All posts tagged youth

Posted:
June 5, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Tweeting, Blogging, Shouting, Learning

By Mariana Calderon

Recently, in an online conversation about expectations for Rio+20, and the point of it all, Nathan Thanki was informed that “nothing of any worth” would happen at the conference in June. Entirety of the conversation, arguments and responses aside, I was struck by a simple truth in Nathan’s reply: “We’re students, and so place value in learning.” We are students. Students, sometimes “youth,” in halls dominated by those who are older, sometimes wiser, and certainly more experienced. So what does it mean, to be a student at a UN conference?

Being a student means that these days, I am often putting aside my visions of historical change and progress, or catastrophic failure and apocalypse, for a simpler, more selfish, and more immediate turning point in my life: My impending degree in Human Ecology. One year remains to me – a year in which I must simultaneously complete my courses and requirements (would anyone like to offer me an internship?), craft and produce a final, culminating project, and decide what Human Ecology means (and then write about it). I might even squeeze in time to sample student-budget-friendly wines, read Game of Thrones, Issac Asimov, and Sherlock Holmes, and cultivate my Tumblr account.

So why do I, in addition to these simple aspirations, also aspire to spend time at as many international environmental meetings in the next year as possible? I’m not crazy. I don’t even own a time-turner. It’s simple: The time spent at these meetings is invaluable to me and my studies. I am cultivating the collection of stamps in my passport, my collection of “that time in Rio when we took the wrong bus” stories, and my knowledge and experience in international environmental politics and the UN circus. For someone who currently is more comfortable navigating negotiating texts than filing a tax return (is anyone comfortable with filing tax returns?), the prospect of finally earning the degree is almost as unnerving as the price of food within the conferences. Therefore, I am packing a lunch, and aiming to make it the most nutritious, well thought out and organically produced lunch as possible, with a cordon bleu-worthy presentation, and some guilty pleasure, hardly-real-food type dessert (I’m thinking a Twinkie type of comatose post-conference time on the beach with 50 Shades of Grey). With all that preparation in the morning, I’ll have a meal that has everything I need to continue in the afternoon (no, don’t ask about graduate school). In short, if I’m going to earn that degree, I’m going to make it one that will serve me well, and do so outside of school. And I won’t do it by extending terrible metaphors.

It’s official. According to the UN, my age defines me: 15-24. I am a “youth.” This means a number of things. It means that some in the crowd around me take a look and confide that they see themselves in me, 20 years ago (with the current state of the international environmental governance, this is sometimes infinitely encouraging, sometimes cringe-worthy). It means that some of those I strive to work with and learn from can be unwittingly condescending. I get virtual pats on the head. It does mean that I am often surrounded by an enormous amount of positive energy and collaboration. It also means leading a very hectic life: Normal coursework is time consuming. Staying informed about the latest international policy is time consuming. Being actively involved in youth efforts to make a difference is time consuming and devours email inboxes. Those who roam the UN halls alongside me know this – more official participants could likely teach me a lesson or two about time-consuming work.

But as students go, the writers of Earth in Brackets are lucky. We are lucky enough to pursuing degrees that are flexible, with coursework that actively grooms us, arms us, and then sends us to international negotiations to make what we will of them. Our work in the UN world is part of our work fulfilling degree requirements. Add the fact that our degrees are individually crafted, and four years of undergraduate work can become a sort of international environmental policy degree, if we so desire, complete with courses in economics, statistics, ecology, cultural anthropology, domestic law, and photography thrown in for good measure. With that sort of background, or even just the beginnings of it, for a first-year, we can take the long days, dragging negotiating sessions and miniscule amounts of sleep, and glean an incredible amount of learning from it all. We might even enjoy it.

I am often asked what it is that Earth in Brackets does. What do we do that we enjoy so much, enough to travel to exotic locales and spend the majority of the time in over-air-conditioned buildings? “We tweet, we blog, we shout.” The catchphrase has a lot of truth to it: We do tweet. We do blog. Sometimes, we shout. We also meet with other youth, and with representatives from other Major Groups, NGOs, countries, and coalitions. We sit in on negotiations, and chuckle at the co-chair’s dry jokes while taking notes on attempts to water down the Right to Water. We discuss the poorly-defined Green Economy, and the idea of a Sustainable Development Council. We plan actions (where we shout), and analyze newly-released text at 2 in the morning. At 5am, we tell the world on twitter and facebook that, once again, things didn’t go the way we so desperately hoped. And then we write here about why, and how, and how to turn what happened into something useful.

In between all of that, we learn. We can be optimistic, but we are not naive. We know that the chance of our work creating a perceptible difference is slim. But we try, and we learn, and we try again. We get pushy. Some of us may continue the work, and the years of experience between will pay off. Yes, we’re writing, analyzing, and networking, but most of all, we are learning, about the policy, the atmosphere, and the relationships. We learn when to be aggressive and when to be charming, and to give out our cards. We learn how to understand the language. We see the possibilities and impossibilities, and try to stop defining them as such.

In attending the international meetings I study, I can develop a more holistic perspective on the UN and international environmental governance. I can meet the people I know on paper as “Representative of the US,” or “Representative of the G77,” and try to understand them as human beings as well as negotiators. I can understand how the mood in a negotiating room can drastically change the pace and results of the negotiations – and why optimism, if not idealism, is so important. I think this all to be of great importance. It will be an integral part of the degree I craft and what I choose to do with it. I look around at other student-participants and feel that their being present is a step towards the Future I Want. Learning alongside other “youth” at the negotiations often gives me much more hope than watching negotiators does.

Some also ask, why waste time with the UN? After all, it is bureaucratic and slow, frustrating and, in the minds of many, useless. We’re raking up carbon emissions in order to “feel better about ourselves” and “failing to produce results.” I’ve been informed of this many times. It is a discussion that never ends, and one that I am still developing answers and opinions for. Nonetheless, in the end, I still feel justified, perhaps wrongly, perhaps self-centeredly, in participating – in flying across a continent to take part in what I see as a turning point. Because nothing beats experiential learning. And it is important to know your enemy. Or important to understand the world you work in. Or important to understand that which you seek to change. And important to bring that understanding back home.

Posted:
March 23, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The Future We Really Want: The Why, and What

By: The Informal-informals [Earth] Team

Earth in Brackets has critically examined the history of sustainable development negotiations, outcome documents, and implementation, and has found it to be, with the exception of small gains made in the implementation of Agenda 21, uninspiring. Current institutions under the UN lack the coherence, jurisdiction and consistency to fully address issues of sustainable development, and there has not been sufficient action addressing these issues. As time progresses, the interconnected crises the world is facing are accumulating and intensifying, making them ever more difficult to combat. The Millenium Development Goals, while ambitious, seem to have been forgotten about and are unlikely to be completed by 2015. Implementation of Agenda 21 has been highly unsatisfactory. Now, there is The Future We Want, a document we find to be lacking in ambition, and which is, despite some participants’ best efforts, being increasingly diluted in the negotiations precluding the UN Conference on Sustainable Development.


Therefore, as international youth from [Earth] and the College of the Atlantic, and as voices of the future with a vested interest in the outcome of UNCSD, we have developed The Future We Really Want. We stress that The Future We Really Want is not an all-encompassing final document, but rather a reflection of the work of a focused group of individuals over the course of a concentrated study on the Rio process. It includes some, but not all, of the issues, goals, and actions that we are most passionate about, and that we believe are critical for consideration if there is to be true progress towards sustainable development. It is part of our platform for dialogue and change, both in our own communities, and the greater community of our allies and those with whom we must work harder to collaborate and whom we welcome into productive discussions.


Below, we present some of the key issues and statements outlined in the document:


Overarching Points

  • Negotiators must be truly conscious of their responsibility to future generations, to their constituents, and to one another. Increased political will and commitment to sustainable development and poverty eradication are needed to ensure accelerated fulfillment of sustainable development objectives, and re-commitment to inclusive, transparent and effective multilateralism is needed to better ensure the full and fair participation of all relevant stakeholders.
  • All States have Common But Differentiated Responsibilities – there are historical ecological, social, and economic obligations, therefore countries must take action proportional to their capacity to do so and proportional to the level of harm they have inflicted on society and the global environment.
  • There is inequitable distribution of wealth, resources, and opportunities, necessitating full cooperation among member states in supporting multilateral development strategies.
  • States should reiterate their commitment to the adoption of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with a renewed emphasis on the recognition of all human rights including, inter alia, the rights to clean water, food sovereignty, and development.
  • Neo-liberal economic policies are detrimental to sustainable development. Only a deep reform in the economic system will ensure the equitable fulfillment of sustainable development goals.
  • The economy should serve to fulfill basic human rights and need, and should be based on cooperation beyond consumption and growth while avoiding detrimental effects on the environment. To this effect, we encourage countries to work towards localization, internal development, and move away from growth.
  • The creation of a new Sustainable Development Council, with a progressive mandate that fully integrates all stakeholders in the decision-making process, would provide support for members to effectively communicate, negotiate, and implement their policies, and would provide a platform through which there could be an exchange of relevant information, including implementation assessment, creating a stronger and  more coherent process.

Thematic issues

  • Water is a necessity for human life and is needed for basic well-being and dignity: Countries must guarantee access to responsible quantities of clean and safe water, and should also cooperate more closely in order to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to water-related crises. The right to water should also be extended to Earth’s organisms and ecosystems; the protection and allocation of safe and clean water resources to natural processes and habitats is indispensable for avoiding the endangerment of essential hydrological cycles.
  • Cities have become our main habitat, and there can be no sustainable world without sustainable cities. Unsustainable urban expansion and the increase in mega-cities aggravate problems of poverty, waste, and pollution. For this reason, intermediate city development and a retrofit of existing cities should be encouraged. In order to address international issues arising from city-level problems, States’ policies should support and facilitate the evolution of sustainable cities from both a national and local level and allow the development of self-sufficiency in city management.
  • Earth has a carrying capacity: There are scientific indicators of optimum and maximum sustainable yields that define the limits on how much humans can produce and consume. In order to adequately discourage over-consumption, shift to cleaner production patterns and fulfill basic human needs–especially in the areas of food, water, and energy–sustainable patterns of production and consumption must be adopted in accordance with the principle of  Common But Differentiated Responsibilities.
  • Food is a fundamental human right that must be acknowledged by all states. Food security is a tool that is closely intertwined with sustainable development, and, with a shift towards localized production and consumption, can strengthen, revitalize, and empower local communities, and reduce international food dependency. Food sovereignty is also vital to sustainable development and is the fundamental right of communities to have control over and/or access to, inter alia, arable land, agricultural and marine resources, seeds, the methods of food production, and nutritional food.

Read the full text of The Future We Really Want

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:
March 20, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The (Lack of) Formal Youth Involvement in the Informal-Informals

By Anna Odell

Even after spending a term studying sustainable development, the United Nations process, and the Rio+20 conference in depth, when people asked me what exactly I was doing in New York at the informal-informals, I responded with the truth: I had no idea. I could say that I was going to the United Nations negotiations and that I was going to be working with youth from across the world, but when it got down to the nitty-gritty details, I was still a little lost. Although even though I didn’t entirely know how I would be spending my days, I never doubted that my presence at these meetings would mean something. Even before arriving I didn’t place a huge amount of faith in the formal negotiating space, but I had a feeling that I couldn’t quite put words on; something important was going to happen and I was going to be a part of it. It was not until I arrived to the UN headquarters this morning in New York City’s upper east side that I realized just how bureaucratic and complex this system is.

After the the morning session we met up with the Major Group of Children and Youth, and discussed the youth’s official role in the informal-informals: nonexistant. We learned that civil society and major groups are not permitted to make interventions during these meetings. With no opportunities for intervention and no actions, we are essentially sitting here as they negotiate. MGCY will have the opportunity for an intervention during the intersessionals next week, however there is no official opportunity for youth to express opinions or make suggestions during this week of negotiations. As I sat in the chair for the Youth in Children with a microphone in front of me, I realized how many chances my voice would not be heard, and even if it was, would it be considered? Is my voice louder shouting from outside the building than speaking into a microphone inside this room?

After lunch, the tides began to shift. Julian, working his mingling magic, landed us an interview with a French filmmaker Before I knew it, I was being tapped on the shoulder and informed that we were going to speak with Mr. Brice Lalonde, one of the two coordinators of the Rio+20 conference. Mariana, Julian, Bogdan and I huddled for a minute to collect our wits, and then found ourselves being hurried out to have a discussion on our thoughts of the negotiations, the conference, and the role of youth in the decision making process. ‘Finally!’  I thought, ‘a chance for us to share our views and get our opinions out there!’ The chance to talk to Mr. Lalonde was an incredible opportunity, and I truly appreciate being able to have a conversation about our thoughts and hear his views. We discussed the necessity of youth involvement in the decision making process, and he agreed that youth must have a role in the crafting of our future. However, he somewhat slyly spoke of our responsibility to make a movement outside of the United Nations system. Mentioning social media, letter writing, and putting pressure on individual nations, he spoke of the political will of nations stemming from the youth movement. I couldn’t help but feeling that he is operating within a system that does not fully acknowledge us. We are sitting here as representatives negotiate away our future, and we are told that it is our “responsibility” to put pressure on the heads of state so that they do their job.

One thing Mr. Lalonde said resonated deeply: “you are more powerful than you know.” I think he’s right. We are far more powerful than we realize, however still I consider our power to be greater than acknowledged by the United Nations. We will continue this movement, seeking environmental justice and a sustainable future, however we must be met with an opportunity to be seriously involved in the negotiating process and the willingness to work together. We will continue to put pressure on our heads of state and international governance, but I also call on the United Nations to meet us with the political will to move past the inaction make and the important, difficult, and forward thinking decisions that will stop the destruction of our future.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →