reach this goal later than not at all). Once established, this process would then need to be ratcheted up to reach the intended commitment of maintaining a temperature increase of less than 2°C. For many countries and individuals around the world a new pathway has opened up – one we should all now follow. ■
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sir David King is the Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, and was the Chief Scientific Advisor to the British government from 2000 to 2007.
7
8
RIO+20
RIO+20
Learning from the Kyoto Protocol as it limps towards retirement Andrew Prag 0ECD
profile. Nationality: Kenyan Country of residence: USA
Durban has served up some unexpected breakthroughs - agreed as usual in the most human way with exhausted individuals, on their third consecutive all-night session, finding compromises that they never thought possible brought on by their bodies’ desire to escape the negotiating halls and recover some sleep. One such last-ditch agreement guarantees the dogged continuation of the Kyoto Protocol into a second commitment period from 1 January 2013, avoiding the feared gap between periods. But as the KP soldiers on, its global coverage is ever decreasing - both in numbers of countries and in total coverage of emissions - because the bulk of the world’s emissions growth is in developing countries that remain untouched by the Protocol. The KP’s second period is likely to cover only about 15% of global emissions and its demise at the end of the period is all but assured by the promise of a new protocol or instrument with legal force to begin from 2020. In the excitement of Durban, the question of how to account for the emissions of the other 85%, to 2020 and beyond, received little attention apart from establishment of a vague process for emissions review and analysis. So as the KP limps into preretirement, the question remains as to what we can salvage from its hard-fought procedures and protocols, negotiated in Marrakech in 2001 and built upon through a decade of valuable experience. The Kyoto Protocol (KP) can essentially be broken down into metrics, rules and tools. Its metrics, defining covered greenhouse gases, global warming potentials and so on, are largely non-controversial. Of the rules, the most hotly-contested or deeply cherished, depending on whose side you are on, are those surrounding the compliance mechanism; how countries are held to account for the achievement of their emissions commitments. Given both the failure of the current system to persuade Canada to meets its commitment and the reticence of the world’s biggest polluters to be bound by such a system, it is likely that any new protocol will need to rethink this part of the architecture. However, the system by which the KP quantifies emissions commitments into total emissions, allowed to be emitted in the compliance period, provides a strong basis to compare emissions pledges in the future - including those based on emissions intensity or deviation from business as usual pathways. Trading of greenhouse gas (GHG) units between countries has always been at the heart of the KP, through both national allowances and offset credits from developing countries. Such market mechanisms are likely
to be an important element of a new protocol, and the KP systems can also serve in this area. The KP also relies on a number of process-related tools. The International Transaction Log, managed by the UNFCCC secretariat, tracks all movements of traded units under the Protocol. The log could be easily modified to take account for units transacted between all Parties using new market mechanisms under the Convention. Likewise, developed countries with KP commitments currently have national registries to hold their tradable units, described by KP procedures. All Parties, including developing countries, could be encouraged to establish such registries to the same specifications, to enhance communication and improve the integrity of emissions transactions and the comparability of emissions pledges. These technical matters are negotiation fodder for the UNFCCC, and not headline material for the impending Rio+20 event. However, the unlikely breakthroughs in Durban could not come at a better time for Rio+20. Perhaps Durban’s greatest achievement was not the artificial extension of the KP, but rather to have 193 Parties agree to negotiate a legal instrument affecting all of them from 2020. That is a purely political issue with many heated disagreements sure to come. Rio provides a perfect setting for that political debate to be aired at the highest level, clearing the way for details to be negotiated under the UNFCCC.■
FOR MORE INFORMATION This article is based on work of the OECD/IEA Climate Change Experts Group (CCXG). For more information please see http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/ccxg
Current Position: Professor of the Practice of International Development and Director of Agricultural Innovation in Africa Project at Harvard Kennedy School.
What prompted your early interest in the environment?
Calestous Juma What do you believe should be achieved at Rio+20? Rio+20 is a moment in history when the international community should make a distinctive transition from collective decision-making to decentralised actions. Agenda 21 was just that: a period for setting the agenda. This should have been followed by less global conferencing and more action at the national and local levels. International environmental forums are needed but for a different purpose. They should serve as venues where government, business, academia, civil society and independent actors come to share lessons and experiences. They should function more like open colleges and less like legislative bodies.
What is your role in this process?
I grew up on the Kenyan shores of Lake Victoria at the mouth of two rivers (Nzoia and Yala) that flooded regularly and often twice a year. Living on the edge of Africa’s largest lake and watching truly glorious sunsets over it, is sufficient to inspire and awaken even the sleepiest of souls. My earliest experiences were shaped by societal interest to balance between environmental risks and benefits. The flows and ebbs of the two rivers were directly linked to discernible changes in population and economic fortunes. Ecological drama was an integral part of my early childhood and it was then that I developed interest in responding to challenges through creativity and innovation. It was also then that I learned that innovation, like introducing new crops, is not risk free. Doing nothing is not a choice when you live an area that is constantly undergoing change. These were not just ordinary lessons for me but they directly shaped my personality and outlook.
I was quite involved in the Rio process and helped to increase Africa’s participation in the Earth Summit. After that I focused on the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) which I had founded in Nairobi on promoting the implementation of the outcomes of the conference. Later I headed the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that was adopted at Rio. Today the most urgent task is providing hope to the global community by highlighting success stories in the field of sustainable development. It is for this reason that I recently published The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa (Oxford University Press, 2011). I hope that the book will inspire others to come forward and share lessons from other fields. My contribution to the process is therefore helping to inspire future generations by giving them examples of success stories.
What is your view on the COP 17 outcome?
How important is the RIO+20 process?
The outcomes of COP-17 show clearly that governments prefer to adopt more flexible approaches that reflect diverse pathways for achieving the same goals. They pave the way for more pragmatic strategies that differentiate between wishful thinking (assuming that if it is desirable it is therefore feasible) and technical determinism (taking the view that if it's technically feasible it is therefore desirable). So far the negotiations have been conducted based on the force of scientific evidence. The scientific community played a key role shaping the structure and process of negotiations. The way ahead will have to involve more people from the engineering and business communities. It is still open to question the extent to which pragmatic approaches lend themselves to legally-binding commitments. It is not a surprise to find that a compromise was reached when the language offered room for flexibility in pathways. Some may interpret this as failure. Solving the climate challenge is a journey into the unknown and will require considerable space for experimentation. Maybe the next phase in the life of the climate regime will be how to accommodate the openness about the future that is required for innovation with the rigid commitment demanded by international law. Maybe COP-17 has been the turning point in efforts to bring international law in line with technological realities and not the other way round.
The Rio+20 process is an important reminder of the urgency to guide global production and consumption patterns with sustainability principles. Sadly, there is really no genuine global institution that is championing sustainable development. The vision that inspired Rio has been supplanted by two extreme positions. The first is a group that believes economic growth will have trickle-down benefits for the environment. The environmental camp has successfully replaced the spirit of Rio with a onesided agenda that leaves little room for recognising the central role that human wellbeing plays in natural resource management.
What do you think the priorities for action should be in 2012 in the run up to RIO+20? My best hope is that Rio+20 will be a moment for the global community to shift its focus from acrimonious negotiations to sharing experiences on what works and what doesn’t. It is only through an open learning process that the international community will be able to build the trust needed to foster action. In a way, Rio+20 should be the Rio we should have had 20 years ago and didn’t: an opportunity for global learning without the burden of painful negotiations.■
9
10
RIO+20
picL www.kuyasacdm.co.za
Bringing a solutions focus from Geneva to Durban to New York Pooran Desai and Sue Riddlestone BioRegional Development Group As momentum builds towards Rio+20, we’ve observed the dialogue developing with the EU preparatory meeting last month and COP 17 in Durban finishing on Saturday.
Our
aim as we attended these meetings was to demonstrate that through the simple one planet living and ten principles approaches, we can make it easy to deliver sustainable and better quality lives for all of us, within the planetary boundaries in an equitable way.
In Geneva, we were fortunate to hear Sha Zukang’s report back on Monaco and the other regional preparatory meetings on the key themes and ideas that are emerging in the build-up to Rio. BioRegional’s side event about Roadmaps for the Green Economy with the Swiss Government, Stakeholder Forum and the Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production, was well received. It raised some questions about how can less developed countries implement these approaches and kick started the idea that civil society and interested nations could start a collaborative working group on Roadmaps, action plans and sustainable development goals. Overall the impression at COP17 for us was that practical initiatives and an easy to understand approach inspire people to take action on sustainability. Our COP team Abi, Sarah and Asanda had good conversations on our stand, where visitors from over fifty countries made “One Planet” pledges to take action to achieve one planet living. BioRegional and the World Green Building Council co-
hosted a side-event on Saturday evening. Jane Henley, CEO of the WGBC, set the scene followed by examples of practical action from BioRegional and SouthSouthNorth (http://www.southsouthnorth.org). Carl Wesselink, working on the excellent Kuyasa project (http://www.kuyasacdm.co.za), explained how the simplest of interventions basic roof insulation to prevent condensation and solar thermal hot water system - can transform quality of life, save energy and tackle the epidemic of depression in impoverished communities (with some studies suggesting up to 32% of residents in townships are suffering from clinical depression to a lesser or greater degree). The link between sustainability and health is one which will become an increasingly powerful driver for change – and one which BioRegional will develop further in 2012 working with Dr Robin Stott and colleagues. A second observation came from Brian Wilkinson, CEO of GBC South Africa who commented how similar the actions or “Sustainable Development Goals” for sustainability are in poor and rich communities – as embodied in the One Planet principles. We will all need to converge to a more sane, healthy and equitable way of living. Sustainable Development Goals and solutions are the subject of our side event in New York this week with IIED and the Colombian Government. We want to bring our experience of using goals to implement sustainability at the civil society level around the world from China to the USA to this idea of the SDG’s and look forward to a lively discussion. ■
FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit www.bioregional.com or contact sr@bioregional.com
Outreach is made possible by the generous support of