All posts by COA Students

Posted:
May 3, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Green economy: the square ball that negotiators struggle to roll

by Adrian Fernandez Jauregui

There is frustration and irritation revisiting, once more, the hallways and negotiating rooms of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Despite the commonly used rhetoric about “moving forward” and “streamlining the text”, progress is slow and the outcome is uncertain.

In Working Group I negotiations (section three and five of the zero draft), the discussion on the Green economy is where disagreements between delegations are most fierce. In this section, crucial points for most countries are being negotiated and every one pulls in their own direction while trying to aim some low blows at anyone who opposes. What is more interesting is that there doesn’t seem to be a clear alliance. At least for now, we aren’t seeing the usual North vs South dichotomy. Some of the most contentious issues are the Green Economy roadmap; also related with commitments, deadlines, targets and goals; and technology transfer, information sharing, and economic assistance.

When the EU pushes for a road-map (the number one point for the EU), the G77 is not hesitant to bracket and delete any mention of the so called road-map. The EU idea of a green economy road-map is a set of commonly accepted guidelines that would be used to achieve commonly agreed goals. In theory this road-map should direct national and international policies, and create regulations that work for a green economy. Ironically enough, the green economy is not clearly defined but some important elements of it would be the phasing out of subsidies, especially those that are harmful to the environment (e.g. tuna fisheries and gasoline), the use of financial mechanisms to leverage natural services, and the main-streaming of green technology (energy and resource efficient, and not carbon intensive). The G77 is not a fan of this road-map for a number of reasons.

One of the most fundamental reasons is that the idea of commonly agreed targets and goals with the combination of specific commitments resembles too closely the infamous structural reforms that took place (and to a certain extent still do) in the vast majority of developing countries, imposed as a condition of foreign aid. The sovereign right of states to decide how they carry on their sustainable development programs is paramount to the G77. For them there is no one roadmap, but as Rene Orellana, head of the delegation of Bolivia, said “if necessary, there must be as many roadmaps as there are countries”

Another issue is that, in the eyes of the G77, the Earth Summit is not about transitioning to a Green Economy, it’s about Sustainable Development. Although those two might overlap, if there is a conversation about road-map it shouldn’t be towards the green economy, but towards sustainable development!

While the US, Canada, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand seem to share a common position with the G77 about committing to specific actions, deadlines, targets and goals, their reasons are diametrically opposed. From the perspective of those developed countries, anyone who rejects the idea of committing to the European road-map represents more expenses in the form of Official Development Assistance (ODA). These developed countries plus Norway, Japan and Australia among others see the green economy as an opportunity to guarantee access to new markets (green markets) for technology and information that enhance resource and energy efficiency. It is their priority to make sure that the document highlights the importance of intellectual property rights regulations and that transferring such property is determined in a bilateral basis (sold at the highest price that the market permits).

Many European countries are keen on the idea having the private sector play a greater role and share more responsibilities (whenever it is profitable) with the public sector. They are also major champions of protecting the markets of green technology and information. For the EU delegation, the way to achieve sustainability is to make it profitable. Once green technology (solar and wind energy, and more efficient and low carbon intensive ways of production) becomes more profitable than the alternative (carbon intensive sources of energy, and industries that use them) …. Thus, when the discussion is about markets and the role of the private sector they all join forces against the G77, criticizing their “unwillingness to achieve an agreement” and their insistence on “blocking the process”.

The perception of the G77 is slightly different. They wonder: now that we have more dynamic economies using technology that the industrialized world has used for decades you want to regulate and ban these technologies, so that you can sell us your new technology? There are a number of reasons to doubt of the intentions of those who preach the need to shift to more sustainable ways of production, but refuse to talk about more sustainable ways of consumption; the underlying problem.

After two weeks of negotiation the hyper inflated text has barely been reduced to nearly one hundred pages (of the no more than 20 pages they initially hoped to materialize). There is only two days left and the final outcome is not in sight. The question for us following the negotiations is: how are they going to reconcile their opposing positions?

Posted:
April 23, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Analysis of the most recent suggested text on food security

By Anna Odell, Clara de Iturbe and Lara Shirley

We have read the Zero Order Draft, the latest version of the amended text for food security, and the co-chair’s suggested text that followed it. Overall, we have found that the Co-Chairs’ suggested text is a combination of acutely incompatible and different opinions. While inevitable to a certain extent, in this case the views expressed differ to the extent of being contradictory, often immediately beside each other, thus rendering the text ineffective. This is our interpretation of what was kept, what was left out, what was never there in the first place – and whether those changes are for better or worse.

 

Negative Changes

  • There is no mention of consumption or distribution in the original Zero Order Draft, and  although the G77 attempted to add it to the amended text, the co-chairs left it out of their text.
  • Overall the suggested text is much more market-oriented than the Zero Order Draft.
  • The Co-Chairs make no reference to specific principles such as polluter pays principle, common but differentiated responsibilities and the precautionary principle. The polluter pays principles was proposed in the amended text of the Zero Order Draft (suggested by New Zealand and bracketed by the United States) and the Co-Chairs did not include it.
  • In the Co-Chairs’ suggested text there is no mention of food security in the context of poverty eradication, but rather as an “important element to achieve Green Economy.”
  • The G77 proposed the Right to Development (and to proper nutrition) to the amended Zero Order Draft, however the Co-Chairs left it out of their suggested text.
  • The Co-Chairs’ text avoided the use of the word equity, and only mentioned it in reference to facilitating smallholders’ access to regional and international markets.
  • The Co-Chairs’ text has the FAO functioning only in the context of the Committee on Food Security and its Voluntary Guidelines.
  • While in the amended text the G77 proposed the importance of  “eliminating trade distorting barriers” (which was bracketed by the United States), the Co-Chairs watered down the text by narrowing it down to “strongly discourage unilateral trade measures which exacerbate food price volatility.”


Positive Changes

  • The Co-Chairs’ suggested text is a fairly well-organised document, especially when compared to the amended text. The ideas are in a logical order.
  • While sustainable intensification was included in the original Zero Order Draft and suggested by several developed countries, there is no specific mention of sustainable intensification in the Co-Chairs’ suggested text.
  • The Co-Chairs included an important sentence acknowledging the importance of promoting secure access to land and land tenure. Although it is important to note that the G77 had originally suggested an entire paragraph (which then both Canada and the United States attempted to delete) and the Co-Chairs only included a sentence.
  • Sustainable livestock production (although only in reference to developing countries) was mentioned in the Co-chairs text that was not in the original Zero Order Draft or the amended text.
  • The need for an ecosystems approach to fisheries management was recognized. It was originally suggested by Monaco in the Zero Order Draft and included in the Co-Chairs’ text.
  • The need to address inequalities was recognized in the Co-Chairs’ text. In this context, they proposed more employment opportunities, access to food, and bridging disparities between urban and rural areas (although the nature of the disparities was not mentioned).
  • Although a somewhat contested issue among developing countries, the Co-chairs text included language on the access to microcredits and microfinance, originally proposed by the G77.
  • The reference to land-use planning and good governance in a context of climate change, originally bracketed by the US, was included in the Co-Chairs text.
  • The Co-Chairs’ suggested text openly acknowledges that developing countries are more in need of support in terms of supporting agricultural and rural sectors (although it doesn’t specify who will support them, or how).
  • Overall the language used is fairly explicit, relative to some of the suggested amended text in the Zero Order Draft.
  • The Co-chairs used strong, emphatic language with regards to the stability of food prices.


Left Out

  • The co-chairs’ suggested text has fairly weak language regarding specific actors or actions – there were very few suggestions in the amended text to begin with.
  • The co-chairs’ suggested text only references the specific importance of local food systems once, after which it is immediately rendered redundant by referring to the ‘importance of local, national, regional and global markets’. The amended text had some mentions of specifically local food systems, but not many.
  • Technology transfer was left out almost entirely in all of the documents. There was no mention of it in the original Zero Order Draft, and there was only reference to technology transfer in terms of marine technology in the the amended text. The only language on technology in general was ‘supporting initiatives that improve access to . . . technical knowledge’ and ‘the use of appropriate technologies’.
Posted:
March 28, 2012
Author:
COA Students

A Reminder of Reality

By Julian Velez

This is a reflection of my time in the Sustainable Development negotiations that took place in New York City. These negotiations are called the “informal-informal negotiations”; they are a build up to the Rio+20 summit. I speak of Food Sovereignty as a refreshing term that contrasts with the concepts and environment that is present in this UN process.

I find the process of the UN so detached from the people and the places that are in most need and are more affected by all the adverse effects of this unsustainable society created on structures of inequity and unbalance at all levels, economic, social, environmental, political, spiritual, etc.

These negotiations happen within a space where the language that is spoken is the language of policy and politics: technical and cold as it comes out of the mouths of politicians and princes that most of the time don’t represent the needs of their people and our environment.

It has been twenty long years of discussions that don’t come down to concrete actions. Actions needed for a true change to benefit the world’s poor and our natural environment. Discussions that have not manifested in implementation of principles and plans that they set themselves.

Sometimes it looks like kids not being able to reach agreement and not being able to follow their own rules: the bullies bully instead of sharing, and the bullied don’t stand strong and united. It becomes a vicious cycle of inequity that impacts the people most in need, those least represented with the least voice.

If I don’t know real hunger, how I can truly fight for food justice? Our politicians are much farther from this reality, so how can they advocate for this when it is so foreign and isolated from the UN negotiations?

Then the people like me that have the resources to attend these meetings do not have a proper space to speak and be heard. Civil society sits and observes while the words reflecting human rights and justice are deleted, and then we have two minutes to complain and demand our needs.  And we are supposed to feel grateful and satisfied with our chance to participate. Moreover the meetings where all the real decisions take place are closed to civil society.

We sit and watch how concepts like resilience come to the text. Resilience entails that everyone accepts current condition of the developing world as a burden, which they should learn how to carry. Did the world’s poor have a say in deciding whether or not to carry the burden of their condition?

I have noticed how these negotiations affect myself and my teammates. I feel detached from reality and from a certain level of humanity. And I see how we become snappy, technical, cold, impatient, righteous, and arrogant instead of being inclusive and open to hear others. This process distances us from our humanity and from being kind to each other.

We had the chance to speak to Azra Sayeed from Roots for Equity and she came like a breath of fresh air and a wake up call for the team and I. She came and knocked on our doors to remind us that there are real people that die of hunger and that those people are not us; and that oppression and poverty is a real condition, not a term, or a statistic or a GDP number. Like her organization, there are other NGOs that fight for food sovereignty, contrasting with the term or thematic issue of food security that is used in the context of the sustainable development discussions.

The term food security refers mainly to the production aspect of food and more specifically the amount of production. The problem is not that there is not enough food but that many people don’t have access to good, safe food, land, water or energy. The issue is much broader and the concept of food sovereignty embraces this.

Food sovereignty is to have access to land to grow food for your subsistence; with your own technologies and traditional ways; your own seed; access to water and energy; and a local market that doesn’t have to be bound to the rules and the control of the global market. Furthermore, food sovereignty must include independence from the oppressing corporate structures in order to live with dignity in your own ways; to empower the local community’s culture so a communal fabric can support the members in a more sustainable and whole way. This is a much more whole perspective than solutions that will not change the structures weaving this reality of food insecurity and poverty.

Food sovereignty is a term that brings back a sense of humanity and community to the table, which I think are two essential things for the negotiating process and to achieve sustainable development.

Posted:
March 24, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Dams are the answer; sorry, what was the question?

Ken Cline
If I hear the term “water- energy-food nexus” again I might scream. Yes they are related but the connections are not ecological ones; they are a mantra of convenience. More accurately, they are placed together as an excuse to maintain the status quo in terms of large dams. I listen to the head of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) talk about how they are concerned about food security in Africa and how we need more dams to stave off shortages. Then the International Commission of Large Dams (ICOLD) jumps in and talks about the need for more infrastructure (i.e. dams.) Adapting the slogans of water/social activists, the speaker intones “Water is life but without infrastructure it is not enough.” And then there are the lamentations about climate change. “We will need more storage (i.e. dams) in the face of climate change. Adaptation requires storage to make us resilient and dams are renewable power. There is no other way.”
So Africa is hungry because it is under-dammed, South America cannot reach its full development because it is under-dammed, and we are on the way to climate Armageddon because we are under-dammed. If you listen to the conversations in the hallways and some of the sessions at the World Water Forum you would soon realize that dams are the answer, regardless of the question.
But are they? Most dams, especially large ones really only reallocate resources. The benefits of a free flowing river and flood regime are transformed into kilowatts and benefit people who work in factories far away. In some sense the energy is renewable, but the people’s lives, customs, and culture are not. Nor is the complex ecosystem that is destroyed. There is potential in hydropower and irrigation to help us transition to a more sustainable economy, but large dams are not the way to do it. Large dams make members of ICOLD and ICID rich and powerful, meet the needs of short-sighted or corrupt politicians, and move resources from minorities and rural people into the cities, however, they do not meet the needs of the people who live in the valleys or in the land that has been “grabbed” away by outside investors. They are not green.
For the next World Water Forum I want an ICAD – an International Commission Against Dams.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →