All posts in Sustainable Development

Posted:
June 14, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Urgency and Emergency

A conversation with a delegate

By Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler

The shuttle to the UN conference center only stops in front of the major hotels, where the important country delegates are staying.  Hot air rises to upper-income accommodation.  After the walk or taxi ride to the nearest hotel, it’s another hour by bus to get to the convention center.  Most days I think that time will probably be occupied by sleep, but today I happened to sit next to a country delegate from a small island nation.

After a little exchange he asked with what the youth perspective was on the conference.  I said unfortunately it wasn’t going to be like the transformative outcome we had from the original summit in 1992.  A lot of civil society expected the negotiation to be a complete failure so if there was some sort of major agreement it would bring a lot of excitement. In turn he explained the context was different this time around.  In 1992, the Soviet Union had just fallen, the economy was okay, and there was bounty of goodwill between nations and shared hope for a more united, progressive future.  This time it’s different: the EU is on the rocks, the US is eking out a recovery, and developing countries are more than willing to assert their power on the world stage.  There is always urgency at environmental negotiations, but if there is an emergency – as most youth at the conference believe – is up for debate between nation-states.    

Nobody is going to say no to the green economy, he pointed out, even if no one is really sure exactly what a “green economy” is, or what it would mean.  For the poor countries, it means development, and for the developed countries it’s a way to kickstart growth in their struggling economies.  His country is prepared to agree on a vague concept with the knowledge that it will be fleshed out by the UN later on.

The two of us began to move beyond the text.  He said, people would be surprised when you talk to a delegate one-on-one, like we were doing on the bus, how open they are about what needs to be done to reach international cooperation on a better future for all.  But when they’re representing their country on the floor they push the process in every way they can to exploit the peculiar agenda of their country.  That is the way international negotiations work.

To flesh out his point a little more he spoke about his time a diplomat as his country’s mission in New York.   When he was in that city he was amazed at how a person gets ripped off at every corner, nickel-and-dimed.  When he visited Washington D.C. once, they told him the museums were free, and he made them repeat this four times to be sure he understood.   Because in New York he had to pay for everything.  It was also in New York he saw a battery powered car that was built in 1914 when he was invited to visit the Rockefeller’s mansion.  The technology was never pursued further because oil was so cheap and corporations like the Rockefellers were making a lot of money from its sale and distribution on a massive scale.  But this is how negotiations between countries work, pushing hard for each and every one of your negotiating points and get every concession you can from your fellow countries.   And often the power and money is concentrated in the hands of a few and they guard it fiercely. 

The nickel-and-diming and the hoarding, the costs and the calculations, the history and the hope.  It may be worth staying awake on that bus ride.  

 

Posted:
June 14, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Earth in Brackets’ address to the Co-Chairs on behalf of MGCY

We reiterate our concerns about the slow pace of the negotiations, and about the lack of urgency from Member States to express real commitment in the outcome text. We want to call attention to the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, which could be a cornerstone achievement of Rio + 20. Member states have to be held accountable for this agreement by delivering a text that includes the CSD-19 agreement on the 10YFP on SCP as an addendum to The Future We Want. A further concern relates to the text on water issues. Member states are backtracking from existing international agreements that recognize the importance of international cooperation for water resources. 

We want to remind the Chairs that as we speak paragraphs on education and employment are being discussed. Regarding education, we would like to stress the importance of reopening the negotiations to include informal and non-formal education in the text. In addition, regarding the jobs sections, we call for green jobs to be included as an indispensable component of a sustainable economic system. 

Finally, we call for more urgency in the IFSD negotiations. There cannot be sustainable development if the right structures for governance are not in place. Participation is key for sustainable development therefore we would need to continue to commit to protect civil society participation in all proposals stemming from Rio+20.

Thank You

Posted:
June 14, 2012
Author:
Nathan Thanki

A Leopard Doesn’t Change Its Spots

 

Thoughts on the "Green Economy" and Rio+20

by Adrian Fernandez Jauregui

Published on Stakeholder Forum's Outreach magazine

It’s been almost 2 years of mounting excitement around the Rio+20 conference. But what is there to be excited about? How has the world changed in the past 20 years since Rio? Has the lot of the world’s poor been improved? Apparently not. Quite the opposite, in fact. Have global power structures changed? In some ways yes, but in most ways no. There are still the same winners and losers in the great game of international relations. Especially when it comes to the idea of the “Green Economy," where it seems that the Global South will once again get the short end of the stick.

Decades after the lengthy and painful structural adjustment periods of the 70s and 90s, which left deep scars on the industries, agricultural sectors, and societies of the developing world, it is insulting to now see an eerily similar initiative appear in the “Green Economy road-map.” This new initiative is similar in too many ways to the older — unsuccessful and damaging — restructuring initiatives. This new Green Economy initiative would see new trade barriers imposed on the developing world (such as a carbon tariff, or border adjustment tax). It would involve “experts” imposing a “one size fits all” development model, or “road-map.” . It risks establishing new aid conditionalities that require progress solely toward environmental goals. It’s all about changing the rules of the game in order to favor specific (developed) economies, and allocate the burden of transition to developing countries. It restarts the struggle to “catch up” with the developed world, this time (and for now) the new direction is the green economy instead of liberalization of the economy.

The original Rio principles and commitments are being ignored completely as governments work towards a new (questionably titled) document, “The Future We Want.” The excuses are many, but the bottom line is that developed countries want to move away from the agreements and principles established in 1992. Although the Rio principles are supposed to be shaping the document, countries like the US, Canada and Japan have been systematically blocking any mention of the Rio principles, especially the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and the Polluter Pays principles, which are key strategic safeguards.

It is frustrating to know that the same story is being replayed over and over again. But the worst part is seeing some developing countries follow the same patterns of development based on natural resource predation and unsustainable consumption patterns that not long ago were heavily criticized by overdeveloped countries. It is not easy to restrain humanity’s aspirations of development, and this is the case in Germany, Bolivia, Zimbabwe or elsewhere. But it is certainly tougher to reject the idea of development when poverty, hunger, and inequality are the standard fare of everyday life for the large majority of people. So, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to see more and more developing countries trading green areas of forests for green cash. Especially after the first Earth Summit, when it was made clear that the only way for the South to develop in a sustainable way was by providing them with adequate assistance such as technology transfer, Official Development Assistance and capacity building, breaking any dependency. These necessities were never even close to being met.

Development is needed in most regions of the world to address poverty and under-consumption.  But, just as anything else in the natural world, things grow and develop until a certain point, and no more. Unfortunately, there are a number of countries that are living far beyond their means. Over-consumption — a symptom of over-development — remains a contentious topic. In fact, the US rejects the interdependence between sustainable consumption and production patterns and sustainable development.  Bolivia and Ecuador disagree fundamentally with this position; for these two countries the concept of “good living” should instead be the guide to achieve sustainable consumption levels. The concept of “good living” means understanding quality of life as much more than purchasing power and consumption levels: It also takes into account humanity's relationship with nature.

Until underlying issues such as inequality, assumption of infinite growth, over-consumption, and lack of agency in the South are seriously addressed, and principles like common but differentiated responsibilities are seriously respected, any outcome from Rio will not be the future we really want.

http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/prepcom3/108-prep3day3/945-prep3day3item5

Posted:
June 14, 2012
Author:
COA Students

52%, Informed, Empowered, Mobilizing

 

by Bogdan Zymka

I came to Rio disillusioned. Months of studying Sustainable Development, the UN, arms trade, treaties, subsidiary bodies, institutional frameworks, jurisdictions, trade rules, embargoes, power struggles, internal politics, people’s faces, and people’s policies left me believing that a lot more harm than help is getting done at these conferences. I would go on Mahknovist rants about power hierarchies and local economies to the point where I got stuck in the position of the perpetual devil’s advocate.

Then, during the Youth Blast, an official space for youth to voice their opinions before the start of Rio +20, we held a workshop titled “The Future We Really Want” giving the youth a space to voice their frustrations, opinions, goals, and idealism. We made sure to give them a space that was truly theirs, free from power struggles, and free from high priced linen suits.


The workshop was split into two sections, the first a group activity where we split everyone into groups based on key topics from our “The Future We Really Want” document, Economics of Sustainable Development, Climate, Food Sovereignty, Biodiversity, Water, and Sustainable Cities. Each group came up with questions, ideas, and generally awesome concepts for us to include in the document. The second half, we brought everyone back together into two larger groups in order to discuss all the topics with the whole room.


This is where the youth really shined. The conversation quickly turned from politics to action. This is what I needed. 30+ young people in a room telling you “Look, we’re just as informed as you are, now what can we do, how can we help?” is just the right cure for a case of festering skepticism.


The youth are a lot better at asserting our ideals than our less youthful, more seasoned colleagues. I was reminded of this once in a class of mine about the Arms Trade when our professor asked, “Do you think a world without arms is possible?” to which most of the class answered with a solemn “No.” But there was a younger student from high school taking university courses with us who answered with a defiant “Of course!” and that’s the defining characteristic of the youth. As often as possible, we look outside of what is politically possible and tap into our stubborn idealism. I had always considered the youth as a radical voice of reason for our “leaders” that refuse to listen to us. But this workshop really brought it home. No longer am I disillusioned, and as cheesy as it’s been made by the oldies, I feel empowered and so do the 40+ youth that came to the workshop as well as the thousands here in Rio.

Now there is a group of (mostly men) negotiators, in their high-priced linen suits, in a room deciding the future for the 3,650,400,000 of us who won’t stand for it. Keep your eyes and ears open, the youth are informed and empowered, and we’re mobilizing. 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →