All posts by COA Students

Posted:
June 16, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Analysis of the most recent text on food security

By Nimisha Bastedo, Anna Odell, Clara de Iturbe and Lara Shirley

Having watched the development of the issue of food security in the negotiating text from the original release of the Zero Order Draft to the current negotiating text, we have identified some key areas that are particularly relevant and/or contentious in the facilitator’s suggested text. We have examined the text in depth, and below we have analyzed some of the key issues of the text by paragraph. Through this process we have examined the past text, and explained why we believe it is a noteworthy issue.

The suggested text addresses the right to food which should be a given, and yet it has been discussed and contested over and over throughout this whole negotiating process. As it currently stands, the first paragraph reaffirms commitments regarding the right to have access to safe, sufficient and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. This is a step up from all other versions of the texts that did not directly acknowledge this right, however the slightly convoluted wording may undermine the essential message. They also included food and nutrition strategies, which had been originally introduced in the May Co-Chairs’ text.

Read more…

Posted:
June 16, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Why send a group of students half way around the world to Rio+ 20? – because the future needs them there.

By Ken Cline

Language pertaining to the interests of future generations is found in dozens of international agreements and proclamations.  From the original definition of sustainable development in the Brundtland Report to the treaties signed in Rio 20 years ago, safeguarding the interests of future generations has been a central tenet of international environmental law and sustainable development.  Sometimes expressed as the concept of “intergenerational equity” – this sense of trusteeship is key to international environmental law.  But how do you adequately represent the interests of people who, by definition, only exist in the future?

One of the big battles in the current negotiations in Rio is the idea of creating a High Commissioner for Future Generations within the UN system to act as an ombudsman for the interests of the unborn.   I have thought about the challenge of representing future generations a lot over the years and although I think an ombudsman is great start, it is going to be difficult to obtain and will only partially solve the problem.   However, we already have a good proxy for future generations – youth.  More than anyone else alive today, they can best represent this particular stakeholder’s interests.  Youth has a special stake in the future that most of the negotiating delegates simply do not have – they will be there to live it.  This fact was well captured by the t-shirts at the Copenhagen climate negotiations that read “How old will you be in 2050?”  Almost none of the negotiators will be around in 2050, but today’s youth will be and they will be living with the consequences of the negotiator’s inaction and that is something not to be overlooked. 

That is why it is especially important to empower youth to participate in these international environmental meetings – their future is what is at stake and as a result they articulate concerns that aren’t necessarily understood or conveyed as powerfully by other groups (no matter how sincere their intent.)  I believe that I am pretty empathetic, but no matter what I may intend, I simply will not be around in 50 years to bear the consequences of the decisions we make or fail to make today.  My stake is an abstract one; theirs is real.

Are youth a perfect spokesperson for future generations?  No.  Their personal horizon is limited to the next 70 years (at most) and we need to be thinking about 700 or 7000 years from now.  There are also questions of agency and legitimacy – why do these 15 COA students get to speak for the several billion youth in the world?  They are not elected, nor are they representative of the diversity of youth views on the planet.  They are well-informed, however, and they have the humility to recognize that they cannot speak for all youth, let alone all future generations.  But they do represent some youth, and in their humility they engage and listen to other youth from around the world.  The discourse is all the richer because of their contributions, questions, and concerns.   It is also enriched by their boldness and urgency.

So Earth in Brackets is coming to Rio because the world needs us to put a face on the abstract concerns of future generations.  Maybe their lobbying in Rio Centro will end up getting us a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations.  In the meantime, the students are bringing the future to the table.  Along with girl guides, SustainUS, Rio+Twenties, youth delegates, and other youth groups in the halls of Rio Centro, the students are here to make sure that their future is not compromised.  As someone who thinks a lot about our obligation to future generations, I am glad that they are.

Posted:
June 15, 2012
Author:
COA Students

If I were a delegate….

by Maria Alejandra Escalante

If I were a delegate at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, I would not be the kind of delegate I saw at the negotiations on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Water and Climate Change during Prepcom III. I would not be like them because they induce morbidity, disengagement, lethargy and utter silence. A silence that betrays the people these delegates are supposed to be representing. People who, in the miraculous chance of being here would most likely shout, claim, participate, at least collaborate (in the case this restrictive institutional venue opened wide its doors for all those at the People’s Summit). These people would be anything but silent. A prolonged silence in a negotiation that pretends to bring all nations together to talk about solutions on the world crisis is useless. 

These silences that produce anxiety within us, the observers, pressed (literally) in the non-spacious rooms of negotiations, are eventually broken. But, guess what? They are broken generally by three, maybe, with really good luck, by four delegations. Which ones? The United States of America, the European Union representative and the G77 representative. Maybe New Zealand, in case it is convenient to delete UNFCCC from the Climate Change section. Maybe Japan, in case it is better not to include too many elements regarding water management and infrastructure in the Water section. What happens with the other fifty delegates in the room? Their silence prevails, maybe because if they exposed their thoughts the whole process would be chaotic, or maybe because they have conformed to the idea that they must unite under the G77 to get closer to getting heard by the other UN members (big flaw of the system, again).  If I were a delegate I would not let three delegates have a conversation over the world’s resources. If I were a delegate I would not dominate the negotiations, but rather encourage other nations to participate. 

Having seven days left for the final discussion of the outcome of Rio+20, I would not suggest deleting two whole paragraphs (6 and 7) from the Water section of the negotiating text just because it is too dense, too heavy to deal with now. But the G77 representative believes it is a good idea to stop addressing the need for infrastructure in order to achieve sustainable water management, which is proposed in these two paragraphs. Instead, I would do anything and everything in my reach to make sure that months of preparation and huge amounts of time and financial investments are not simply bracketed and suppressed at this final stage. Especially when what is at stake is the human right to water. 

If I were a delegate I would not raise the doubt that this Conference, a platform for change in theory, cannot deal with adopting the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (YFP). The US delegate stated that “this conference is not delegating authority to another institution to take control over this topic”. If such a congregation of member states is not able to commit to a document already agreed and signed, then what are they doing sitting down in those chairs? Waiting for someone else to take control over problems they are expected to resolve? Extending the action on an imminent catharsis? Hanging out until the world’s resources are depleted so that the levels of consumption and production are unavoidably decreased? The chances of someone being on top of the current excessive consumption and production are low without the adoption of the 10 YFP.  If I were a delegate I would believe in the capacity and potential of the organization I work for. 

If I were a delegate, simply for the sake of coherence, I would not bring a plastic Coca-Cola bottle to the Water negotiations at Rio+20. I would know that Coca-Cola Company uses up a gigantic volume of water while paying an insignificant amount of money in proportion compared with what household residents pay. I would also know that it is polluting water sources all over the world in this massive over production. 

If I were a delegate I would use my words and actions to call for justice, equity, and for human rights. I would represent the interest of my people and the world population. I would work for the future we really want. I would not be like the delegates I have seen. 

Delegates drinking Coca-Cola at the negotiations room. Theme: Water. Great. 

Posted:
June 15, 2012
Author:
COA Students

¿…desarollo sostenible? ¿Qué hay del proceso?

El Futuro que Queremos será imposible si tenemos este presente.

El cuarto es gris, con alfombras, mesas una a la par de otra creando las orillas de un rectángulo. Nueve sillas adelante y detrás, dieciséis a cada lado. 50 asientos azules que recibirán a los delegados oficiales de distintos países que vienen aquí a discutir, de acuerdo a la agenda, más sobre las Metas de Desarrollo Sostenible.

Llego temprano, y hay solamente 5 delegados sentados en la mesa. A medida que pasa el tiempo se va llenando la sala. Las bocinas están reproduciendo música en inglés, canción tras canción de canciones que he escuchado en fiestas, o en la radio desde que vivo en Estados Unidos. Todas las personas vestidas formales, sacos, faldas, corbatas, camisas, zapatos altos. Los delegados usan colores que combinan con el cuarto, y al parecer también con sus actitudes: serios, ocupados.

Una mujer con un sari me hace sonreír cuando la veo, y toma su lugar en la mesa de delegados. Una de las pocas muestras de tradiciones no occidentales visibles en la habitación.

Todos los delegados oficiales tienen un cuaderno y una pantalla frente a sus ojos, escribiendo frenéticamente.

A medida que la habitación se llena se va escuchando más el murmullo mezclado de tantos países. La mayoría en inglés, pero sonidos de voces y acentos humanos que por lo general son endémicos también encontraron su camino hasta acá.

Quince minutos después de la hora a la que debía comenzar, la discusión inicia. El chair (el presidente de la asamblea) comienza por preguntarle al delegado de la Unión Europea, un señor con un acento balkano, si se decidió lo que quedaron por decidir la noche anterior. El delegado responde negativamente, y pide más tiempo. Estados Unidos se une a los corchetes que puso Canadá en el párrafo 7 del texto sobre Tecnología. Siempre que los países tienen algún desacuerdo sobre algo que está, o no está, en el texto, ponen corchetes (de ahí que nos llamemos Earth in Brackets). Y con ese ritmo, lento, letárgico, las negociaciones avanzan, poco a poco. Faruq, un representante del Grupo de los 77 (un Grupo que inicialmente fueron 77 países en desarrollo) hace notar que ese grupo político quiere convertir toda esa sección en dos líneas.

Próximos corchetes: El chair le pregunta México y Suiza si quieren/pueden remover sus corchetes de la siguiente oración en el texto:

Reafirmamos que el comercio internacional es un motor para el crecimiento y [promover el] desarollo [sostenible – Suiza, México]

México responde negativamente, y Suiza aclara que esto le parece de vital importancia. Otra de las delegadas aclara que el Acuerdo de Accra tiene contenido similar a lo que Suiza y México quieren incluir (para apoyarlos) G77 responde que esta frase está en miles de otros documentos, y que apoyaría su uso en este caso, pero que sabe que no va a hacer ninguna diferencia.

Estas son personas que han estudiado esto por años y años. ¿Es que de veras quieren apegarse a una frase que simplemente reflejaría algo que ya todos sabemos? ¿Es que las delegaciones de la Unión Europea, Estados Unidos, y demás países en realidad no pueden ponerse de acuerdo? ¿Será que crean esta clase de entretenimiento sólo para evitar que lleguemos a otras partes del texto más controversiales?

Volteo, y una de las delegadas sentada justo frente a mí, está en Skype. El de la par está leyendo una revista que le acaban de dar sobre algún tema de los que trata la ONU.

Entiendo que éste sea el futuro del mundo, pero éstas son personas que no se conocen, que al parecer no confían unos en los otros, y que no están dispuestos a ceder. Encima de eso, queda sólo un día más de la última ronda de negociaciones antes de Rio+20, donde se deberá llegar a un acuerdo sobre El Futuro que Queremos. Un proceso lento, frustrante, y que no parece tener ningún resultado positivo.

Ha pasado sólo una hora de las tres que se supone que va a tardar esta ronda de negociaciones. Guardo mi cámara en la mochila, me levanto, y camino hacia la puerta, que ahora se encuentra atascada de gente. Pido permiso en español y portugués y salgo. Detrás de mí quedan los acentos, las computadoras, los cuadernos, la discusion que va en espiral, y mi actitud optimista hacia los procesos de negocios multilaterales. 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →