All posts tagged civil society

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 22, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Bottoms up

by Ana Puhac

After witnessing the process of negotiations on the Zero Order draft compilation document for only three days, disappointment in the spaces of the UN Headquarters is laughably apparent. Disappointment is not an unforeseen ingredient when dealing with the global political scene and UN. However, when it is implied in mordant remarks of Staffan Tillander, Ambassador for Rio+20 while putting amendments into the Zero order compilation text, it is an omen that calls for rethinking the accountability of the high-level negotiating juggernaut in spearheading the change toward sustainable development.

What struck me the most was that there is a prevailing acceptance coming from both inside & outside of UN, that there is a prescribed place for the change to happen, and it is ultimately in the hands of a minority of high-level decision-makers. I am particularly concerned with the evident inferiority complex that civil society, as well as the Major Groups, are still battling with. Opening up intergovernmental flora to civil society in 1972, the Stockholm Conference offered an opportunity to show that civil society organizations can reach their highest political potential during environmental blockbusters. Still however, in the twenty years of the sustainable development jamboree, civil society and Major groups have a role but of civil slaves to the governments and corporations.

Marian Harkin, Member of European Parliament from Ireland, and a passionate speaker at the side event, Volunteering for Sustainable Future, definitely changed my expectations on how expertise influences the share of responsibilities in implementing the change with her remark that volunteerism is still seen as “an appendage” to  the real (?) actions on sustainable development. Maybe I’m wrong, but it appears to me that at the UN there are powerful experts in many areas who are not doing much of anything, and outside of the headquarters there are many powerless people who are not  necessarily experts in anything, but contribute to everything.

Predictably, my point is that the floundering inaction at the highest levels has been elevated to a format where it’s clear that we can’t lose any more time putting tremendous efforts into reigniting the commitment of the world leaders. Indeed, it is not entirely true that the bottom-up approaches will ultimately bring the solution either. Change is not vertical or horizontal. Change is organic, and it does not occur in harmony with the human expectations. One would think that, some natural impulse for survival would  kick in by now, and people would realize they need to push to create a web, or a network if you will, rather than a streamline that operates bottom-up or top-down solely.

However,  the power of grassroot niches and international local governments, the field of my great interest, are going to become places of creating the web of change in this century. Local communities must raise their self-awareness and keep cultivating its role in the web-creating transition to change until it reaches the top. In that regard, the side event of Just and Sustainable Cities brought to the table different growing initiatives between local communities and businesses that happen in local urban communities around the world. Surprisingly, at the negotiations on the Zero order text yesterday, the paragraph on cities received some quite interesting and innovative ambitions. Most of them were, quite successfully, smothered by [US, Canada, EU and New Zealand].  Japan brought up an important point of establishing a platform to promote sustainable cities for the future with active involvement of the relevant UN entities such as United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) and United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD). This is a proposal that recognizes the real benefit of initiatives that come from the local and international levels simultaneously. Cities and metropolitan regions are growing so big that they are gaining a real potential to become future autonomous enclaves. For that reason, the cities and growing towns are the prominent acupuncture points for the civil society to “press” on, where the relief  on our biosphere can be the greatest.

This is not an outcry to dismantle the UN system or other global governing powers. Even though it might be marvelously cathartic to do it, for that we’d have to compete with the United States and the other developed giants. Let’s not forget however, that in the contrast to the UN meetings, there are the G8 countries, WTO, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and such other meetings to which civil society is explicitly unwelcome. Those are the events that need proliferating passionate protests, too. With the Rio conference approaching, my hope is that the civil society  will recognize that it needs to distribute the energy among itself, not to end up pressing the UN’s belly to burp “the solution” while forgetting that the solution comes from the gut of civil society as well.

I say we need to realize that the effort put in the negotiations is mostly effort to decide how much green make up should be thrown at the Earth’s face. We must find ways to act against that plastic surgery of our planet. The events such as the Rio conference more than ever need a passionate crowd that believes that the sky will fall in order to remove the centuries of hubris that have been blocking politicians ears like wax plugs. However – finally, but vitally, this century movements will be closely shackled with advocacy of the rocketing power of local communities (Cairo, Madrid, NYC, Damascus, Athens…) that are more mobile to organize, but still great enough in number to influence national, federal  and sub-national legislations. From this point on,  the rational political acumen and the muscle of the local system will hopefully get this perpetuum mobile of the world to reach an unprecedented life of dignity and efficiency [we] here are dreaming about.

Posted:
March 21, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Vagabonds and Adventurists!

By: Mariana Calderon

               As part of the Major Group of Children and Youth and as a student studying international policy, I am very interested in what my role at international negotiations can be. In this respect, I am just one of a very large number of individuals, organizations, and groups – Major Groups, that is. There are nine major groups recognized by Agenda 21, and part of the discussion on the IFSD addresses the participation of Major Groups and other stakeholders in the international negotiation process.  This initiative has been rooted in discussions in a push to uphold the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 (both specifically mention the importance of stakeholder involvement, through the “participation of all concerned citizens,” and the “commitment and genuine involvement of all social groups…in decision-making”).  Up until now, civil society involvement in the negotiating process has been limited to observation and lobbying – except for in a few more progressive conventions (such as the CBD, and specifically in the negotiations on the Nagoya Protocol), meetings have generally shut out many of those most invested in the results. It is not surprising, then, that many Major Group and civil society members are working for improved participation in the UN process as an outcome of Rio+20.

This was the topic of a side event I attended on Tuesday (20/3): The Role of Civil Society/Major Groups in the Future IFSD. Panelists included representatives from the Stakeholder Forum, the Local Authorities Major Group, and the U.S. Department of State. Much of the discussion revolved around what was phrased as the “plight” of the UN: Institutions develop slowly and often painfully, and begin to decay when the systems fail to adjust to new “realities” and environments. Current UN institutions face two challenges – lack of implementation, and the lack of a multi-stakeholder process. The involvement of civil society is often seen as a sort of panacea; once decision-making becomes inclusive, stakeholders could push for more progressive actions, leading to adaptive institutions and an increase in implementation. On the other hand, there is also some fear that once civil society becomes more involved, we will become scapegoats for lack of implementation. Nonetheless, there is a general agreement that Major Groups and other stakeholders must be allowed to participate in decision-making in order to bridge the gap between the current system and the changing environment. The question then, is, how can this be made to happen?

Because re-opening the UN charter to include language for stakeholder involvement would be a messy and almost certainly ineffective strategy, only three strategies for creating an inclusive decision-making process are typically discussed. The first and second involve reforming and strengthening existing institutions, the Commission on Sustainable Development and/or, reaching higher, ECOSOC itself. The third is one of the most talked about possibilities for Rio: The establishment of a Sustainable Development Council. Much of the discussion on Major Group involvement repeatedly touched on this idea; it would be easier to allow action and involve stakeholders with a mandate and structure written in 2012 than to struggle to work with the older structures of CSD and ECOSOC.

Jan-Gustav Strandenaes of the Stakeholder Forum was the first speaker, and the first to bring up the idea of a SD Council. He stressed the need for a system that could deal with new “realities” as they occurred, and which could champion sustainable development at all levels. The new realities that he spoke of dealt not only with the changing environment, but also the changing attitude of civil society – increasingly, “people influence, decide, and are where the money is,” and of course, when you speak of a robust and adaptable system, you are really speaking of one that has money.

The next panel member to speak was Neth Daño, from ETC group in the Philippines, and member of the International Environmental Governance (IEG) Advisory Group. She advocated for the development of broader and deeper mechanisms and spaces for the engagement of groups involved at levels below the international sphere. She asked us to take note of the “brave experiments” of other civil society involvement processes, such as in the World Committee on Food Security, which has freely allowed speaking rights to civil society (though not voting rights), and she challenged us to “push the door opened by these processes even farther and take over!”

Maruxa Dardama, Network of Regional Governments for SD, discussed the concept of multi-level governance and the fact that implementation of SD occurs primarily at local and regional levels. She also advocated for a new category of non-state actors: “Governmental Stakeholders” (while noting the irony in having a MG for Local Authorities – fully fledged governing structures which cannot fully participate in International Environmental Governance).

In the remaining time of the session, there were responses from various sectors, as well as general comments and input. References were made to the many institutions outside of the “core” UN system that play important roles in SD; financing institutions and corporate powers, for example, play a large role and should be allowed to participate, but there also is a need to achieve some semblance of discipline in these groups. Additionally, the importance of keeping a multi-stakeholder process transparent was also stressed – Tomás González, UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service, pointed out that making key documents available to everyone would allow for better engagement by society. This hit particularly close to home as [Earth], along with many other non-State groups, has had to work with leaked documents in order to follow negotiations here in NY.

One other suggestion, to develop a compendium of voluntary commitments from both State and civil society actors, was made by John M. Matuszak, U.S. Department of State. This is intriguing for two reasons: First, because a collection of voluntary commitments may look pretty, but, as we all know by now, “voluntary” usually equates to “ornamental.” Secondly, and particularly, the suggestion is curious when one considers the discussion early on in negotiations about the inclusion of “Heads of State” vs. “Representatives of Peoples of the World” vs. “…and other leaders including representatives of civil society,” in the preambular text. The discussion is really about who the responsibilities should officially fall to, and while I’m inclined to say “Everyone,” everyone thinks it should be, in particular, “everyone else.” This is the unmentionable part of increasing participation by civil society. Yes, civil society seems to be more aware of our responsibilities (or at least, we own up to it more often), but there will be consequences once it is officially in text, previously mentioned scapegoat syndrome included. The more hard-won our participation is, the harder we will have to work to live up to our own expectations.

This is a small price to pay, however, for true representation. Meena Raman from the Third World Network pointed out that this is not just about access, but also about who is making decisions, and who actually is being heard. While right now, Major Groups have an indirect voice (Brice Lalonde, Executive Coordinator for Rio+20, told [Earth] as much in an interview, claiming that we have a larger voice, and more power, than we think), there is a major difference between writing letters or lobbying delegates, and having direct representation and a voice that always has a mic at hand.

Julian addressing the room at the Major Groups/Civil Society side event

Julian stated as much to the room, reminding participants that the governments no longer represent us in this process, and that it has become a matter of representing ourselves – not just the youth, but all the other members and groups of civil society. Julian spoke of the frustration we feel as we sit in the back of the room, taking notes on what delegates say, and sincerely wishing we could “have the floor,” both to support our allies, and point out the haphazard logic so often used to justify changes to the text that are detrimental to our mission for sustainable development. Others in the room related to this frustration, and spoke words of encouragement, telling us to hold fast to our optimism and drive. Neth Dano, in particular, has kept her unbridled optimism, assuring us that she too, hopes to be proud to tell her children that she “was a part of this gang of vagabonds, and adventurists!”

I know I, at least, am clinging to my optimism tooth and nail, for, as Neth told me, it’s the only way to survive in these halls. My optimism doesn’t depend on what happens in the negotiating room, however. It stems from participation in groups such as this one, at side events, in the hallways, and in the café, where delegates and participants can become people again, with innovative ideas, open minds, and words of encouragement for each other. The range of topics discussed in Conference Room B was wide, but it all came down to responsibility, and seeing everyone’s willingness and even enthusiasm to assume this responsibility by pushing for increased participation has been one of the most heartening parts of returning to the often-dreary world of international negotiations.

Lalanath De Silva asked the room “What will be your legacy?” I know what I want my future, and my legacy, to be like, and I’m ready to fight to be able to help create it.

Posted:
December 22, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Media Messaging: The silent, subtle art of loudmouthing the innocent

by Anjali Appadurai

If there’s one lesson we learned loud and clear at this COP, it was how important a role the media plays in determining the world’s perception of the dangerous game being played out in the negotiating rooms.

Throughout the COP, misguided messaging was a huge obstacle to a united civil society front. We saw a multitude of messaging angles on each major issue within the conference. Civil society was totally fragmented throughout, even within the same constituency. The youth were running on several different tracks throughout with regards to messaging.

It started long before Durban. Headlines whizzed around the world: “The Kyoto Accords are Expiring” (TIME Magazine), “What to do in a post-Kyoto world”, “What next after Kyoto”? The seed was sown, the idea proliferated – the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. Developing countries will come together in Durban to negotiate new obligations to renew the KP in a show of their long-standing commitment to the environment and to people’s lives and livelihoods around the world.

Very subtle. This sort of messaging was helpful to shape people’s thinking from the start into the idea that any commitment on the part of developed countries would be new and additional, not simply a reinstating of previously made commitments. The Kyoto Protocol does not “expire” in 2012. Its first commitment period simply comes to an end, signifying that by then countries should already have mobilized themselves for a second commitment period. Implicit within the signing of the treaty was the agreement to go forward with successive commitment periods. Developed countries weren’t doing anyone a big favour by coming together to discuss a second commitment period. Once again, they were tooting their own horns for doing only what they had originally agreed to do. A small detail, but a crucial one.

Once the idea had been planted into the public mind that the Kyoto was about to expire for good, the next message to get across (from the A1 perspective) was that the purpose of Durban would be to create a new climate treaty. The EU rolled out the EU roadmap, saying they would commit to a KP-2 if it included what they called the Durban Mandate. Suddenly everyone was talking about the new Mandate as if it was the holy grail. The EU spun it as a wonderful thing – they were agreeing to a KP-2! They were going to continue with their commitments under the KP in spite of the cold wind blowing from Canada, Russia and Japan. In the media buzz around the EU’s great plan, the devil in the details was lost. The KP-2 would happen only if all “major emitters” would be involved. The loopholes would remain. The carbon markets would continue. The plan pushed for an 8-year commitment period. This was picked up on by some select media sources, but for the most part, the Great Escape was in the works, its trapdoor built and opened wide by mainstream media messaging that the EU was the ‘bigger man’ and ‘saviour’ of the small island states.

But then came the most dangerous twist to the political current of the conference. The blame game began – first against China, then India, then all of the BASIC countries. With bated breath the media (and the rest of the world, fed by the media) waited – would China step up and agree to the new Mandate in order to secure further commitments from the developed countries? Would China and India own their responsibility as ‘major emitters’ and rise to the occasion? Would the BASIC countries sell out the rest of the developing world by refusing to sign this golden Mandate that was in the works? Would China and India sign Africa’s death sentence?

This nearly unbelievable cartoon by Avaaz, depicting Canada, India, the US and Japan as grim reapers looming over a forlorn-looking African child is the exemplification of the most harmful messaging proliferated at COP17. Leave the US, Canada, and Japan out of it – they are developed countries not doing anything under the KP, which  is surely something to bash them for – but India? A developing country itself, with smaller per capita emissions than Africa itself? You’ve heard the arguments against China and India being included in the major emitters category. From previous Earth in Brackets posts and if you’ve ever talked to us, our position should be clear: no new treaty should compromise the principles of common but differentiated and historical responsibility. Developed countries need to take the lead in assuming legally-binding obligations to mitigate carbon emissions, and they need to provide support to developing countries so that they may do the same as per their abilities. Developing countries are just that – developing – and they have priorities like poverty eradication and economic and human development to take care of. Continuing with the KP-2 with enhanced ambition, fewer loopholes and more stringent commitments is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable. We have treaties in place to cover both developed and developing country responsibilities: don’t forget the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol. These together form our climate regime.

The blame game was dangerous on many levels; on the most immediate level it took the heat off the EU, and what’s more, it rolled with its own momentum and painted the EU in a positive light. This twist was more than slightly intentional and served as a powerful political tool in shaping the outcome, for it resounded on an even deeper level: it silently shook the foundations of the FCCC by calling into question what “equity” meant. Enrolling China, India and other developing countries into the same program of obligations as developed countries is a way of redefining common but differentiated responsibility. A US negotiator said that CBDR has “evolving applicability”. What next? Soon we’ll be saying that climate change is AOSIS’ problem and everyone else can wash their hands of the whole affair. Then maybe that carbon is actually good for plants so we should emit as much as possible between now and when the Maldives sinks.

The climate regime started to crumble. Maybe if people had been better informed, maybe if the world had received a more truthful message, maybe if public pressure had been stronger in the right ways, then developed countries wouldn’t have gotten away with the blame game and with the skirting around their responsibilities. Media messaging was key in many ways to the outcome itself.

So headlines shooting out from COP17′s epicenter in Durban to the rest of the waiting world were infused with accusations against China and India. No number of press briefings or position papers from the Chinese and Indian delegations could change the momentum of the tide. From meeting rooms to civil society constituencies to the media to the rest of the world, the messaging of the political realities of the conference was like a giant game of telephone. The EU’s explicit message of “we refuse to have ambition and we want developing countries to share our burden of responsibility” was somehow buried in the details, warped through the line somewhere and came out to the rest of the world as “the EU is trying to save the climate regime but China and India are blocking them from doing so”.

And then, in the final feverish days of high-level segments and urgent negotiations, the “new treaty now” messaging came out as the final blow to civil society’s united message (that never was). Earth in Brackets walked into a YOUNGO (youth constituency) meeting one morning to find the old “I Heart KP” tshirts being handed out. Fine, great, we love the KP. But wait – what is that sticker that is being firmly pasted onto each tshirt before it gets handed out? TREATY NOW, it reads. We ask someone – why are you putting on those stickers? “Well, because the messaging isn’t complete without them”. Oh dear, the youth have been duped as well. Treaty now? We have a treaty now. We have a treaty and a plan of action! If we put our energies and ambitions into properly implementing the KP and the BAP, we’d be on the right track! Don’t fall for their “new treaty” with its crippling conditions, loopholes and lack of ambition! The devil is always in the details! NO treaty now!

But alas, it was not meant to be. That day, and the next, and the next, hundreds of youth milled around the conference centers blaring “I Heart KP, TREATY NOW” on their bosoms. And there went any possibility of a united civil society front. And out went new headlines that said things like “Global climate change treaty in sight after Durban breakthrough” (the Guardian).

Once all this mixed messaging was out there for people to trip up on and get confused over, it was easy for the rest to happen. Bam, bam, the gavel went down quick as a flash on major decisions. Equity out, loopholes in, ambition gone, all done, all finished, new Platform, new Mandate, the blame still on BASIC and the EU still looking good for taking leadership. It was over long before civil society came to its senses. And we never did come to our senses, because in the end the whole convoluted nature of the conference messaging culminated in the final humiliation: the media headlines of the Durban outcome.

“Climate conference ends in agreement”, “Kyoto is saved”, “Hope at last at climate conference”, “Durban conference a success, “Durban outcomes significant milestone”. And on it goes. The earth, in the end, was not even afforded the dignity of having its betrayal blamed on the right people.

Messaging is of crucial importance in every word, publication and posting each organization puts out. Blindly repeating a message you heard on the street without reading the text itself could be disastrous. Every interview, every blog post, every article must represent the whole and complete views of your organization, and messaging must be carefully thought over before campaigns are launched. We at Earth in Brackets are most definitely culprits of incomplete messaging ourselves, but we now know enough to at least be aware of this in the time leading up to the next COP. We’ve seen the stakes, and they’re too high. Civil society really weakened itself  through misinformed messaging. The media wooed us and we accepted, not realizing that the media was already married to the UN and developed country governments.

Where do we go from here? Who do we trust? Man cannot live on bread alone; similarly Earth in Brackets cannot live on Third World Network updates alone (www.twnside.org.sg) in order to be informed in the right ways – or can we?

Well, it seems to have worked so far…

Newer Entries →