All posts tagged Sustainable development

Posted:
June 23, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Apariencias insostenibles.

Regresé a darle otro vistazo al proceso de las Metas de Desarollo Sostenible, y esta vez la lección que me esperaba era mucho más grande de lo que esperaba. Al terminarse la ronda de negociaciones anterior, el gobierno brasileño tomó las riendas del proceso. Lo que significa esto, es que el gobierno de este país tomó en sus manos la tarea de integrar todos los comentarios hechos por las distintas delegaciones (e idealmente, tambiéb los de la sociedad civil), y crear un nuevo texto a partir de estos comentarios. Mi explicación para eso es que los ojos del mundo, de la sociedad civil y de los medios estaban puestos en este proceso, y si no había un documento final positivo, la mayor verguenza la llevaría el gobierno brasileño.  

El presidente de la asamblea aclaró que no estábamos allí para discutir oraciones. “No se permitiran más corchetes. Estoy aquí para que me den sus líneas rojas. Las Metas de Desarrollo Sostenible son una de las joyas de la corona de esta reunión. ”

Las líneas rojas, dentro del sistema de negociaciones en la ONU, son un término que se utiliza para pedirle a los delegados que expresen cuáles son las cosas que no están dispuestos a renunciar.  Tenían seis párrafos que discutir. Suena como una tarea simple ¿no?

Comenzaron con la Unión Europea. Tenían varias objeciones, varias líneas rojas que querían trazar sobre la alfombra. Una de ellas era que no estaban de acuerdo con que se mencionara la idea de Responsabilidades Comunes pero Diferenciadas (RCPD) en relacion a las metas de desarrollo sostenible. RCPD es uno de los Principios de Rio, declarados en 1992 en la versión orginial de esta cumbre. RCPD dicta que mientras que todos los países tienen que cuidar del planeta, hay países que han producido más daños al medio ambiente para industrializarse, y por ende tienen que llevar más peso de ésta responsabilidad que los demás.

La segunda línea roja de los Europeos consistía en que el texto debería contener una lista de temas para las MDS. Ellos demandaban una lista de temas, por muy preliminares que fueran, para que sobre estos temas se desarrollara el proceso de las metas posteriormente.

Su última línea roja, tenía que ver con que el proceso del desarrollo de las MDS tenía que incluir a los stakeholders, los grupos afectados por este proceso, de la sociedad civil. Es decir, la Unión Europea pedía lo siguiente: mientras se desarrollan las metas específicas que las MDS debían alcanzar, tendrían que incluirse las opiniones de los miembros de la sociedad civil que se verían afectados por la implementación de las mismas.

Luego de un comentario de aclaración del presidente de la Asamblea, Faruq del G77 pidió la palabra. Expresó que se encontraba sorprendido, y que encontraba los comentarios del delegado de la Unión Europea disturbing, una mezcla entre que le causaban molestia, y lo alteraban un poco. Esto debido a que, de acuerdo a Faruq, los comentarios de la UE, estaban haciendo a un lado todo el proceso de las últimas rondas de negociaciones.

El presidente de la asamblea aclaró que no quería entrar en un juego de ping-pong, antes de darle la palabra a la UE. El delegado europeo dijo que de acuerdo con lo que había dicho, no respondería.

Suiza tenía algunas cosas que agregar. Entre ellas estaba el hecho de que hacia falta una lista de temas para las MDS, que no estaban de acuerdo con el proceso, y que las MDS tenian que estar construidas sobre las Metas de Desarrollo del Milenio. Y así fueron sucesivamente:

Noruega: "Estamos de acuerdo con su comentario de que estas son las Joyas de la Corona. Líneas rojas: RCPD. Temas. Proceso."

Presidente de la Asamblea: "Para que estas sean las joyas de la corona de Rio+20, tienen que existir. No van a existir si no estamos conscientes del nivel de comfort de todas las delegaciones."

Estados Unidos: "RCPD es un principio que aplica sólo al pilar del Medio Ambiente, no a la Sociedad ni la Economía. Estas metas deberían ser voluntarias."

Canadá: "El proceso tiene que ser menos específico por ahora. RCPD."

Australia: "Lo mismo que los demás. Deberíamos mencionar los principios de Río al inicio del documento, así no tenemos que repetirlos después."

Japón: "RCPD. ¿Cuál es la relación entre los ODMs y los ODS?"

Nueva Zelanda: "RCPD. Proceso tiene que incluir a la sociedad civil. Temas."

G77: "Pensé que íbamos a continuar construyendo sobre el trabajo que ya se había hecho. Ya hemos explicado las razones detrás de nuestras demandas anteriormente, pero lo podemos volver a hacer. RCPD es un principio cuya aplicación es relevante para específicas MDS. No creemos que debería haber intervención por parte de los stakeholders, pero podemos llegar a un híbrido donde moderamos lo que ellos y ellas proveen al proceso. 

Déjenme ser claro con ustedes, ésto no es una línea roja, es una pared roja. El proceso del desarrollo de los ODS será solamente intergubernamental. "

***

Luego de escuchar la declaración de Faruq, me quedé atónito e indignado al mismo tiempo. Esperé un poco más, pero ya había pasado una hora y media de las tres que teníamos para esta sesión, donde se suponía íbamos a cerrar el texto. La mayor parte de ese tiempo transcurrió en escuchar a todos estos países decir que tenían las mismas objeciones al texto, uno por uno. Nuevamente, tomé mis cosas y salí. 

***

Unas horas después, me enteré que tres de las cuatro sesiones de negociaciones de esa mañana se habían suspendido después de sólo dos horas, lo que significaba que sólo me había perdido de media hora de negociaciones. La razón para esta pausa: el G77 tenía que reunirse para discutir su posición ante el proceso de negociación.

Yo estaba formando parte de una demostración con miembros del Grupo Mayor de Juventud y Niñez, afuera de la sala donde el G77 se estaba reuniendo, cuando me encontre con Laurence, un delegado juvenil de Kenia. Había pasado ya varios días intentando encontrar a la delegación guatemalteca, y Laurence me dijo que me podía llevar al edificio donde todas las delegaciones tenían sus oficinas, para que probara suerte. En el camino me contó que las cosas estaban muy controversiales dentro del G77, pero que habían algunas posiciones claras. Le pregunté sobre el comentario de Faruq en las negociaciones de esa mañana, y fue aquí donde la lección de la que hablaba al principio llegó a mis oidos. 

Laurence me dijo que la razón por la que el G77 quería que el proceso de desarrollo de las MDS fuera solamente con los gobiernos de cada país, sin expertos científicos, "expertos de la ONU" ni miembros de la sociedad civil, tenía que ver con el origen de estos científicos y expertos. Los países que estaban presentando sus objeciones uno por uno en esa negociacion por la mañana, (Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Noruega, Japón) tienden a ser los países con las universidades más reconocidas y por ende "los expertos más expertos", como dijo Laurence. Entonces, al poner ellos los expertos en distintos temas que informarían el proceso del desarrollo de las MDS, estarían indirectamente perpetuando los intereses de esos países dentro de la información que proveerían. Como también me dijo una delegada de Algeria después, ésto fue lo que sucedió con las Metas de Desarrollo del Milenio, hace mas de 12 años, y no quieren que se vuelva a repetir. 

Entonces me di cuenta de varias cosas. Una, en la política las cosas no son lo que parecen, y todos parecen querer hacer lo que es mejor, pero no significa que sea lo mejor para todos. Dos, el tener a la sociedad civil involucrada en este proceso de desarrollo de las MDS podría tener consecuencias positivas o negativas, pero la contraparte, el que sea un proceso orquestado solamente por los gobiernos, también. Entonces, cual es la salida correcta? Tres, los políticos que están trabajando en desarrollar estas metas no son necesariamente los mejor informados en lo que es mejor, pero es lo que tenemos. 

No hace falta aclara que todo esto me dejó con qué pensar sobre el proceso de la ONU. Pero esta vez, decidí no volver a la sala de negociaciones, y echar otro vistazo a lo que estaba pasando afuera, lejos, en el Parque de los Flamengos, para encontrar un poco más de inspiración. Allá me esperaban otras voces, con opiniones más fuertes, y al parecer con más ganas de lograr hacer un cambio real. 

 

 

Posted:
June 22, 2012
Author:
Nathan Thanki

Rio plus zero

by nathan thanki

For a "once in a generation" event, Rio+20 felt an awful lot like déjà-vu all over again. For those of us [dumb][nerdy][naïve][brave] enough to enter the lion's den of global multilateralism at the UN, the fact that governments could have ended last week’s “third Preparatory Committee to the Conference on Sustainable Development” (the pre-game to the big show) without ever having technically started it is not a shock. In international environmental diplomacy, the bar isn't just set low; we've buried it.

Negotiations took place round the clock in an attempt to have a final outcome document—a face saving political win—ready for world leaders to sign and congratulate themselves on.

Initially there were some bumps. Indeed, the road to Rio itself was downright perilous, with every preparatory meeting running into road blocks. Even last week, an awkward situation/potential media frenzy around the way in which observer states (i.e. Palestine) would participate held up the adaptation of the agenda for three full days. By the time the preparatory session closed 12.15am last Saturday morning, only 37% of the text— the quite ironically and insultingly labelled "The Future We Want"—had been agreed. They were aiming for 60%, minimum.

The official Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) ran 20-22 June, and even though (or maybe because) Obama, Merkel and Cameron did not bother to grace us with their presence, the UN considered this an important event; an opportunity to restore faith in multilateralism and renew commitment to sustainable development and its three pillars—social, economic, and environmental. So it’s quite worrying for there to have been agreement on only 31% of the outcome so close to the start of the higher level plenary. 

But as I said, it is not surprising. It's frankly nothing short of miraculous that there is agreement enough to meet in the first place. With such a spotlight on Rio though, a collapse in talks wouldn't do for the UN or the Brazilian government. Thus more “leadership” from…well…world “leaders” was needed. Brazil took on the role of circus master in order to bring together a “consolidated text” which was then discussed on the understanding that there would be no pernickety editing (no bracketing) allowed.

Although nobody came to Rio expecting much, and the atmosphere for most of the conference was undeniably flat, there is much to be indignant about. From the perspective of most of civil society (excluding, presumably, business and industry)—Rio+20 is an utter failure in ambition. As the much exalted heads of state worked through their tedious speeches, the frustration of the people came to the fore as hundreds of us gathered to symbolically reject the outcome. Putting faith in each other instead of our morally bankrupt leaders, we held a plenary in the face of UN security threats, and decided to stage a “walk out” of the conference to show that without civil society, there is no legitimacy to the process. The WTO or G20 would be even worse venues for these discussions, but at least there we would know that we are not going to be listened to or fully included. The entirety of civil society was not even granted a meagre 2 minute speaking slot on the final day of the conference.

Rio+20 was supposed to outline a common vision for the future. But that vision is a hollow lie. That vision is not based on our interests, or the interests of this planet that we all share. It is based on narrow self-interest of government and their corporate bedfellows. It is based on maintaining power and profit at all cost. The youth—whose only vested interest is our future, whose actions are not yet worn down by the diplomatic language and robotic interactions—know this.  And we’re furious. It is the same fury you can see in Quebec, in Spain, in Egypt, in Chile, in Mexico.  It says: the people who are supposed to represent us have failed. The old way isn’t working. We have a vision for a better world in which equity, empathy, inclusion, justice, love, dignity, and the rights of humans and nature prevail.

Over the past two weeks we saw clearly the most appalling betrayal of our future. And we have seen the most appalling betrayal of the past. All the promises and commitments made 20 years ago in this same city; what became of them? The developed world, rich as a result of years of exploiting their own and other’s natural resources in a predatory way, promised to acknowledge their responsibility and help the developing world with finance and technology. Those commitments have been reneged on, even as the brain drain of the South continues. New commitments are not forthcoming. The argument of the developed world—the EU, Canada, USA et al—is that they are broke (from bailing out their banks) and can’t afford to help. But they can afford $1 trillion for fossil fuel subsidies.

Sustainable development as a concept was defined and refined 20 years ago in Rio. Principles were established. Now, in 2012, all we have is a weak face-saving nod in their direction. Rather than calling this process Rio plus 20, we should call is what it is: Rio plus Zero. How could we not be furious?

UN liaisons constantly tell us to respect the process, to respect the system. But it is not a process that respects us. We are told that out voices are heard, for example in the tellingly uncreatively named “Sustainable Development dialogues,” a giant distraction from the heavy implication-laden discussions and political jostling that went on in the quiet chaos of the hyper-militarized, ultra-green washed and completely disconnected Rio Centro convention centre. But the voices of the people, many of which could be heard 2 hours away at the Cúpula dos Povos (People’s Summit), rarely make their way into the stuffy halls of the powerful.

For this disgusting lack of consideration and cooperation, and for the pathetic lack of ambition, “The Future We Want” is nothing like the future we really want.
 

Posted:
June 22, 2012
Author:
Nathan Thanki

[Closing Statement to Rio+20]

 

The following is a a statement that was drafted by a group of people in the Major Group for Children and Youth. It was supposed to be delivered to the closing plenary of Rio+20, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development tonight (Friday 22nd June 2012). The UN decided initially that ALL of civil society (represented by 9 Major Groups) would have 2 minutes total in which to addredd world leaders. Civil society decided unanimously that this would be the statement on their behalf. However, the decision was later changed, and we were onced again denied a voice. Following youth led actions inside the UN conference centre, which protested the lack of vision, ambition, and inclusiveness, this censorship is particularly vile. But the statement is powerful, and also hopeful. 

***

I want you to imagine a generation that has been damned, imagine children deprived of a world without war, imagine a community where human beings are slaves to fellow beings and where disease and hunger are the order of the day. That is the future we warned you of in 92 and that future, is today.

If these sheets of paper are our common future, then you have sold our fate and subsidised our common destruction. Where was our voice, the voice of our children and grandchildren in this? How can you listen to them in the future if you did not show the will to create the space now?

We have one planet. Our being, our thinking, and our action should not be constrained by national boundaries but by planetary ones. You failed to liberate yourself from national and corporate self-­interest and recognise our need to respect a greater more transcendental set of boundaries.

We came here to celebrate our generation. We have danced, and dreamed, and loved on the streets of Rio and found something to believe in. You have chosen

not to celebrate with us.

You were supposed to show leadership. It was not just your job to seek consensus. It was your responsibility to commit, show ambition and to lead. You have failed.

You have worked hard to close a deal. So, if any of you think this document is the ambitious, action-­‐oriented outcome you said you wanted, please stand up.

If you are unable to stand up, then you must be unwilling to move forward. So we will move forward for you.

We know this:

We need intergenerational cooperation.

We need innovation and creativity.

We need to embrace the values of sustainability, equity, justice and respect for human rights.

We need to recognise that material resources are finite, but human potential is not.

And so,

We will create strong global institutions

We will create new paradigms of wealth and prosperity

We will act as the voice for future generations, one that you so wilfully ignored.

We will stand united beyond borders and bridge the national interests that divide us

We will implement what you have not.

We are moving forward decisively with action. We are not deterred.

Posted:
June 22, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The doughnut model of development

Two words seem to be hanging with strings from the clouds over Rio de Janeiro these days, making their way into everyone's mouth: Sustainable Development. They are in there because they have been placed as the center concern for both Rio+20 and its alternative forum. Known as Cupula dos Povos or People's Summit, the counter part to Rio+20 is taking place next to the shoreline in Aterro dos Flamengos (also known as Flamengo Park.)

I spent two days there, and I got a sense of what are some of civil society's views on the topic. There are quite a few Brazilian and International organizations nesting along the beach with some of their representatives, and copious amounts of material ready to be given out to curious eyes or clingy fingers.

The first workshop I attended was already a lot of food for thought, and it included a model of development curiously shaped after a food item: a doughnut.

I was a bit sad because I missed another version of this workshop at the World Youth Congress last week, so you can imagine my happiness when I found out that not only it was the same workshop, but the author of the paper was sitting in a corner of the tent where I was waiting for it to start.

Kate Raworth is a British Senior Researcher for Oxfam, and I find her model particularly suitable for an analysis inside the Earth in Brackets blog because at least half of it is based on different countries submissions to Rio+20.

For the sake of your time though, I will save the nitty gritty details of the explanation, and direct you to her own video* explaining the model. You can also find her blog where she explains more of it here. In summary, the model captured the imagination of the people sitting at the room as she was describing it to us, since it both explains and articulates how the many social and environmental problems are linked with each other in their respective plains. The outer limit of the doughnut is the environmental limits that we should not surpass in our search for sustainable development. The inner circle, on the other hand, corresponds to the bare minimum social conditions we need to have a decent living.

The range of space between both limits of the doughnut is where we are to make our living. Probably the thing that captures my imagination the most about Kate's model is that it is both simple and human ecological at the same time.

The parts that compose the outer limit were based out of scientific evidence gathered by a Swedish scientist and many of the leading Earth Scientists around the world in 2009. The inner parts were a distillation of all 193 countries' submissions to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and the concerns these submissions were carrying inside.

Another thing that I really appreciate about the doughnut (rosquinha as our Portuguese translator referred to it), is that it provides an articulated, if vague, ideal of what we should be striving for as a society.It achieved this by bringing together both environmental and social concerns based of the information I mentioned above.

That being said, all doughnuts have their part that is left without frosting, and that we have to eat. The parts I feel Kate's doughnut model left out (and that I intend to write to her and ask her more about) can be comprised into a couple of bites:

1. Does this model apply to indigenous communities?

2. Does the reliance on quantitative factors exclude some of the critical parts of development?

3. Who sets the specific boundaries?

 

So, does this model adapt to existing indigenous cultures? There are communities that have organizational systems that are well within the boundaries of the doughnut (except they probably don't conceive themselves as living inside a pastry item). When I raised this question to Kate in her workshop, she acknowledged the same thing, but she did not mention how the two would integrate together. The reason I would be concerned is that, much in line with the kind of scientific thinking and politics that are in its recipe, this is very much a Western conception of development.

Note that always use the word "Western" as a synonym for the devilish, but as Richard Levins wisely told us back at COA in our last week there, “Horrible things are done for great reasons”. I worry that this model of global development might be characterized as neocolonialism if carried and introduced by folks that underestimate already existing knowledge. I do not think Kate's thinking is that it would be imposed on to all communities around the world; she rather wants us to develop it together. The model should carry an addendum of how it would merge with already existing knowledge for those who don't see such knowledge as a priority.

The other aspect of the doughnut model that I find equally worrying is that it relies heavily on quantification and indicators to measure where in the doughnut we are. As Francisco Cali said on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples Major Group, that Major Group is advocating for the inclusion of a fourth pillar of sustainable development, Culture, into the negotiations' discourse. Culture cannot be measured, and that is the case with many other things that I find equally important about development. How can we integrate culture into all of this? There are aspects of people's lives that are hard to measure, academic progress being a great example. If education is to be one of the 11 aspects to be considered as part of a decent living, we cannot just limit ourselves to children enrolled in primary schools similar to what the MDG indicators are. How much are the students learning? How often do they actually go to school? Is their education contributing to a more sustainable world?

This problem is not exclusive to Kate's doughnut though, and even the UN has this problem within the Millennium Development Goals. That raises the larger of question of whether we should measure progress through numerical indexes, or are there other ways of seeing how we are doing?

My last concern with the rosquinha model is that the boundaries are being set either by science, or governments. Neither of these usually respond well or can fully take into account individuals concerns, like my concern that Gender and Sexuality rights should be included into these standards. Also, the fact that some communities around the world have worshiped or held nature as sacred to the extent that they would find it sacrilegious that anyone would set an acceptable range of how much we can pollute.

I look forward to writing to Kate with my questions, and I hope she takes my criticism as constructive and in good spirit! Till then, I will sit down and continue devouring my copy of her paper as well as the other morsels I got at the People's Summit between yesterday and today. Hopefully, the words Sustainable Development will not just be in people's tongues as words, but one day we will all be able to benefit from the taste they will bring. This doughnut seems like a good component of that recipe.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →