SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES
A proposal for UNCSD2012 Zero Draft: Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication
(OPEN FOR ENDORSEMENTS TILL 31ST OCTOBER)
Proposed by Climate Sustainability PLATFORM (http://climatesustainabilityplatform.weebly.com/) and Supporting Organizations
Introduction:
The proposal for a green economy has lead to division even amongst the environmentally sensitive and conscious groups and sections. This is due to an unsuccessful attempt to repackage and resell sustainable development. The new attempt to present a green economy as a tool for sustainable is now looked with suspicion by many needs to be resolved by the time UNCSD convenes in Rio de Janeiro in 2012. The following is a proposal to help and guide the process towards creating a more acceptable proposal on the agenda item on ‘Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication’
Replacing the Greed Growth Economy - Not to Green Wash the Brown
· The core consideration should be if the Green Economy can replace the greed based economic order and help us face the challenge of climate change and poverty?
· Any attempt to green wash the brown economy should be halted. Therefore, simply making adjustments to polluting technologies and wasteful consumerist market instruments should not be considered as part of a green economy
· Creating a monopoly on the green technology to dominate a green growth-based market economy should not be promoted. All people should have equitable access and capacity to enjoy green, clean and sustainable technologies within an emerging green economic system.
Not Just a Single Economy! Sustainable Economies!
· The green economic system should not promote a single and monopolistic model of a green technology, green market, and Intellectual Property Rights dominated economy.
· The green economy should be viewed as a networked system of decentralized, community based, sustainable economies in a diversity.
· Such a system of sustainable economies should be connecting the rainbow economies across the world and the core idea is that all economies are made sustainable, not just a monopolistic and dominant global economy.
Foundations of a Sustainable Economic System
· Foundations for sustainable economies based green economic system should be based on a common vision for an “equity” based world order.
· Such a system should be committed towards creating ‘wellbeing of all’
· Such a system should promote “sustainable consumption & production patterns”
· Such a system should move from a mere “efficiency” focus to ‘sufficiency’ based ‘sustainable development’ paradigms
· Such a system should helps achieve Climate Sustainability which is to eradicate all kind of poverty and threats to the environment.
· Such a system should not encourage vertical growth for the creation of few rich and a consuming class, but promote horizontal growth so the wealth is distributed for wellbeing of all.
· Such a system should also need to know define limits to green growth in prosperity.
ANNEX 1: SIGNATORIES
1. Uchita de Zoysa, Executive Director, Centre for Environment and Development (CED), Sri Lanka. http://centreforenvironmentdevelopment.blogspot.com/, [email protected]
2. James Gustave Speth, Former Administrator-United Nations Development Programme/Professor of Law-Vermont Law School, USA, [email protected]
3. Paul Raskin, President, Tellus Institute, USA, www.tellus.org, [email protected]
4. Mohan Munasinghe, Chairman, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Colombo, Sri Lanka. http://www.mindlanka.org/;
5. Veena Sikri, Convenor-South Asia Women’s Network (SWAN), and Professor-Jamia Millia Islamia, India. http://www.swaninterface.net/, [email protected]
6. Faiz Shah, Head, Development Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand, www.ait.ac.th, [email protected]
7. Philip Vergragt, Research Professor, George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University Worcester MA USA; and Senior Associate, Tellus Institute, Boston, MA, USA. http://www.tellus.org/index.phpl, [email protected]
8. Nancy B. Roof, Founder, KOSMOS JOURNAL, USA, www.kosmosjournal.org, [email protected]
9. Ike Nwibe, Founder/Team Leader, National Heroes Initiative, Nigeria, [email protected]
10. Bruce Davison, Managing Director, Callosal Ltd, United Kingdom, Callosal.co.uk, [email protected]
11. Juliet Schor, Boston College, Department of Sociology, USA, www.julietschor.org, [email protected]
12. Bathermy TSAFACK TAGNY, Coordinator, Water Energy and Sanitation for Development association (WESDE ), Republic of Cameroun, [email protected]
13. Okullu-Ayor Vincent, C.E.O./Founder, Generosity International Lifecare Development Coalition, Uganda, www.generosityintl.net, [email protected]
14. Marilyn Cornelius, PhD Candidate, Stanford University, USA, http://pangea.stanford.edu/programs/eiper/people/type/marilyn-cornelius, [email protected]
15. Emmanuel Prinet, Policy Director, One Earth Initiative Society, Canada, http://OneEarthWeb.orgv, [email protected]
16. Mme Noura Fatchima, Coordonnatrice Association Nigérienne des Scouts de l'Environnement, NIGER , [email protected]
17. Mohiuddin Babar, Convenor, Nature Alliance, Bangladesh, www.naturealliancebd.org, [email protected]
18. Siaka Coulibaly, Activiste de la démocratie, des droits humains et de l'environnement, Burkina Faso, www.siaka-coulibaly.org, [email protected]
19. Nonita T. Yap, Professor, School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Canada, www.uoguelph.ca/~nyap , [email protected]
20. Ambreen Waheed, Executive Director, Responsible Business Initiative, Pakistan. http://www.rbipk.org/, [email protected]
21. Shani Weerasena, Director, Global sustainability Solutions (GLOSS), Sri Lanka. http://www.glossolutions.com/, [email protected]
22. Lisinka Ulatowska, UN Rep. Association of World Citizens, Institute for Planetary Synthesis, Switzerland, www.ipsgeneva.com, [email protected]
23. Paul Quintos. Programme Manager, Ibon International, Philippines, iboninternational.org, [email protected]
24. Amiya Kumar Sahu , President, National Solid Waste Association of India, www.nswai.org, [email protected]
25.
Green Economy:
What should it be and what should not!
by Uchita de Zoysa
From the presentation at the Asia Pacific Stakeholder Consultation for UNCSD-RPM, 17-18th October 2011 – Seoul, South Korea
Rio+20 sadly is a confused, segregated, fragmented and isolated process. While civil society is coming into action and trying to understand the process better, governments seem to still find time to switch on. Without any preparation or consultations they now gather in regional preparatory meetings of the UNCSD2012 and more confusion is to set-in.
SD: The Great Unifier - GE: The Great Divider
• RIO1992 The Great Unifier
– the focus was on Sustainable Development
– Environment; society; economy
• RIO2012 The Great Divider
– Focus is on Green the Economy
– The proposed strategy towards Rio+20 sadly has divided the environmental camp
• Confusion by re-packaging SD?
– Who is the target market for the new branding?
– Is it Greed in the name of Green!
Replacing the Greed Growth Economy - Not the Green Wash the Brown
• Can the Green Economy replace the greed growth based economic order and help us face the challenge of climate change and poverty?
– An attempt to “green wash the brown economy?
– Creating a monopoly on the green technology to dominate a green growth-based market economy?
– More greed growth in the name of green?
Not Just a Single Economy! - Sustainable Economies!
• Not for a single model/monopoly of a green tech; green market; IPR based economy.
• Decentralized, community based, sustainable economies in a diverse system
• Connecting the rainbow economies
• The idea is that all economies are made sustainable, not just a monopolistic and dominant global economy.
Foundations of a Sustainable Economic System
• A common vision for an “equity” based world order (not 20:80 world order)
• Commitment towards creating ‘wellbeing of all’
• Promotes “sustainable consumption & production patterns”
• Move from a mere “efficiency” focus to ‘sufficiency’ based ‘sustainable development’ paradigms
• Helps achieve Climate Sustainability which is to eradicate all kind of poverty and threats to the environment
Equitable Green Growth - Not Accumulated Greened Growth
• Not vertical growth for the creation of few rich and a consuming class
• Horizontal growth so the wealth is distributed for wellbeing of all
• But, we also need to know when the growth stops – even it is green! Limits to Growth in prosperity!
DHAKA DECLARATION:
SWAN (South Asia Women's Network)’s Positions on an emerging Green Economy
Preamble
We, the women of South Asia, gathered in Dhaka, Bangladesh on July 2 and 3, 2011, for the Third Annual Conference of SWAN (South Asia Women’s Network), which was dedicated to the theme of “Women of South Asia and the Green Economy”. We come from nine South Asian countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
The SWAN Annual Conference brings together eight individual SWAN networks, respectively on Arts and Literature; Women in Peacemaking; Health, Nutrition, and Food Security; Education; Crafts and Textiles; Microcredit, Livelihood, and Development; Environment; and Women in Media. Women working in each of these areas make vital contributions to the Green Economy. There can be no Green Economy without Arts and Literature that express our local traditions, and women play a central role in preserving and disseminating these traditions. There can be no Green Economy without Peace. Armed conflict, terrorism and all violent acts are destructive of the Green Economy. The peace we ask for cannot ever be at the expense of women’s rights. A Green Economy is the only enduring basis for good health, and for ensuring adequate nutrition and food security. Education for an authentic Green Economy is our commitment. Our rich tradition of crafts and textiles does not just contribute to our rich culture; it is the very basis of green livelihoods. Facilitating local sustainable livelihoods is the real role of microcredit and financial systems. We will use the media to show to our region and the world that the women of South Asia bring solutions to the ecological and poverty crises. We will define the Green Economy on our terms, through our cultures and our lives.
South Asia is the region that bears a heavy burden of the global ecological crisis, including climate change and species extinction. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers, the intensification of droughts, floods, and cyclones and the rising sea level aggravate the already-serious ecological stresses in our region. Despite the differences and diversity within our region, we all share and depend on one geographical space. During periods of deep catastrophe and uncertainty, we need to recognize a multiplicity of perspectives that will offer diverse and plural solutions.
South Asia is one of the richest regions in terms of bio-cultural diversity, but this diversity is under threat of monocultures pushed through the Green Revolution and genetic engineering. These non-sustainable and failed technologies are being forced on our people, driving them deeper into debt and poverty. Our rich biodiversity and knowledge heritage is being patented and pirated, depriving our people of the benefits of their own heritage and resources. When environmental crises force us to migrate to cities, we also experience loss of livelihoods due to lack of access to urban space, materials and new forms of urban management. Our bodies are imprinted with toxics from unsustainable consumption of others. The right to sustainable development should be inalienable. This is vital for women’s empowerment and for preserving our planet for future generations
Women of South Asia bear the highest burden of climate change, biodiversity erosion and unsustainable forms of urbanization. But we also bring solutions to these global crises with our knowledge, skills, wisdom, and experience. We seek to work in harmony with nature, rather than resorting to geo-engineering that could further aggravate the ecosystem balance. That is why we bring something unique to the global discussion on sustainable development and the Green Economy in the lead-up to Rio+20 and visions beyond.
Statement and Commitment
A Green Economy should be an economic system that ensures social justice and equity, protects the ecological balance and creates economic sufficiency. Such a Green Economy should replace the current economic order, which is based on inequity, environmental destruction and greed, which has resulted in keeping nearly half the world’s population in poverty, and has brought the planet to the point of a severe environmental catastrophe through climate change. The core idea of a Green Economy must be poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability through maintaining biodiversity, and the well-being of all the people.
As SWANs, we embrace such a Green Economy. We commit ourselves to raising our collective voices for it. We will transcend the fragmenting boundaries that attempt to divide us, and will unify our energies to create a better world for all.
Our local economies have always been in harmony with nature. We have used resources prudently, and shared them equitably. SWAN believes that agriculturists and craftspeople around the world have always worked in tandem with the seasons and in harmony with nature. A craftswoman carries with her the wisdom of generations that did not pillage the planet for profit. She has a deep commitment towards nurturing the natural world for sustaining livelihoods. The only raw materials needed to keep millions employed is a thriving green environment with rich forests, wild grasses, clean waters, and unravaged hillsides. The dignity and creativity of hand-work greatly contributes towards sound rural economies. This work of women across the South Asian region must be acknowledged by all those who wish to build an inclusive and truly integrated, ecologically balanced world.
Today, those who have created the ecological crisis talk of the Green Economy. For them, the Green Economy means appropriating the remaining resources of the planet for profit — from seed and biodiversity to land and water as well as our skills, such as the environmental services we provide.
For us, the privatization and commodification of nature, her species, her ecosystems, and her ecosystem services cannot be part of a Green Economy, for such an approach cannot take into account our traditions. The resources of the Earth are for the welfare of all, not the profits of a few.
Sharing our vital resources equitably and using them sustainably for livelihoods and basic needs is at the heart of our concept of a Green Economy. Our rich knowledge of biodiversity, our ecologically sustainable agriculture, and our crafts techniques are free of fossil fuels and toxics. They generate creative and dignified livelihoods and they provide the basis for poverty alleviation. We stand committed to strengthening these life-giving traditions.
It is of vital importance to spread awareness about these issues through the media and through the educational process, which reaches out to youth and children. Awareness about the Green Economy and the significance of its diverse impacts is essential in order to enable all segments of society to make informed choices. Recognizing the changing face of the media, SWAN encourages the use of new media, including social networking tools, to reach out and support the women of South Asia in their struggle to meet the challenges of ensuring the Green Economy for sustainable development.
Our Green Economies are diverse and decentralized and therefore are a path of empowerment for all. Women are the storehouse of knowledge and provide the cultural base to create and build economies that increase wellbeing and happiness, joy and beauty, sustainability and equity. It is from our region of South Asia that the concept of Gross National Happiness has spread worldwide. We will deepen this concept and make it the basis of the Green Economy.
We stand committed to peace in our region and to strengthening these life-giving traditions. We commit ourselves to defending the ecological integrity of our region — our mountains and rivers, our land and oceans, our natural forests, biodiversity and seeds. We commit ourselves to creating prosperity and peace through the Green Economy that protects and enriches our natural and cultural heritage. We commit ourselves to resisting those irresponsible policies and armed conflicts that directly harm women and children. We commit ourselves to equity and to defending vital resources, like forests, seed and biodiversity, rivers and water, as a commons. We recognize that the Green Economy we envisage will greatly facilitate and strengthen women’s empowerment in South Asia and in other parts of the world. We commit ourselves to working together to show that a better world is possible. We commit ourselves to making our voices heard at all important regional and multilateral forums where these issues are being discussed.
Signatories:
1. Ms Veena Sikri, Professor, Academy of Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi (India) : Convener of SWAN and Coordinator of the SWAN on Arts and Literature
2. Dr Vandana Shiva, Navdanya (Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology), New Delhi (India), Co-coordinator of the SWAN on the Environment
3. Mr. Uchita de Zoysa, Executive Director, Centre for Environment & Development, Colombo (Sri Lanka) : Co-coordinator of the SWAN on the Environment
4. Ms Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, Member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan : Coordinator of the SWAN on Women in Peacemaking
5. Ms Shaheen Anam, Executive Director, Manusher Jonno Foundation, Dhaka (Bangladesh) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Microcredit, Livelihood and Development
6. Dr Mira Shiva, Director, Initiative for Health, Equity and Society; and Founder Member, Diverse Women for Diversity : Coordinator of the SWAN on Health, Nutrition and Food Security
7. Dr Rasheda K Choudhury, Executive Director, CAMPE (Campaign for Popular Education), Dhaka (Bangladesh) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Education
8. Ms Jaya Jaitly, Founder President of the Dastkari Haat Samiti, New Delhi (India) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Crafts and Textiles
9. Ms Nandini Sahai, Director, The International Centre, Goa (India) and Founder Director, MICCI (Media Information and Communication Centre of India) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Women in Media.
AFGHANISTAN:
10. Ms Razia Sadat, Member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan
11. Ms Elay Ershad, Member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan
12. Asila Wardak Jamal, Director, Human Rights & Women's International Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kabul
13. Ms Monireh Hashemi, Theatre Director, Simorgh Film Association of Culture and Art (SFACA), Herat,
14. Ms Frozan Rahmani, Correspondent, Pajhwok News Agency, Kabul
15. Ms Hasina Safi, Afghan Women's Education Centre (AWEC), Kabul.
BANGLADESH
16. Ms Sabrina Islam, President, Women Entrepreneur's Association, Dhaka
17. Ms Farida Zaman, Professor & Chairman, Deptt of Drawing and Painting, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Dhaka
18. Ms Tropa Majumdar, Theatre Director, Dhaka.
19. Ms Munni Saha, Head of News, ATN News, Dhaka.
20. Ms Lubna Marium, Creative Director, Sadhana, Dhaka
21. Ms Khushi Kabir, Coordinator, Nijera Kori, Dhaka
22. Dr Kaosar Afsana, Associate Director Health, BRAC, Dhaka
23. Dr Meghna Guhathakurta, Executive Director, Research Initiatives Bangladesh, Dhaka
24. Dr Niaz Zaman, Professor, Department of English, University of Dhaka
25. Ms Rubi Ghaznavi, Managing Director, Arannya Crafts, Dhaka
26. Sara Zaker, Deputy Managing Director, Asiatic Marketing Communications, Dhaka
27. Suraiya Chowdhury, Director of Design, Prokritee, Dhaka
28. Ms Rokeya Sultana, professor, Department of Print Making, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Dhaka
29. Ms Kanak Champa Chakma, Contemporary Free Lance artist
30. Ms Jharna Dhara Chowdhury, Secretary, Gandhi Ashram Trust, Jayag, Noahkhali
BHUTAN
31. Ms Kunzang Choden Tshering, Chief HR Officer, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Thimphu
32. Ms Roseleen Gurung, Microfinance Specialist, Tarayana Foundation, Thimphu.
33. Ms Namgay Wangmo, Project Officer, Bhutan Association of Women Entrepreneurs (BAOWE), Thimphu
34. Ms Meena Rai, Programme Officer, Bhutan Association of Women Entrepreneurs (BAOWE), Thimphu
INDIA
35. Ms Bharati Chaturvedi, Director, Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group, New Delhi.
36. Professor Madhu Khanna, Director, Centre for Comparative Religions and Civilisations, Jamia Millia Islamia University
37. Dr Saryu Doshi, Author and Art Historian, Mumbai
38. Ms Shalini Joshi, Co-Director, Nirantar, Centre for Gender and Education, New Delhi
39. Dr Sabiha Hussain, Associate Professor, Dr KR Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University
40. Ms Sohaila Kapur, Theatre Director and Playright, New Delhi
41. Ms Sarita Kumari, Social Activist, Ghanerao, Rajasthan
42. Ms Sadia Dehlvi, Editor, Curator, Author and Art Historian, New Delhi
43. Ms Usha Ganguli, Theatre Director, Rangakarmee, Kolkata. Email :
44. Ms Arati Jerath, The Crest Edition, Times of India, New Delhi
MALDIVES
45. Ms Yudhra Abdul Latheef, Attorney-at-Law, Deputy State Attorney, Attorney General’s Office
46. Ms. Aminath Shaneez Saeed, National President 2011, Junior Chamber International, Maldives,
47. Ms Thoiba Saeedh, Director, Encore Theatre Productions, Male
48. Ms. Aishath Rishtha, Programme Mannager, SWAD, Society for Women Against Drugs, Male
MYANMAR
49. Ms Cherie Aung Khyn, CEO & Designer, Elephant House Co. Ltd, Yangon
50. Ms. Nu Nu Yee, Vice President, Myanmar Women Entrepreneurs’ Association, Yangon
51. Mr Isaac Khen, Executive Director, Gender and Development Initiatives, Yangon,
NEPAL
52. Ms Pramila Acharya Rijal, Chairperson, SAARC Chamber Women Entrepreneurs’ Council (SCWEC).
53. Mr Bidur Thapa, Director of Field Programmes and Operations, SEARCH-Nepal, Kathmandu
54. Ms Prativa Shrestha, Coordinator, Status of Women in Nepal Report, Shtrii Shakti, kathmandu,
55. Ms Radha Kayastha, Madhesh Foundation for Peace and Development, Kathmandu
56. Ms Abha Jha, Madhesh Foundation for Peace and Development, Kathmandu
PAKISTAN
57. Professor Salima Hashmi, Dean, School of Visual Arts and Design, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore
58. Ms Madeeha Gauhar, Artistic Director, Ajoka Theatre, Lahore.
59. Ms Madiha Kazi, Textile Designer, Thardeep Rural Development Programme, Karachi
60. Dr. Durre Sameena Ahmed, Chairperson and Senior Research Fellow, Center for the Study of Gender and Culture, Lahore
61. Ms Marianna Baabar, Diplomatic Editor, The News, 27 A, Harkey Street, Rawalpindi
62. Ms Zoia Tariq, CEO, ZEST Media/Events/Publications, Lahore
63. Ms Ambreen Waheed, Executive Director, Responsible Business Initiative, Lahore
64. Dr Faiz H Shah, Head, Development Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
65. Ms Tabinda Alkans Jaffery, CEO, Asasah Microfinance, Lahore
66. Ms Zehra Arshad, National Coordinator, Pakistan Coalition for Education, Islamabad.
SRI LANKA
67. Hon'ble Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane, Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Colombo 2.
68. Ms Vidyani Hettigoda, Chairperson, Women’s Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Colombo.
69. Ms Nishani Jessica Marina Dissanayake, Foreign News Editor, Lakbima (Sinhala daily), and Editor, Samudra (Sinhala magazine)
70. Ms Mano Alles, Managing Director, Abans Financial Services, Colombo
71. Ms Rohini Nanayyakara, Chairperson and Board Member, Lanka Orix Leasing Company Ltd, and Lanka Orix Microcredit Limited, Colombo
72. Ms. Chandramali Liyanage, National Crafts Council of Sri Lanka, Colombo.
We, the women of South Asia, gathered in Dhaka, Bangladesh on July 2 and 3, 2011, for the Third Annual Conference of SWAN (South Asia Women’s Network), which was dedicated to the theme of “Women of South Asia and the Green Economy”. We come from nine South Asian countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
The SWAN Annual Conference brings together eight individual SWAN networks, respectively on Arts and Literature; Women in Peacemaking; Health, Nutrition, and Food Security; Education; Crafts and Textiles; Microcredit, Livelihood, and Development; Environment; and Women in Media. Women working in each of these areas make vital contributions to the Green Economy. There can be no Green Economy without Arts and Literature that express our local traditions, and women play a central role in preserving and disseminating these traditions. There can be no Green Economy without Peace. Armed conflict, terrorism and all violent acts are destructive of the Green Economy. The peace we ask for cannot ever be at the expense of women’s rights. A Green Economy is the only enduring basis for good health, and for ensuring adequate nutrition and food security. Education for an authentic Green Economy is our commitment. Our rich tradition of crafts and textiles does not just contribute to our rich culture; it is the very basis of green livelihoods. Facilitating local sustainable livelihoods is the real role of microcredit and financial systems. We will use the media to show to our region and the world that the women of South Asia bring solutions to the ecological and poverty crises. We will define the Green Economy on our terms, through our cultures and our lives.
South Asia is the region that bears a heavy burden of the global ecological crisis, including climate change and species extinction. The melting of the Himalayan glaciers, the intensification of droughts, floods, and cyclones and the rising sea level aggravate the already-serious ecological stresses in our region. Despite the differences and diversity within our region, we all share and depend on one geographical space. During periods of deep catastrophe and uncertainty, we need to recognize a multiplicity of perspectives that will offer diverse and plural solutions.
South Asia is one of the richest regions in terms of bio-cultural diversity, but this diversity is under threat of monocultures pushed through the Green Revolution and genetic engineering. These non-sustainable and failed technologies are being forced on our people, driving them deeper into debt and poverty. Our rich biodiversity and knowledge heritage is being patented and pirated, depriving our people of the benefits of their own heritage and resources. When environmental crises force us to migrate to cities, we also experience loss of livelihoods due to lack of access to urban space, materials and new forms of urban management. Our bodies are imprinted with toxics from unsustainable consumption of others. The right to sustainable development should be inalienable. This is vital for women’s empowerment and for preserving our planet for future generations
Women of South Asia bear the highest burden of climate change, biodiversity erosion and unsustainable forms of urbanization. But we also bring solutions to these global crises with our knowledge, skills, wisdom, and experience. We seek to work in harmony with nature, rather than resorting to geo-engineering that could further aggravate the ecosystem balance. That is why we bring something unique to the global discussion on sustainable development and the Green Economy in the lead-up to Rio+20 and visions beyond.
Statement and Commitment
A Green Economy should be an economic system that ensures social justice and equity, protects the ecological balance and creates economic sufficiency. Such a Green Economy should replace the current economic order, which is based on inequity, environmental destruction and greed, which has resulted in keeping nearly half the world’s population in poverty, and has brought the planet to the point of a severe environmental catastrophe through climate change. The core idea of a Green Economy must be poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability through maintaining biodiversity, and the well-being of all the people.
As SWANs, we embrace such a Green Economy. We commit ourselves to raising our collective voices for it. We will transcend the fragmenting boundaries that attempt to divide us, and will unify our energies to create a better world for all.
Our local economies have always been in harmony with nature. We have used resources prudently, and shared them equitably. SWAN believes that agriculturists and craftspeople around the world have always worked in tandem with the seasons and in harmony with nature. A craftswoman carries with her the wisdom of generations that did not pillage the planet for profit. She has a deep commitment towards nurturing the natural world for sustaining livelihoods. The only raw materials needed to keep millions employed is a thriving green environment with rich forests, wild grasses, clean waters, and unravaged hillsides. The dignity and creativity of hand-work greatly contributes towards sound rural economies. This work of women across the South Asian region must be acknowledged by all those who wish to build an inclusive and truly integrated, ecologically balanced world.
Today, those who have created the ecological crisis talk of the Green Economy. For them, the Green Economy means appropriating the remaining resources of the planet for profit — from seed and biodiversity to land and water as well as our skills, such as the environmental services we provide.
For us, the privatization and commodification of nature, her species, her ecosystems, and her ecosystem services cannot be part of a Green Economy, for such an approach cannot take into account our traditions. The resources of the Earth are for the welfare of all, not the profits of a few.
Sharing our vital resources equitably and using them sustainably for livelihoods and basic needs is at the heart of our concept of a Green Economy. Our rich knowledge of biodiversity, our ecologically sustainable agriculture, and our crafts techniques are free of fossil fuels and toxics. They generate creative and dignified livelihoods and they provide the basis for poverty alleviation. We stand committed to strengthening these life-giving traditions.
It is of vital importance to spread awareness about these issues through the media and through the educational process, which reaches out to youth and children. Awareness about the Green Economy and the significance of its diverse impacts is essential in order to enable all segments of society to make informed choices. Recognizing the changing face of the media, SWAN encourages the use of new media, including social networking tools, to reach out and support the women of South Asia in their struggle to meet the challenges of ensuring the Green Economy for sustainable development.
Our Green Economies are diverse and decentralized and therefore are a path of empowerment for all. Women are the storehouse of knowledge and provide the cultural base to create and build economies that increase wellbeing and happiness, joy and beauty, sustainability and equity. It is from our region of South Asia that the concept of Gross National Happiness has spread worldwide. We will deepen this concept and make it the basis of the Green Economy.
We stand committed to peace in our region and to strengthening these life-giving traditions. We commit ourselves to defending the ecological integrity of our region — our mountains and rivers, our land and oceans, our natural forests, biodiversity and seeds. We commit ourselves to creating prosperity and peace through the Green Economy that protects and enriches our natural and cultural heritage. We commit ourselves to resisting those irresponsible policies and armed conflicts that directly harm women and children. We commit ourselves to equity and to defending vital resources, like forests, seed and biodiversity, rivers and water, as a commons. We recognize that the Green Economy we envisage will greatly facilitate and strengthen women’s empowerment in South Asia and in other parts of the world. We commit ourselves to working together to show that a better world is possible. We commit ourselves to making our voices heard at all important regional and multilateral forums where these issues are being discussed.
Signatories:
1. Ms Veena Sikri, Professor, Academy of Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi (India) : Convener of SWAN and Coordinator of the SWAN on Arts and Literature
2. Dr Vandana Shiva, Navdanya (Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology), New Delhi (India), Co-coordinator of the SWAN on the Environment
3. Mr. Uchita de Zoysa, Executive Director, Centre for Environment & Development, Colombo (Sri Lanka) : Co-coordinator of the SWAN on the Environment
4. Ms Shinkai Zahine Karokhail, Member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan : Coordinator of the SWAN on Women in Peacemaking
5. Ms Shaheen Anam, Executive Director, Manusher Jonno Foundation, Dhaka (Bangladesh) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Microcredit, Livelihood and Development
6. Dr Mira Shiva, Director, Initiative for Health, Equity and Society; and Founder Member, Diverse Women for Diversity : Coordinator of the SWAN on Health, Nutrition and Food Security
7. Dr Rasheda K Choudhury, Executive Director, CAMPE (Campaign for Popular Education), Dhaka (Bangladesh) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Education
8. Ms Jaya Jaitly, Founder President of the Dastkari Haat Samiti, New Delhi (India) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Crafts and Textiles
9. Ms Nandini Sahai, Director, The International Centre, Goa (India) and Founder Director, MICCI (Media Information and Communication Centre of India) : Coordinator of the SWAN on Women in Media.
AFGHANISTAN:
10. Ms Razia Sadat, Member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan
11. Ms Elay Ershad, Member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan
12. Asila Wardak Jamal, Director, Human Rights & Women's International Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kabul
13. Ms Monireh Hashemi, Theatre Director, Simorgh Film Association of Culture and Art (SFACA), Herat,
14. Ms Frozan Rahmani, Correspondent, Pajhwok News Agency, Kabul
15. Ms Hasina Safi, Afghan Women's Education Centre (AWEC), Kabul.
BANGLADESH
16. Ms Sabrina Islam, President, Women Entrepreneur's Association, Dhaka
17. Ms Farida Zaman, Professor & Chairman, Deptt of Drawing and Painting, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Dhaka
18. Ms Tropa Majumdar, Theatre Director, Dhaka.
19. Ms Munni Saha, Head of News, ATN News, Dhaka.
20. Ms Lubna Marium, Creative Director, Sadhana, Dhaka
21. Ms Khushi Kabir, Coordinator, Nijera Kori, Dhaka
22. Dr Kaosar Afsana, Associate Director Health, BRAC, Dhaka
23. Dr Meghna Guhathakurta, Executive Director, Research Initiatives Bangladesh, Dhaka
24. Dr Niaz Zaman, Professor, Department of English, University of Dhaka
25. Ms Rubi Ghaznavi, Managing Director, Arannya Crafts, Dhaka
26. Sara Zaker, Deputy Managing Director, Asiatic Marketing Communications, Dhaka
27. Suraiya Chowdhury, Director of Design, Prokritee, Dhaka
28. Ms Rokeya Sultana, professor, Department of Print Making, Faculty of Fine Arts, University of Dhaka
29. Ms Kanak Champa Chakma, Contemporary Free Lance artist
30. Ms Jharna Dhara Chowdhury, Secretary, Gandhi Ashram Trust, Jayag, Noahkhali
BHUTAN
31. Ms Kunzang Choden Tshering, Chief HR Officer, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Thimphu
32. Ms Roseleen Gurung, Microfinance Specialist, Tarayana Foundation, Thimphu.
33. Ms Namgay Wangmo, Project Officer, Bhutan Association of Women Entrepreneurs (BAOWE), Thimphu
34. Ms Meena Rai, Programme Officer, Bhutan Association of Women Entrepreneurs (BAOWE), Thimphu
INDIA
35. Ms Bharati Chaturvedi, Director, Chintan Environmental Research and Action Group, New Delhi.
36. Professor Madhu Khanna, Director, Centre for Comparative Religions and Civilisations, Jamia Millia Islamia University
37. Dr Saryu Doshi, Author and Art Historian, Mumbai
38. Ms Shalini Joshi, Co-Director, Nirantar, Centre for Gender and Education, New Delhi
39. Dr Sabiha Hussain, Associate Professor, Dr KR Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minority Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University
40. Ms Sohaila Kapur, Theatre Director and Playright, New Delhi
41. Ms Sarita Kumari, Social Activist, Ghanerao, Rajasthan
42. Ms Sadia Dehlvi, Editor, Curator, Author and Art Historian, New Delhi
43. Ms Usha Ganguli, Theatre Director, Rangakarmee, Kolkata. Email :
44. Ms Arati Jerath, The Crest Edition, Times of India, New Delhi
MALDIVES
45. Ms Yudhra Abdul Latheef, Attorney-at-Law, Deputy State Attorney, Attorney General’s Office
46. Ms. Aminath Shaneez Saeed, National President 2011, Junior Chamber International, Maldives,
47. Ms Thoiba Saeedh, Director, Encore Theatre Productions, Male
48. Ms. Aishath Rishtha, Programme Mannager, SWAD, Society for Women Against Drugs, Male
MYANMAR
49. Ms Cherie Aung Khyn, CEO & Designer, Elephant House Co. Ltd, Yangon
50. Ms. Nu Nu Yee, Vice President, Myanmar Women Entrepreneurs’ Association, Yangon
51. Mr Isaac Khen, Executive Director, Gender and Development Initiatives, Yangon,
NEPAL
52. Ms Pramila Acharya Rijal, Chairperson, SAARC Chamber Women Entrepreneurs’ Council (SCWEC).
53. Mr Bidur Thapa, Director of Field Programmes and Operations, SEARCH-Nepal, Kathmandu
54. Ms Prativa Shrestha, Coordinator, Status of Women in Nepal Report, Shtrii Shakti, kathmandu,
55. Ms Radha Kayastha, Madhesh Foundation for Peace and Development, Kathmandu
56. Ms Abha Jha, Madhesh Foundation for Peace and Development, Kathmandu
PAKISTAN
57. Professor Salima Hashmi, Dean, School of Visual Arts and Design, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore
58. Ms Madeeha Gauhar, Artistic Director, Ajoka Theatre, Lahore.
59. Ms Madiha Kazi, Textile Designer, Thardeep Rural Development Programme, Karachi
60. Dr. Durre Sameena Ahmed, Chairperson and Senior Research Fellow, Center for the Study of Gender and Culture, Lahore
61. Ms Marianna Baabar, Diplomatic Editor, The News, 27 A, Harkey Street, Rawalpindi
62. Ms Zoia Tariq, CEO, ZEST Media/Events/Publications, Lahore
63. Ms Ambreen Waheed, Executive Director, Responsible Business Initiative, Lahore
64. Dr Faiz H Shah, Head, Development Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok.
65. Ms Tabinda Alkans Jaffery, CEO, Asasah Microfinance, Lahore
66. Ms Zehra Arshad, National Coordinator, Pakistan Coalition for Education, Islamabad.
SRI LANKA
67. Hon'ble Justice Shiranee Tilakawardane, Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, Colombo 2.
68. Ms Vidyani Hettigoda, Chairperson, Women’s Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Colombo.
69. Ms Nishani Jessica Marina Dissanayake, Foreign News Editor, Lakbima (Sinhala daily), and Editor, Samudra (Sinhala magazine)
70. Ms Mano Alles, Managing Director, Abans Financial Services, Colombo
71. Ms Rohini Nanayyakara, Chairperson and Board Member, Lanka Orix Leasing Company Ltd, and Lanka Orix Microcredit Limited, Colombo
72. Ms. Chandramali Liyanage, National Crafts Council of Sri Lanka, Colombo.
A Genuine Green Economy must bring appropriate technology to the world’s Poor
(by Ashvani Vasishth - http://earthsummit2012.org/blog/item/255-blog3)
UNCSD 2012 is focused on “the transition to a green economy.” At its heart, talk of the “Green Economy” is talk about green technology. But what counts as a “green” technology? How would we know a green technology from a brown one, or a grey one?
Back in the 1970s, we knew green technologies. We called them Appropriate Technology; Biogas plants, solar cookers, treadle pumps, low-cost technologies that focused on bringing the benefits of progress to the masses, as they are quaintly called. By some accounts, Mahatma Gandhi first focused attention on simple technological innovations that could help develop cottage industries across the colonized Indian landscape. The ideas of swadesh, or autonomy, of self-sufficiency, lay, in many ways, at the heart of his vision of a better life for all.
A better life for all. Surely that is the nub of it. If this new vaunted “green economy” does not reach the poor, is it truly a green economy? Uchita de Zoysa had organized a panel titled “Whose Green Economy,” at the previous CSD-18. I seek to continue that thread here, by asking, whose green technologies?
In 1973, Ernst Schumacher published Small Is Beautiful, inspired at least in part by Gandhi’s ideals. He coined the term Intermediate Technology. And a movement was born.
Or was it?
As it turns out, and at that time, both the developing and the developed worlds were less than enthusiastic about the idea of Appropriate Technology. Either because small-scale, locally grounded projects are much more tedious to fund than large-scale, centrally-run projects, or because, low-tech was seen as being less “modern” than high-tech. But, in any case, a magnificent opportunity to redirect development toward true sustainability was lost.
After all, and understandably, our ideas of modernity are shaped to a significant extent by notions we carry in our minds about state-of-the-art solutions. To be modern is to deploy the most sophisticated technologies we have thought to develop. In many cases, this deployment serves us well. In health care, for instance, or in science research. But, in some cases, what is needed for "proper action" is something else, something less, something more--hence the notion of "appropriate technology."
The US Office of Technology Assessment defines Appropriate Technology as being “small-scale, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, labor-intensive, and controlled by the local community.” In addition, it is taken that such technologies are simple enough to be maintained by the people using them.
For instance, it may be inappropriate to deploy some modern construction technologies in a rural context, in circumstances where local builders may not be familiar with, say, pre-stressed concrete construction or extrusion. Similarly, methane digesters may be a more appropriate way to deal with sewage than modern sewage treatment plants, when socio-cultural context is taken into account. Differently, composting may be a more appropriate way of dealing with organic waste than disposal in landfills. Fertilizers and pesticides and genetic engineering may be the most modern ways to deal with agricultural yields, but, in many ways, may be more harmful to the ecosystem level environment than less conventional techniques such as no-till farming, or composting or integrated pest management.
According to Schumacher, and in any particular context, an appropriate technology is “intermediate” between established local technologies and state-of-the-art modern technologies. But, in every case, an appropriate technology is small-scale, low-cost, and easily maintained by local communities.
Water supply and purification, energy production, sewage treatment, waste management, and agriculture are some of the sectors that currently cry out for innovation, when it comes to poverty alleviation. If we are to focus on the “green economy,” let us bend our attention as well to these fields.
The important point here is to broaden the discussion about the new “green economy” in a way that takes the discourse away from high-cost green technologies and toward low cost ones. And to bring the notion of poverty alleviation back into the conversation. A green economy that does not reach the poor is worth little to the sustainability movement.
Back in the 1970s, we knew green technologies. We called them Appropriate Technology; Biogas plants, solar cookers, treadle pumps, low-cost technologies that focused on bringing the benefits of progress to the masses, as they are quaintly called. By some accounts, Mahatma Gandhi first focused attention on simple technological innovations that could help develop cottage industries across the colonized Indian landscape. The ideas of swadesh, or autonomy, of self-sufficiency, lay, in many ways, at the heart of his vision of a better life for all.
A better life for all. Surely that is the nub of it. If this new vaunted “green economy” does not reach the poor, is it truly a green economy? Uchita de Zoysa had organized a panel titled “Whose Green Economy,” at the previous CSD-18. I seek to continue that thread here, by asking, whose green technologies?
In 1973, Ernst Schumacher published Small Is Beautiful, inspired at least in part by Gandhi’s ideals. He coined the term Intermediate Technology. And a movement was born.
Or was it?
As it turns out, and at that time, both the developing and the developed worlds were less than enthusiastic about the idea of Appropriate Technology. Either because small-scale, locally grounded projects are much more tedious to fund than large-scale, centrally-run projects, or because, low-tech was seen as being less “modern” than high-tech. But, in any case, a magnificent opportunity to redirect development toward true sustainability was lost.
After all, and understandably, our ideas of modernity are shaped to a significant extent by notions we carry in our minds about state-of-the-art solutions. To be modern is to deploy the most sophisticated technologies we have thought to develop. In many cases, this deployment serves us well. In health care, for instance, or in science research. But, in some cases, what is needed for "proper action" is something else, something less, something more--hence the notion of "appropriate technology."
The US Office of Technology Assessment defines Appropriate Technology as being “small-scale, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, labor-intensive, and controlled by the local community.” In addition, it is taken that such technologies are simple enough to be maintained by the people using them.
For instance, it may be inappropriate to deploy some modern construction technologies in a rural context, in circumstances where local builders may not be familiar with, say, pre-stressed concrete construction or extrusion. Similarly, methane digesters may be a more appropriate way to deal with sewage than modern sewage treatment plants, when socio-cultural context is taken into account. Differently, composting may be a more appropriate way of dealing with organic waste than disposal in landfills. Fertilizers and pesticides and genetic engineering may be the most modern ways to deal with agricultural yields, but, in many ways, may be more harmful to the ecosystem level environment than less conventional techniques such as no-till farming, or composting or integrated pest management.
According to Schumacher, and in any particular context, an appropriate technology is “intermediate” between established local technologies and state-of-the-art modern technologies. But, in every case, an appropriate technology is small-scale, low-cost, and easily maintained by local communities.
Water supply and purification, energy production, sewage treatment, waste management, and agriculture are some of the sectors that currently cry out for innovation, when it comes to poverty alleviation. If we are to focus on the “green economy,” let us bend our attention as well to these fields.
The important point here is to broaden the discussion about the new “green economy” in a way that takes the discourse away from high-cost green technologies and toward low cost ones. And to bring the notion of poverty alleviation back into the conversation. A green economy that does not reach the poor is worth little to the sustainability movement.
SCP Governance:
A Guide to Rio+20
By Timothy Hefflinger
The following is a report on a side event that took place at UNCSD19 on May 10, 2011. The title of the event was "Sustainable Consumption and Production Governance: a Guide to Rio+20" and it was organized by the Climate Sustainability PLATFORM in conjunction with Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future. Climate Sustainability demands sustainable patterns of consumption and production, and it will require a very specific type of governance to engage and realize these patterns.
Mr. Felix Dodds, of The Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future, commenced the event by noting that its purpose was to react constructively to the report by Mr. Uchita de Zoysa, titled “SCP Governance: Sustainable Consumption and Production Governance, A Guide Towards Rio+20”. Mr. Dodds opened the forum as a place to “add intellectual content to the concept of SCP Governance”.
Mr. Uchita de Zoysa began his report with the words “SCP Governance is currently a loosely-defined, cautiously-discussed, sparingly-adopted, and strategically-ignored concept.” He noted that no concrete measures whatsoever have been taken towards strong SCP Governance through the UN lead intergovernmental system, and expects it to take on a much more concrete and significant role at Rio+20.
This raises the question as to why more attention has not been devoted to SCPG. Mr. De Zoysa explained that all attention over the past decade has been devoted to the 10YFP, which has proven to be a limited and narrow process, with only a few governments, organizations, and individuals involved. Thus, it is time for the UNCSD2012 (Rio+20) to fully address SCP Governance. Rio+20 should establish the principles of the Green Economy based on the fundamental principles that ensure SCP, and it should make SCP Governance the cornerstone of the Institutional Framework for SD.
Mr. De Zoysa envisioned some of the possible positive outcomes of Rio+20. The first would be something like a “Global Sustainable Development Agreement”, which would be an extension of the Rio Declaration of 1992. Another outcome could be a written “Blueprint for a Transition towards Sustainable Living on Earth”; in other words, a progression of Agenda 21. Within this blueprint would be an ideal place to embed an “Action Plan for Sustainable Consumption and Production.” “We have been pretending we have sustainable development,” said Mr. De Zoysa, “and we have spent all our time justifying it rather than doing it.” Realizing one (or all) of these possible outcomes would be a good step towards finally doing sustainable development.
Mr. De Zoysa traced the history of SCP from its inception in Agenda 21 to the present, and noted that SCP still does not have a commonly accepted definition. The definitions put forth by both the Sustainable Consumption Conference in Oslo in 1994 and those by The Integrative Strategies Forum in the USA have proven useful, but limited. Mr. De Zoysa’s definition of SCP is “a systematic process of lifestyle and livelihood behaviors that ensure the wellbeing of all people in an equitable manner while conserving the ecology for current and future generations”, and is thus more holistic than either of the two preceding definitions. SCP Governance, then, is “the exercise of political, economic, and administrative authority to manage [SCP] by way of suitable mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which individuals and groups articulate their aspirations, exercise their natural and legal rights and obligations, and mediate their differences.”
Mr. De Zoysa believes that the Marrakech Process has failed. The Secretariat has not been able to motivate many governments to initiate strong commitments towards SCP or to establish National or Regional SCP Councils. The Secretariat has further been unable to engage stakeholders. This has lead to a lack of global interest and the low levels of participation currently demonstrated.
Thus, we are faced with the option to reform. Any process should be based on a clearly-established operational framework, and the criteria for the evaluation of this framework should be good governance. Mr. De Zoysa promotes a holistic vision of SCP Governance to incorporate into this framework. To govern holistically within the bounds of SCP, the international governing mechanism will have to enhance “smart consumption” to “equitable consumption”, evolve from “efficiency” to “sufficiency”, and extend the “green-growth-based Green Economy approach” to “wellbeing-based Sustainable Development.”
Next, the framework for SCP Governance should include a measure for decentralizing SCP. To decentralize SCP, the focus must be shifted from coordinating voluntary commitments to the 10YFP towards building commitments to a strong international framework, which will mandate nations to act responsibly towards ecological and social capital. These reforms will be meaningless, however, unless they’re accompanied by the elements of an Institutional Mechanism for SCP Governance. Mr. De Zoysa believes a Global Forum on SCP should be established. National Committees on SCP (operating within their National Councils for Sustainable Development) will be established and given a mandate to advise both national agencies working on SCP and representatives working in the Intergovernmental SCP Mechanism. This Intergovernmental SCP Mechanism will consist of an International SCP Committee operated by the annual CSD member states within the Bureau mechanism and an International Secretariat under the leadership of the CSD and managed by UNDESA. A coordination office for the 10YFP on SCP under the management of UNEP and overseen by UNDESA will also be established. All of this in conjunction creates an integrated institutional mechanism for SCP Governance, the theory of which a panel of respondents was asked to critique.
Mr. Jeffrey Barber of the International Coalition for Sustainable Production and Consumption (ICSPAC) began his response by noting that, indeed, the phenomenon popularly called SCP goes by different names in different contexts, which tends to confuse the concept. Whether it’s called SCP or SPAC (Sustainable Production And Consumption), the focus ought to be on the sustainability aspects of both production and consumption. The trend lately has been towards focusing on consumption alone, but Mr. Barber contends that only by lending credence to both sides of the coin can we hope to institutionalize a worthy concept.
Mr. Barber lent his support to Mr. De Zoysa’s definition of SCP Governance for precisely this reason: it connects the productive aspect of humanity to our livelihoods and lifestyles. “People cannot make good choices,” he said, “without having good livelihoods and lifestyles.” In considering Rio+20, Mr. Barber challenged the attending respondents to not project unrealistic expectations onto their plans for the event. He believes it should be used primarily as a stage upon which we can reflect on how we can achieve good things in the future. In engaging Mr. De Zoysa’s specific prescriptions, Mr. Barber says that the creation of the Intergovernmental SCP Mechanism (the global forum) is critical but he remains skeptical about the necessity of the National Committees. He envisions the continued use of the CSD, simply because its operational focuses will continue to make it useful. He ends with an appeal to the strength of the social capital of civil society: SCP as a social movement could prove to be the best means of realizing strong structures of SCP Governance.
Mr. Michael Strauss of Earth Media chose to respond to Mr. De Zoysa’s report by analyzing what it must include for media outlets to be able to market it effectively. He began by asking why governments aren’t paying attention to SCP, much less SCP Governance. His answer is that there is no visible movement for SCP Governance, and governments have no reason to buy into a concept that has no apparent stakeholder demand. Governments, he believes, are concerned with what they perceive to be more pressing things, and SCP will have to get their attention.
To that end, SD must bridge the environmental conservation movement and economic development efforts. The global financial crisis has crimped many elements critical to SD, and government response since the financial meltdown has been purely economic: on those terms, the problem is posited by governments to be a lack of consumption. His call for Rio+20 is that proponents of SCP Governance turn it into an issue highlighting peoples’ financial insecurity. A major part of the problem, as he sees it, is that SCP issues are not being presented in a manner that “meets people where they are”. Most of the population likes material goods, he notes, so one thing media can do to encourage SCP Governance is to make the green economy the “cool” thing to do.
Mr. Lewis Akenji of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) believes that the major stumbling block towards discussions of SCP Governance is that people view consumption habits as an issue of sovereignty. He believes that the framework of the Green Economy is not sufficient to lead us to action, but that Mr. De Zoysa’s strategy for the Intergovernmental SCP Mechanism has some promise. He believes, however, that it lacks an element of accountability, without which SCP Governance will continue to be viewed as a threat to national sovereignty by many people. He suggests that instead of focusing, as Mr. De Zoysa does, on the international mechanism, we aim instead to encourage regional approaches to SCP Governance, which may eventually merge into an international approach similar to Mr. De Zoysa’s.
Ms. Ivana Savic of the CSD Youth Group believes that Mr. De Zoysa’s plan must indeed aim for transparency and decentralization. Both of these elements will be necessary to avoid the feeling of sacrifice so common to the SCP discourse. In addition to the holism found in Mr. De Zoysa’s plan, interdisciplinarity needs to be accounted for. Ms. Savic recommends the inclusion of civil and human rights in any SCP Governance plan, for example. Being constituted in such an interdisciplinary way will encourage the transparency and decentralization needed to shift authority to the appropriate governing bodies. What will be important in this decentralization will be the education of civil servants towards the ends of SCP. Ms. Savic envisions the global forum being a place of building guidelines for this education. Her last recommendation is the creation of a separate international monitoring system, which perhaps might also build a plan to integrate SCP into other systems.
Mr. Lars Mortensen of the European Environment Agency believes that some of what he called “negativity” in Mr. De Zoysa’s report is unfounded. He believes that there has in fact been progress in SCP. Admittedly, such progress has not been at the global level that concerns Mr. De Zoysa, but there have been positive steps forward at both the national and regional levels. Business, through the World Economic Forum, has also made strides towards SCP. He urges Mr. De Zoysa and his fellow respondents to remember that SCP Governances is not solely a global governance issue. National governance has proven to be effective at implementing strategies towards SCP. The European Union, for example, has flagship programs, legislation, and national plans towards SCP.
Mr. Mortensen admits that these things are, of course, not sufficient in and of themselves. He reiterates that The Marrakech Process has not been successful because it has not been funded, and has received little support from the United Nations Organization. In the end, he believes that the National Committees propounded in Mr. De Zoysa’s plan will be more successful than any bodies at the international level. He sees Rio+20 as a golden opportunity for “win-win-win” solutions.
Mrs. Ambreen Waheed of the Responsible Business Initiative had a brief response, in which she highlighted the issue of equitable consumption. She believes that SCP Governance must focus on bringing people together as a single humanity rather than as multiple independent stakeholders, as has been the case in recent SCP dialogues. Such division serves only to disguise the fact that consumption habits are an issue of social justice, in both the overconsumptive and underconsumptive segments of humanity. Her critique of Mr. De Zoysa’s proposals is that they do not allow for a multiplicity of leaders in SCP Governance. She would prefer to see many different groups, even in civil society, taking the lead on SCP Governance.
Ms. Anabella Rosemberg of the International Trade Union Confederation was the next to respond to “A Guide to Rio+20”. She believes that the important issues are the principles upon which any green economy or good governance scheme is built. Adding a notion of “livelihood” to the definition of SCP Governance would strengthen it, because as it stands, it considers “lifestyles” too much. This potentially contributes to the skewed dialogues, which focus more on consumption than production. “If we ignore production,” she says, echoing Mr. Barber’s earlier suggestion, “we won’t achieve sustainability.” She also urges the panel to consider governance to be more than organizations or structures. Modeling SCP Governance on the structure of corporate governance, in which stakeholders continue to be less and less involved, would lead it to speculation and failure, she believes. She ends on an appeal to democracy, because without the democratic institution of compliance mechanisms, international SCP Governance will fail to set any standards.
Mr. Jan Gustav Strandenaes of the Northern Alliance for Sustainability (ANPED) was the last of the panelists to respond. He chose to focus more on the philosophical justifications for SCP Governance than the specific mechanisms for it. We cannot have sustainability without governance, he posits, and recognizes that the definition of good governance is still debated. Both the UN and the World Bank have printed definitions, but Mr. Strandenaes suggests that the Intergovernmental SCP Governing bodies might seek alternative language to which they can agree. As a standard-setting institution, he argues, the UN, and by extension the Intergovernmental SCP Governance mechanisms, must not fear to set standards.
While market fundamentalists have opposed all standards for production and consumption, it is recognized outside of market-driven circles that such standards are important for achieving the ends of SCP. “Governance is now beyond government,” he says, “but we need a minimum of governance.” Mr. De Zoysa’s scheme, he says, should recognize the right to make the right choices as an important guiding principle. Like many of the other panelists, Mr. Strandenaes ends by urging the forum to consider the well-established values of democracy: making informed choices and having access to the information that helps stakeholders understand the consequences of their choices. Those involved in SCP Governance must never allow themselves to become reliant on expert opinion, of the choices made will be those of an idea-dictatorship rather than a democracy.
SCP Governance may well prove to be a defining concept in the preparatory process leading up to Rio+20. As a potential bridge between the two stated themes of the Conference on Sustainable Development (“Green Economy in the Context of Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development” and “Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development”), the concept of SCP Governance stands in the unique position of being a dot-connector. Without such linking concepts and their attendant intellectual richness, Rio+20 may not produce any worthwhile structural reforms. Strong sustainability demands good governance, and good governance demands holistic planning for sustainable levels (and modes) of consumption and production. It is hoped that in the build-up to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, SCP Governance will gain a foothold in policy decisions and will eventually contribute to the necessary institutional reforms needed for good governance.
To read the full text of Mr. Uchita de Zoysa's report, see the attached file.
scp_governance_public_draft_-_uchita_de_zoysa.pdf | |
File Size: | 344 kb |
File Type: |
Launch of the
Millennium Consumption Goals Initiative
By Timothy Hefflinger
The Millennium Consumption Goals Initiative (MCGI) was officially launched at UNCSD19 on May 6, 2011 by the Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND) and the Centre for Environment and Development (CED). Mr. Uchita de Zoysa of CED moderated the launch event by tracing the course of the MCG concept from its introduction to the present. He introduced Professor Mohan Munasinghe, this event’s keynote speaker and Founding Chairman of MIND, as the initiator of the concept beginning in January 2011. With this event, Mr. de Zoysa believes the forum has now been established for “an open, loud talk” about what the goals should be and how they can be most-effectively implemented in the world. “From today,” he said, “the Millennium Consumption Goals Initiative is global property!”
Professor Munasinghe began his keynote address by iterating the real need for more sustainable consumption by the world’s rich. He believes that the risk of a global breakdown due to the synergistic effect of multiple heavy shocks is high. The combination of the financial crisis, poverty and inequity, resource shortages, environmental harm, armed conflict, mass migrations, pandemics, and especially climate change has created a world system in disarray, and many of the observable problems can be related to the unsustainable aspects of consumption of the richest 20% of the world population. He believes an integrative strategy should be built for dealing with these issues, because a piecemeal approach cannot address the complex linkages between them. Prof. Munasinghe envisions a long-term strategy for Sustainable Development that utilizes the creativity and social capital of civil society, as well as the support of progressive businesses, to develop a global partnership capable of dealing with climate change and encouraging the right-to-develop. Agreed- and voluntary MCG commitments must compliment the Global MCG, and must pave the way for SCP and ultimately Sustainable Development.
Mr. Felix Dodds of the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future took the stage by outlining the principles of bioregionalism as he sees them. They include equity and fairness; the use of the precautionary approach in policy-making; access to information, active participation, and governmental accountability for stakeholders; Sustainable Consumption and Production; poverty alleviation; and a just transition to a sustainable world system. Mr. Dodds believes that this transition will require a set of values that redefine our conceptions of wellbeing, and he believes the Millennium Consumption Goals perhaps stand to articulate those values.
Dr. Victoria W. Thoresen of the Partnership for Education and Research about Responsible Living (PERL) then proceeded to give her analysis of and hopes for the MCG. Her work focuses on the role of individual talents and energies in the commitment to furthering the just distribution of wealth around the planet. Poverty has long been defined almost entirely in material terms, but Dr. Thoresen believes that material development alone is insufficient in achieving wellbeing. Coupled with material development must be the ethical, social, and cultural resources to develop the moral, intellectual, and social capacities of individuals, who in turn develop their communities and institutions. She conceives of the Millennium Consumption Goals as being a voluntary exercise towards realizing these human capabilities in service of humanity.
Dr. Philip J. Vergragt of the Tellus Institute believes that the MCG have great potential to radically alter the consumption habits of the wealthiest 20%, but thinks that their framing is extremely critical to their successful implementation. Rather than portraying the MCG as an exercise in “less consumption”, he believes they should appeal to individual and collective values in achieving “more well-being”. He noted the difficulties in formulating concrete goals and measuring progress. The issues of rewarding success, managing political backlash, and addressing the needs of people just above the poverty level will prove to be important in the future of the MCG. Many of these issues can be managed through the diligent execution of research, which itself must be approached systematically. What will be critically important, Dr. Vergragt believes, will be exemplifying that changing the lifestyles of the affluent will truly benefit the poor.
Mr. Erik Assadourian of The Center for a New American Dream chose to focus on certain themes that he believes will eventually form some core aspects of the Millennium Consumption Goals. He traced some of the complex interconnections between energy and transport, food and agriculture, obesity and overweightness, and equity. Mr. Assadourian believes that by mobilizing the energy of civil society and drawing attention of the UN to the impacts of the consumption levels of the wealthy on environmental integrity, life expectancy, and planetary health, the MCG can lend legitimacy to initiatives all over the world that work towards encouraging human flourishing within the regenerative capacities of our planet.
Dr. Maurie Cohen of the Sustainable Consumption Research and Action Initiative (SCORAI) sought to frame the consumption problem by differentiating between the quality-challenge and the quantity-challenge. As he sees it, a notion of “bootstrapping adaptive management” will be necessary to reducing the quantity of consumption, and that focusing on such things as eco-labeling and pricing will not give the MCG Initiative the traction it needs to face the challenges. Dr. Cohen foresees the tendency of the mainstream development mechanism to search for technical solutions as being a hurdle the MCG will necessarily need to overcome. Simply put, the scale of the consumption problem makes such a technical solution impossible. The task of the MCG, as he sees it, is to construct a vision of post-consumer future that is captivating and enlivening.
Mr. Andrew Crone of Trailhead Perspectives chose to investigate consumptive behavior in terms of addiction, in which consumption serves the purpose of creating and informing group identities. The behavior of consumption results from the often-unquestioned assumption that consuming will reduce pain or add pleasure, and unfortunately, such beliefs rarely correlate with reality. Both the advertising we witness and the social spheres we occupy contribute to a shared group image, and we have a fear of losing this group identity. Mr. Crone believes that one way to combat this tendency to be addicted to the comfort of group identity is to develop educational workshops on how individuals and groups can develop consumption goals. The personal relationships we build, through faith-based communities, for example, will prove critical in activities designed to reduce consumption.
Dr. Palitha Kohona, the Sri Lankan Mission to the UN, took an admittedly different tact than the other panelists. He observed the historical roots of consumption and how the entire precedent and been one of increase. Dr. Kohona believes that this urge towards constant growth is engrained in our psyche, and he doesn’t believe that encouraging people to consume less will result in any real decrease in consumption. He believes that a fundamental change is necessary, whether or not any voluntary measures take hold. As he sees it, the gathering catastrophe may be the only way to encourage others to consume less, and this of course presents a massive challenge. His last note is one of caution in attempting to make small, technical fixes to these large, interdisciplinary problems.
Mr. Luis Flores of Consumers International(CI) spoke briefly on the divide between the “will” and the “ways” necessary for MCG to be successful. He believes that the “ways” of MCG have been elucidated, but that the “will” has yet to be garnered. Noting that a continual sticking point in the official negotiations at CSD19 has been the notion of “prior informed consent,” Mr. Flores questions why political and social will have been absent in mainstream initiatives. He also noted that the MCG are in a position of normativity; the moral aspects of consumption cannot be ignored. We must put more energy into generating the will-factor towards the MCG.
The last speaker was Mr. Lewis Akenji of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), who believes that something like SCP sounds rather perverse in a place like Bangladesh, where consumption levels are severely curtailed by inequitable economic and social institutions. He noted that issues of justice are to be uncovered in our consumption habits, inasmuch as the issue can be framed as the conflict between the Global North and the Global South. He called for the institutionalization of reduced consumption, and noted that there are three different types of consumption: individual, social, and cultural consumption. All three varieties must be addressed by the Millennium Consumption Goals if they are to be successful.
It remains to be seen what will come of the Millennium Consumption Goals Initiative. What seems certain is that the concept has fallen on fertile ground. In the light of the failure of CSD 19 to produce an agreement on text or to follow through on its mandate to produce a 10 Year Framework of Programs, and especially in the build-up of energy in anticipation of Rio+20, there is a clear need for creative solutions to the problems of unsustainable consumption and production. The Millennium Consumption Goals Initiative stands poised on the edge of this institutional gap and is prepared to offer a solution- one that will increase the happiness, wellbeing, and level of ecological sustainability of both rich and poor. What the Initiative now needs is a clear plan of action and implementation, but even before that, the content of the Goals themselves must be agreed upon. Much work remains to be done, but hopes are high that the Millennium Consumption Goals will prove themselves to be exactly the tool we need to achieve SCP and development that is sustainable for all of the world’s people, from the rich to the poor and everyone in between.
Whose Green Economy?
Centre
for Environment and Development (CED), together with Action Group On Erosion, Technology and
Concentration (ETC Group) & Third World Network (TWN) organized a RIO+20
PrepCom2 Side Event on 7 January 2011 at UN in NY under the theme “Whose Green Economy: Can a Green Economy
Provide Foundations for Equity and Sustainability on Earth? Who Owns the Green
Economy? Control, Impacts and Governance of New Technologies!" The
following article was written by of the participants.
RIO+20: Toward a new green economy—or a green-washed old economy?
BY Jim Thomas
I've got good news and bad news about the future of the planet.
Good news first. Next year, a honking big global Earth Summit is coming our way -- one with a proud heritage. Formally titled the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, the meeting is known as RIO+20 because it will come 20 years after the firstEarth Summit in Rio in 1992. That original Earth Summit (itself 20 years after the equally important Stockholm Convention on the Environment and Human Development) gave us an embarrassment of policy riches: the Climate Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, Sustainable Development Commission, the Precautionary Principle, a long and ambitious list of promises called Agenda 21, The Forest Principles, and much more. Over a hundred heads of state turned up to Rio Di Janeiro last time amidst intense global attention. This time, the reunion party is going back to Rio again on June 4-6 2012. Chances are it will all be a big deal again.
At a recent preparatory meeting in New York, the agenda for this next Earth Summit became clear. The leaders will issue a "focused political document" tackling the transition to a global "green economy" and reform of the international institutions responsible for sustainable development. This second "reform" strand could feasibly restructure everything ranging from the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP) and the U.N. Development Program to the 500 different multilateral environmental treaties and agreements currently in place. These cover toxic chemicals, ocean conservation, biodiversity, desertification, climate change, ozone depletion, forest protection, and more. Given the rising trends of global temperature, hunger, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss, the existing mishmash of eco-governance is clearly failing to deliver. RIO+20 is a precious chance for decision-makers to take stock of where the world went wrong in the last 20 years and plan intelligently for the next 20. Hopefully RIO+20 will deliver a jolt of political will to the global environmental agenda, as well as a smart plan to get the planet back on track.
Or at least that's the theory. And now we come to the bad news: Far from cooking up a plan to save the Earth, what may come out of the summit could instead be a deal to surrender the living world to a small cabal of bankers and engineers -- one that will dump the promises of the first Rio summit along the way. Tensions are already rising between northern countries and southern countries over the poorly defined concept of a global "Green Economy" that will be the centerpiece of the summit.
What is a global green economy? That, of course, is the multi-trillion dollar question. We can all spell out the problems of our current polluting and unjust economy (thoughtlessly dubbed the "brown economy" by less-than race-sensitive commentators). Yet suspicion is running high that the proposed prescriptions for a "green economy" are more likely to deliver a greenwash economy or the same old, same old "greed" economy. The color-coded theory on offer goes like this: We can move from a brown economy to a green economy by investing more greenbacks in the white heat of technology and PINC (Proactive Investment in Natural Capital) including innovative market mechanisms such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Degredation). Just to round off the color palette, ocean states are further arguing that the green economy also needs to be a blue economy.
Confused? The key words to focus on here are "markets" and "technology." Just as the global climate negotiations, most recently in Cancun, have veered away from the difficult job of agreeing to slash emissions and lurched instead toward politically easy gestures on carbon trading and solar panels, so the green economy brigade would like to steer the RIO+20 summit away from addressing the root causes of our ecological crises. They would like the emphasis to be on a "forward looking" effort to establish new financial arrangements based on so-called "ecosystem services" while liberating funds for iconic "green technologies."
Two heavyweight reports from UNEP, on "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB) and a "Green Economy Report" (GER) set the tone for this plan. They argue that nature, like an industrial contractor, should be precisely measured and valued according to the natural "services" that it provides -- such as water cleaning, carbon sequestration, and nitrogen cycling. Such services can then be paid for, offset, or securitized in the form of invented credits that can be traded to raise conservation money. Meanwhile new "eco-efficient" technologies can be developed and deployed increasing the value of these ecosystem services while also generating revenue. If it sounds more like a business plan than an agreement to protect the Earth that's because business is firmly in the driving seat. The lead author of both the TEEB and GER is an investment banker on sabbatical from Deutsche Bank, and the most vocal cheerleaders are the Davos crowd of Fortune 500 companies and G8 diplomats.
Most alarmingly, some of these voices are positioning the "green economy" as an upgrade or replacement to the "outmoded" concept of "sustainable development" that was agreed on 20 years ago. They seem content to throw out Rio's "baby" of sustainable development out for new green bathwater just as the baby reaches the age of maturity. While "sustainable development" has its problems as an approach, it at least explicitly attempted to enmesh environmental goals in larger social and economic goals such as reducing poverty and creating a just and equitable society. By contrast, the idea of a green economy is sustainable-development-lite -- long on technical fixes and band-aid solutions, short on confronting the root causes of poverty, inequality, and oppression that drive environmental destruction.
At a packed side event in New York last week entitled "Whose Green Economy?," Bolivian Ambassador Pablo Salon charged that this repackaged green capitalism was a distraction from the real issues and commitments that RIO+20 needs to address to realize sustainable development. He warned that the new forms of mercantilism and speculation being proposed could further despoil nature while entrenching existing injustices. Indigenous peoples and social justice movements who have fought against land displacement brought about by the REDD+ provisions of the recent Cancun agreement are particularly alarmed that the same commodification approach is now being proposed to extend to soils, oceans, and more. As Uruguayan activist Silvia Ribeiro points out, "In the wake of the largest financial crisis in history, the same bankers who can't even keep their own house in order now claim they can manage the planet. Excuse us for not believing them."
The focus on ill-defined "green technologies" is also problematic. The UNEP Green Economy report bullishly includes biomass incineration and biofuels as possible ingredients in a "green economy" -- rising food prices, land grabs, and toxic air pollution aside. The report is agnostic on nuclear power and stops short of endorsing genetically modified crops as part of the green package.
Meanwhile the next suite of technological silver bullets are already being reframed as part of the green economy. Synthetic biology, which makes artificial microbes with unknown biosafety impacts, is being touted as the source of green fuels and green plastics. Nanotechnology, whose toxicity problems raise the specter of a rerun of the asbestos fiasco, is being embraced for solar panel production and water cleanup. Meanwhile geoengineering -- the idea of re-engineering the entire planet with clouds of sulphur dust or dumps of iron and charcoal -- could easily end up in the broad definition of "green technologies."
If RIO+20 is not to become a handy loophole for every technological wolf to assume green clothing (and funds), governments are going to need to get specific about what is and what isn't a "green and just" technology and to resurrect the precautionary principle first agreed at Rio 20 years ago. The green economy needs some trusted gatekeepers. One proposal, backed by several major groups at the U.N., is the establishment of a formal mechanism to evaluate new and emerging technologies -- such as anInternational Convention for Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT). Such a convention might provide an early-warning function to governments on pitfalls of technological options before they are deployed. An ICENT might have warned against backing ethanol before food prices spiked, or challenged the wisdom of a risky energy technologies long before the wellhead explodes or the tsunami hits the reactor's cooling system. Tragically, governments agreed to a version of such a technology assessment mechanism back in Rio 20 years ago and then never delivered -- an act of negligence we are paying for today in human lives, hunger, and environmental damage.
And there's the rub: 20 years ago, governments at Rio were bold enough to lay out a set of commitments that might credibly have rescued us from some of the dire predicaments we are now in but they never fulfilled their own promises. With under 13 months to go, it's now up to all of us in global society to demand that those promises, however belated, be fulfilled. Most importantly those promises should not be abandoned for a hollow "green economy" that amounts to a Trojan horse for ongoing destruction-as-usual. The bad news on the road to Rio is that the hijackers are already seizing the reins. The good news is that we have time to organize massive campaigns to get the Earth Summit back on course -- not just for a green economy, but for a green, equitable, and just future.
Jim Thomas is a research program manager and writer at the ETC Group.
RIO+20: Toward a new green economy—or a green-washed old economy?
BY Jim Thomas
I've got good news and bad news about the future of the planet.
Good news first. Next year, a honking big global Earth Summit is coming our way -- one with a proud heritage. Formally titled the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, the meeting is known as RIO+20 because it will come 20 years after the firstEarth Summit in Rio in 1992. That original Earth Summit (itself 20 years after the equally important Stockholm Convention on the Environment and Human Development) gave us an embarrassment of policy riches: the Climate Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, Sustainable Development Commission, the Precautionary Principle, a long and ambitious list of promises called Agenda 21, The Forest Principles, and much more. Over a hundred heads of state turned up to Rio Di Janeiro last time amidst intense global attention. This time, the reunion party is going back to Rio again on June 4-6 2012. Chances are it will all be a big deal again.
At a recent preparatory meeting in New York, the agenda for this next Earth Summit became clear. The leaders will issue a "focused political document" tackling the transition to a global "green economy" and reform of the international institutions responsible for sustainable development. This second "reform" strand could feasibly restructure everything ranging from the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP) and the U.N. Development Program to the 500 different multilateral environmental treaties and agreements currently in place. These cover toxic chemicals, ocean conservation, biodiversity, desertification, climate change, ozone depletion, forest protection, and more. Given the rising trends of global temperature, hunger, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss, the existing mishmash of eco-governance is clearly failing to deliver. RIO+20 is a precious chance for decision-makers to take stock of where the world went wrong in the last 20 years and plan intelligently for the next 20. Hopefully RIO+20 will deliver a jolt of political will to the global environmental agenda, as well as a smart plan to get the planet back on track.
Or at least that's the theory. And now we come to the bad news: Far from cooking up a plan to save the Earth, what may come out of the summit could instead be a deal to surrender the living world to a small cabal of bankers and engineers -- one that will dump the promises of the first Rio summit along the way. Tensions are already rising between northern countries and southern countries over the poorly defined concept of a global "Green Economy" that will be the centerpiece of the summit.
What is a global green economy? That, of course, is the multi-trillion dollar question. We can all spell out the problems of our current polluting and unjust economy (thoughtlessly dubbed the "brown economy" by less-than race-sensitive commentators). Yet suspicion is running high that the proposed prescriptions for a "green economy" are more likely to deliver a greenwash economy or the same old, same old "greed" economy. The color-coded theory on offer goes like this: We can move from a brown economy to a green economy by investing more greenbacks in the white heat of technology and PINC (Proactive Investment in Natural Capital) including innovative market mechanisms such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions through Deforestation and Degredation). Just to round off the color palette, ocean states are further arguing that the green economy also needs to be a blue economy.
Confused? The key words to focus on here are "markets" and "technology." Just as the global climate negotiations, most recently in Cancun, have veered away from the difficult job of agreeing to slash emissions and lurched instead toward politically easy gestures on carbon trading and solar panels, so the green economy brigade would like to steer the RIO+20 summit away from addressing the root causes of our ecological crises. They would like the emphasis to be on a "forward looking" effort to establish new financial arrangements based on so-called "ecosystem services" while liberating funds for iconic "green technologies."
Two heavyweight reports from UNEP, on "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB) and a "Green Economy Report" (GER) set the tone for this plan. They argue that nature, like an industrial contractor, should be precisely measured and valued according to the natural "services" that it provides -- such as water cleaning, carbon sequestration, and nitrogen cycling. Such services can then be paid for, offset, or securitized in the form of invented credits that can be traded to raise conservation money. Meanwhile new "eco-efficient" technologies can be developed and deployed increasing the value of these ecosystem services while also generating revenue. If it sounds more like a business plan than an agreement to protect the Earth that's because business is firmly in the driving seat. The lead author of both the TEEB and GER is an investment banker on sabbatical from Deutsche Bank, and the most vocal cheerleaders are the Davos crowd of Fortune 500 companies and G8 diplomats.
Most alarmingly, some of these voices are positioning the "green economy" as an upgrade or replacement to the "outmoded" concept of "sustainable development" that was agreed on 20 years ago. They seem content to throw out Rio's "baby" of sustainable development out for new green bathwater just as the baby reaches the age of maturity. While "sustainable development" has its problems as an approach, it at least explicitly attempted to enmesh environmental goals in larger social and economic goals such as reducing poverty and creating a just and equitable society. By contrast, the idea of a green economy is sustainable-development-lite -- long on technical fixes and band-aid solutions, short on confronting the root causes of poverty, inequality, and oppression that drive environmental destruction.
At a packed side event in New York last week entitled "Whose Green Economy?," Bolivian Ambassador Pablo Salon charged that this repackaged green capitalism was a distraction from the real issues and commitments that RIO+20 needs to address to realize sustainable development. He warned that the new forms of mercantilism and speculation being proposed could further despoil nature while entrenching existing injustices. Indigenous peoples and social justice movements who have fought against land displacement brought about by the REDD+ provisions of the recent Cancun agreement are particularly alarmed that the same commodification approach is now being proposed to extend to soils, oceans, and more. As Uruguayan activist Silvia Ribeiro points out, "In the wake of the largest financial crisis in history, the same bankers who can't even keep their own house in order now claim they can manage the planet. Excuse us for not believing them."
The focus on ill-defined "green technologies" is also problematic. The UNEP Green Economy report bullishly includes biomass incineration and biofuels as possible ingredients in a "green economy" -- rising food prices, land grabs, and toxic air pollution aside. The report is agnostic on nuclear power and stops short of endorsing genetically modified crops as part of the green package.
Meanwhile the next suite of technological silver bullets are already being reframed as part of the green economy. Synthetic biology, which makes artificial microbes with unknown biosafety impacts, is being touted as the source of green fuels and green plastics. Nanotechnology, whose toxicity problems raise the specter of a rerun of the asbestos fiasco, is being embraced for solar panel production and water cleanup. Meanwhile geoengineering -- the idea of re-engineering the entire planet with clouds of sulphur dust or dumps of iron and charcoal -- could easily end up in the broad definition of "green technologies."
If RIO+20 is not to become a handy loophole for every technological wolf to assume green clothing (and funds), governments are going to need to get specific about what is and what isn't a "green and just" technology and to resurrect the precautionary principle first agreed at Rio 20 years ago. The green economy needs some trusted gatekeepers. One proposal, backed by several major groups at the U.N., is the establishment of a formal mechanism to evaluate new and emerging technologies -- such as anInternational Convention for Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT). Such a convention might provide an early-warning function to governments on pitfalls of technological options before they are deployed. An ICENT might have warned against backing ethanol before food prices spiked, or challenged the wisdom of a risky energy technologies long before the wellhead explodes or the tsunami hits the reactor's cooling system. Tragically, governments agreed to a version of such a technology assessment mechanism back in Rio 20 years ago and then never delivered -- an act of negligence we are paying for today in human lives, hunger, and environmental damage.
And there's the rub: 20 years ago, governments at Rio were bold enough to lay out a set of commitments that might credibly have rescued us from some of the dire predicaments we are now in but they never fulfilled their own promises. With under 13 months to go, it's now up to all of us in global society to demand that those promises, however belated, be fulfilled. Most importantly those promises should not be abandoned for a hollow "green economy" that amounts to a Trojan horse for ongoing destruction-as-usual. The bad news on the road to Rio is that the hijackers are already seizing the reins. The good news is that we have time to organize massive campaigns to get the Earth Summit back on course -- not just for a green economy, but for a green, equitable, and just future.
Jim Thomas is a research program manager and writer at the ETC Group.
MILLENNIUM CONSUMPTION GOALS (MCG) - how the rich can make the planet more sustainable
Mohan Munasinghe∗
(January 2011, Colombo) - Millennium consumption goals (MCG) could help make our development path more sustainable, by focusing on the 1.4 billion people in the richest 20 percentile of the world’s population. They consume over 80% of global output, or 60 times more than the poorest 20 percentile. Instead of viewing the rich as a problem, they should be persuaded to contribute to the solution. The MCG will complement the Millennium development goals (MDG) designed to help the world’s poor. The MCG need not be mandatory targets, but rather a set of benchmarks to be achieved by a combination of voluntary actions by sustainable consumers and producers, supported by enabling government policies.
Household consumption drives modern economies, but unsustainable consumption, production and resource exploitation have led to multiple crises that threaten the future survival of humanity. Climate change is now considered the ultimate threat multiplier which will exacerbate the formidable problems of development we already face – like poverty, hunger, illness, water and energy scarcities, and conflict.
The MCG pathway
While I have been arguing for MCG for many years in closed meetings, the time was ripe to formally propose the idea at the recent UN sessions preparing for the forthcoming UN Conference on Sustainable Development UNCSD 2012 in Brazil.
There are many advantages to this complementary path to global sustainability. First, the rich live in both developed and developing countries, so the idea cuts across country boundaries, thus reducing the potential for deadlock due to nationalistic self-interest. Second, since they account for over 80% of consumption and pollution (including carbon emissions), small shifts towards more sustainable consumption can significantly reduce the burden on the environment and free up more resources to raise the consumption of the poor. Third, by relying on influencing the behaviour of large numbers of individual households, the approach has the potential to yield quicker results compared to top down government policies and large, long term industrial investments. Fourth, it mobilizes, empowers and links up sustainable consumers and producers (many of whom operate global supply chains) into a virtuous cycle that could spread quickly. In fact, the focus is on setting targets for ACTION NOW by civil society and business, without having to wait for governments, which move glacially. This process also puts pressure on leaders who lack the political will to act quickly and decisively.
Basically, the MCG approach is only one element (albeit an important one!) of the overall goal of sustainable development. It is not just a nice catchy slogan, but has substance and a practical methodology underlying it. It is part of broader ongoing initiatives on sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and the green economy. In turn, SCP is an essential step on the path to sustainable development, and may be linked to a holistic and practical framework for making development more sustainable, called Sustainomics, which I proposed 20 years ago at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. It would be fitting indeed if the MCG idea would become part of the agreements and programmes that will emerge from UNCSD 2012 (also called Rio+20)!
Some possible MCG target areas include: conservation of scarce resources like energy and water, efficient transport, sustainable dwellings, healthier diets and obesity reduction, healthier lifestyles and greater fitness, progressive taxation and taxes on luxury goods, sustainable livelihoods, reduced workweek and improved working conditions, etc. Some types of expenditures undertaken by governments on behalf of consumers, also need to be targetted – e.g., the US$1.5 trillion per year spent on armaments worldwide.
Current situation: economic, social and environmental bubbles
The MCG are needed because the world is currently facing economic, social, and environmental risks, best characterized by a “bubble” metaphor based on greed and false expectations. A few enjoy immediate gains while the vast unsuspecting majority would pay huge future costs. These threats can interact catastrophically, unless they are addressed urgently and in an integrated fashion.
First, the ongoing economic recession was caused by the collapse of a greed-driven asset bubble which inflated financial values well beyond the true value of underlying economic resources.
Second, a social bubble based on poverty and inequity is growing despite economic growth, excluding billions of poor from access to productive resources and basic necessities, like food, water and energy. Poverty has been exacerbated by the economic recession, worsening unemployment and access to survival needs.
Finally, mankind faces the bubble of environmental harm and resource shortages, due to myopic economic activities that severely degrade natural assets (air, land and water) on which human well being ultimately depends. Climate change is just one grim global manifestation of this threat, and ironically, the worst impacts will fall on the poor who are least responsible for the problem.
Unfortunately, human responses to these issues have been uncoordinated and inadequate. Governments quickly found over US$ five trillion for stimulus packages, to revive shaky economies. Meanwhile, only about US$100 billion per year are devoted to alleviate poverty, and far less to combat climate change. The recession has further dampened enthusiasm to address the more serious long term social and environmental issues. Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND) 3
Clearly, world leaders lost a major opportunity to allocate a much larger share of the stimulus packages to green investments, sustainable livelihoods, education and health, and safety nets for the poor, instead of mainly propping up banks and promoting unsustainable consumption. We should now seek to recapture the momentum for longer term change, by promoting sustainable consumption and production, including the setting of millennium consumption goals for the rich to complement the MDG for the poor.
Sustainable consumption and production
Anthropogenic carbon emissions exemplify modern resource over-exploitation. The arguments below apply equally well to other scarce resources like energy, water and food.
The consumption of 1.4 billion richer humans accounts for about 80% of total carbon emissions. Making their consumption patterns more sustainable will reduce carbon emissions (and other types of resource use) significantly – e.g., using energy saving light bulbs, washing laundry at lower temperatures, eating less meat, planting trees or using more fuel efficient cars. Such actions will not only save money, but are also faster and more achievable than many so-called big technology solutions. Furthermore, families that purchase low-carbon products and services can stimulate innovation in businesses, while encouraging politicians to take radical steps towards a lower carbon world. Many existing “best” practice examples can be replicated more widely, while innovative businesses are already developing the “next” practice products and services of the future.
A “virtuous cycle” of mutually supportive sustainable consumers and producers can cut across national boundaries and narrow interests. It complements the traditional top down emphasis on action by governments, who lack political will to take bold steps. Finally, the rich must share scarce resources with the many billions of poor and help them emerge from poverty. The affluent also need to set a better example that will encourage the poor to seek more sustainable growth and consumption paths.
The affluent can maintain or improve their quality of life, while reducing the burden on the environment, using existing technologies and policies. Several leading multinational companies have already set themselves challenging targets for reducing their carbon emissions, waste discharges, and energy and water use, in the coming decades. This is a welcome contrast to the continuing reluctance of world leaders to boldly address pressing climate change and sustainable development issues. Progressive business leaders have also pledged to overcome barriers faced by consumers, including the availability and affordability of sustainable products, lack of information and product labeling, and a sense of powerlessness. The same advertising that now promotes over-consumption and waste could be used to encourage more sustainable consumption. Over a period of time, social values and habits could be changed to favour sustainable behaviour, in the same way that public attitudes have shifted against tobacco smoking in recent decades.
Sustainomics
The sustainomics framework, provides four core principles that underpin this novel approach to addressing multiple global problems together.
• First, making development more sustainable (MDMS) becomes the main goal. It is a step-by-step method that empowers people to take immediate action. It is also practical because many unsustainable activities are easy to recognize and eliminate NOW. The MCG and sustainable consumption-production path epitomize this approach.
• Second, the three key dimensions of the sustainable development triangle (economic, social, and environmental) must be given balanced treatment. Consumers need simplified and relevant information on these aspects, to make sustainable choices, via pricing, advertising, labeling, and the media.
• Third, our thinking should transcend traditional boundaries. It is essential to replace unsustainable values like greed with sound ethical principles, especially among the young. People must be made aware that problems like climate change span the whole planet, play out over centuries, and concern every human being on earth. Stakeholders need to work together to meet the common threat – more than ever, government needs the support of civil society and business. Trans-disciplinary analysis will help producers find innovative solutions that cut across conventional disciplines. Sustainable consumption and production requires such a revolution in thinking and behaviour.
• Finally, full life cycle analysis using integrated tools is required. In particular, producers need to re-examine the entire value chain from raw material extraction to consumer end use and disposal, from the economic, social and environmental perspectives. This will help identify hot spots where innovation can improve production sustainability, reform pricing, and yield accurate labeling information (e.g., carbon footprint). The principles of industrial ecology would help to minimize both resource inputs and waste outputs. Many excellent examples of sustainable consumption and production already exist worldwide, based on the application of known technologies and policies.
Concluding Ideas
Ordinary citizens and businesses are often ahead of political leaders in terms of willingness to address sustainable development issues, including climate change. Given the many existing best practice examples, we do not need to wait for new technologies, laws or infrastructure. Consumers can be encouraged to behave more sustainably without lowering their quality of life, starting with millennium consumption goals for the rich that parallel the millennium development goals for the poor.
All human beings are stakeholders, when it comes to sustainable development and climate change. Consumers and producers can and must strive to make development more sustainable -- economically, socially and environmentally. By acting together now, we will make the planet a better and safer place for our children and grand children.
∗ Mohan Munasinghe is Chairman of the Munasinghe Institute of Development (MIND) in Sri Lanka, and Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Manchester, UK. He shared the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace (as vice-chair, IPCC-AR4). Recent research at MIND and the University of Manchester has contributed to some of the ideas in this article. E-mail: [email protected].
Mohan Munasinghe∗
(January 2011, Colombo) - Millennium consumption goals (MCG) could help make our development path more sustainable, by focusing on the 1.4 billion people in the richest 20 percentile of the world’s population. They consume over 80% of global output, or 60 times more than the poorest 20 percentile. Instead of viewing the rich as a problem, they should be persuaded to contribute to the solution. The MCG will complement the Millennium development goals (MDG) designed to help the world’s poor. The MCG need not be mandatory targets, but rather a set of benchmarks to be achieved by a combination of voluntary actions by sustainable consumers and producers, supported by enabling government policies.
Household consumption drives modern economies, but unsustainable consumption, production and resource exploitation have led to multiple crises that threaten the future survival of humanity. Climate change is now considered the ultimate threat multiplier which will exacerbate the formidable problems of development we already face – like poverty, hunger, illness, water and energy scarcities, and conflict.
The MCG pathway
While I have been arguing for MCG for many years in closed meetings, the time was ripe to formally propose the idea at the recent UN sessions preparing for the forthcoming UN Conference on Sustainable Development UNCSD 2012 in Brazil.
There are many advantages to this complementary path to global sustainability. First, the rich live in both developed and developing countries, so the idea cuts across country boundaries, thus reducing the potential for deadlock due to nationalistic self-interest. Second, since they account for over 80% of consumption and pollution (including carbon emissions), small shifts towards more sustainable consumption can significantly reduce the burden on the environment and free up more resources to raise the consumption of the poor. Third, by relying on influencing the behaviour of large numbers of individual households, the approach has the potential to yield quicker results compared to top down government policies and large, long term industrial investments. Fourth, it mobilizes, empowers and links up sustainable consumers and producers (many of whom operate global supply chains) into a virtuous cycle that could spread quickly. In fact, the focus is on setting targets for ACTION NOW by civil society and business, without having to wait for governments, which move glacially. This process also puts pressure on leaders who lack the political will to act quickly and decisively.
Basically, the MCG approach is only one element (albeit an important one!) of the overall goal of sustainable development. It is not just a nice catchy slogan, but has substance and a practical methodology underlying it. It is part of broader ongoing initiatives on sustainable consumption and production (SCP) and the green economy. In turn, SCP is an essential step on the path to sustainable development, and may be linked to a holistic and practical framework for making development more sustainable, called Sustainomics, which I proposed 20 years ago at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. It would be fitting indeed if the MCG idea would become part of the agreements and programmes that will emerge from UNCSD 2012 (also called Rio+20)!
Some possible MCG target areas include: conservation of scarce resources like energy and water, efficient transport, sustainable dwellings, healthier diets and obesity reduction, healthier lifestyles and greater fitness, progressive taxation and taxes on luxury goods, sustainable livelihoods, reduced workweek and improved working conditions, etc. Some types of expenditures undertaken by governments on behalf of consumers, also need to be targetted – e.g., the US$1.5 trillion per year spent on armaments worldwide.
Current situation: economic, social and environmental bubbles
The MCG are needed because the world is currently facing economic, social, and environmental risks, best characterized by a “bubble” metaphor based on greed and false expectations. A few enjoy immediate gains while the vast unsuspecting majority would pay huge future costs. These threats can interact catastrophically, unless they are addressed urgently and in an integrated fashion.
First, the ongoing economic recession was caused by the collapse of a greed-driven asset bubble which inflated financial values well beyond the true value of underlying economic resources.
Second, a social bubble based on poverty and inequity is growing despite economic growth, excluding billions of poor from access to productive resources and basic necessities, like food, water and energy. Poverty has been exacerbated by the economic recession, worsening unemployment and access to survival needs.
Finally, mankind faces the bubble of environmental harm and resource shortages, due to myopic economic activities that severely degrade natural assets (air, land and water) on which human well being ultimately depends. Climate change is just one grim global manifestation of this threat, and ironically, the worst impacts will fall on the poor who are least responsible for the problem.
Unfortunately, human responses to these issues have been uncoordinated and inadequate. Governments quickly found over US$ five trillion for stimulus packages, to revive shaky economies. Meanwhile, only about US$100 billion per year are devoted to alleviate poverty, and far less to combat climate change. The recession has further dampened enthusiasm to address the more serious long term social and environmental issues. Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND) 3
Clearly, world leaders lost a major opportunity to allocate a much larger share of the stimulus packages to green investments, sustainable livelihoods, education and health, and safety nets for the poor, instead of mainly propping up banks and promoting unsustainable consumption. We should now seek to recapture the momentum for longer term change, by promoting sustainable consumption and production, including the setting of millennium consumption goals for the rich to complement the MDG for the poor.
Sustainable consumption and production
Anthropogenic carbon emissions exemplify modern resource over-exploitation. The arguments below apply equally well to other scarce resources like energy, water and food.
The consumption of 1.4 billion richer humans accounts for about 80% of total carbon emissions. Making their consumption patterns more sustainable will reduce carbon emissions (and other types of resource use) significantly – e.g., using energy saving light bulbs, washing laundry at lower temperatures, eating less meat, planting trees or using more fuel efficient cars. Such actions will not only save money, but are also faster and more achievable than many so-called big technology solutions. Furthermore, families that purchase low-carbon products and services can stimulate innovation in businesses, while encouraging politicians to take radical steps towards a lower carbon world. Many existing “best” practice examples can be replicated more widely, while innovative businesses are already developing the “next” practice products and services of the future.
A “virtuous cycle” of mutually supportive sustainable consumers and producers can cut across national boundaries and narrow interests. It complements the traditional top down emphasis on action by governments, who lack political will to take bold steps. Finally, the rich must share scarce resources with the many billions of poor and help them emerge from poverty. The affluent also need to set a better example that will encourage the poor to seek more sustainable growth and consumption paths.
The affluent can maintain or improve their quality of life, while reducing the burden on the environment, using existing technologies and policies. Several leading multinational companies have already set themselves challenging targets for reducing their carbon emissions, waste discharges, and energy and water use, in the coming decades. This is a welcome contrast to the continuing reluctance of world leaders to boldly address pressing climate change and sustainable development issues. Progressive business leaders have also pledged to overcome barriers faced by consumers, including the availability and affordability of sustainable products, lack of information and product labeling, and a sense of powerlessness. The same advertising that now promotes over-consumption and waste could be used to encourage more sustainable consumption. Over a period of time, social values and habits could be changed to favour sustainable behaviour, in the same way that public attitudes have shifted against tobacco smoking in recent decades.
Sustainomics
The sustainomics framework, provides four core principles that underpin this novel approach to addressing multiple global problems together.
• First, making development more sustainable (MDMS) becomes the main goal. It is a step-by-step method that empowers people to take immediate action. It is also practical because many unsustainable activities are easy to recognize and eliminate NOW. The MCG and sustainable consumption-production path epitomize this approach.
• Second, the three key dimensions of the sustainable development triangle (economic, social, and environmental) must be given balanced treatment. Consumers need simplified and relevant information on these aspects, to make sustainable choices, via pricing, advertising, labeling, and the media.
• Third, our thinking should transcend traditional boundaries. It is essential to replace unsustainable values like greed with sound ethical principles, especially among the young. People must be made aware that problems like climate change span the whole planet, play out over centuries, and concern every human being on earth. Stakeholders need to work together to meet the common threat – more than ever, government needs the support of civil society and business. Trans-disciplinary analysis will help producers find innovative solutions that cut across conventional disciplines. Sustainable consumption and production requires such a revolution in thinking and behaviour.
• Finally, full life cycle analysis using integrated tools is required. In particular, producers need to re-examine the entire value chain from raw material extraction to consumer end use and disposal, from the economic, social and environmental perspectives. This will help identify hot spots where innovation can improve production sustainability, reform pricing, and yield accurate labeling information (e.g., carbon footprint). The principles of industrial ecology would help to minimize both resource inputs and waste outputs. Many excellent examples of sustainable consumption and production already exist worldwide, based on the application of known technologies and policies.
Concluding Ideas
Ordinary citizens and businesses are often ahead of political leaders in terms of willingness to address sustainable development issues, including climate change. Given the many existing best practice examples, we do not need to wait for new technologies, laws or infrastructure. Consumers can be encouraged to behave more sustainably without lowering their quality of life, starting with millennium consumption goals for the rich that parallel the millennium development goals for the poor.
All human beings are stakeholders, when it comes to sustainable development and climate change. Consumers and producers can and must strive to make development more sustainable -- economically, socially and environmentally. By acting together now, we will make the planet a better and safer place for our children and grand children.
∗ Mohan Munasinghe is Chairman of the Munasinghe Institute of Development (MIND) in Sri Lanka, and Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Manchester, UK. He shared the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace (as vice-chair, IPCC-AR4). Recent research at MIND and the University of Manchester has contributed to some of the ideas in this article. E-mail: [email protected].
RESPONSES TO MCG
Erik Assadourian, WRI (http://blogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures/mcgs/)
1. Halve obesity and overweight rates by 2020 (we’re starting the MCGs later than the MDGs). This will reduce mortality, morbidity, and economic costs, as well as reduce ecological pressures driven by overconsumption of food.
2. Halve the work week from the current 40+ hour per week to 20 hours per week. This will better distribute jobs, wealth, promote healthier living, and reduce economic activity, which is essential in our ecologically taxed world. For a good paper on this topic, read New Economic Foundation’s excellent report 21 Hours.
3. Better distribute wealth by raising taxes on the wealthiest members of society. That one will get me in trouble with the American Tea Party but let’s dust off the idea of Noblesse Oblige: to those given much, much is expected in return. The days of extreme wealth spent on luxurious living must draw to a close. The Earth can’t handle it any longer.
4. Double the rate of use of non-motorized transport (bikes, walking, etc.). Increasing these forms of transport will improve health, reduce fossil fuel and material use, and make for safer cities.
5. Guarantee access to health care for all. Yes, another minefield in the USA, but standard procedure in most industrial countries so that’ll be an easy goal for most countries to achieve.
Philip Vergragt, Tellus Institute (from an email)
1. Reduce the area of personal per capita living space by 25%, and deep-energy retrofit residential houses in order to reduce heating and cooling by 50%. Acquire state of the art energy-saving equipment.
2. Reduce individual driving by 50 %; walk and bike when possible, and take public transit and share rides when feasible; reduce commuting; choose residential housing close to public transit and shopping, working, and schooling areas.
3. Reduce meat and dairy consumption by 80 %; cook 80% of meals at home with fresh and possibly local ingredients; shop at farmer’s markets and endorse local urban farming; reduce size of meals. Additional benefits are obesity reduction and health improvement.
4. Reduce the working hours by 30%, by means of shorter working week, longer holidays, furloughs, and sabbaticals. Improve working conditions and benefits. Encourage part-time working to improve child care.
5. Conserve water by 50 % by means of less (warm) water use in households; increase grey water use in buildings; increase rainwater harvesting and use.
6. Reduce shopping for new products by 80%; encourage sharing; bartering; leasing; re-use; and repairing.
7. Reduce waste by 90% through composting; recycling, and buying less.
8. Create progressive taxation of income and assets, a carbon tax to incentivize renewable energy generation and consumption; and reduce income tax to create more employment. Taxation to be used for green investments in energy, transportation, and ICT infrastructure. Internalize external costs in products and services. Create a Tobin tax for global financial transactions.
9. Create a universally accepted metric for well-being, which would replace GDP.
10. Create incentives and policies for living within our ecological and carbon footprint, including personal carbon budget; smart metering; product information and labeling; competition and prizes for good behavior; smart grid; transit-oriented and mixed-use city development.
Preliminary Notes on the Green Economy, in the context of sustainable development
Martin Khor, Executive Director, South Centre
Inter-sessional session on Rio Plus 20 (Panel on Green Economy), 10-11 Jan 2010
The “green economy” is not a concept that has yet to enjoy widespread agreement (among economists or environmentalists) nor an international consensus. It is an extremely complex concept and it is unlikely there can be a consensus on its meaning, use and usefulness and policy implications, in a short time. This is a brief note on some of the issues surrounding this term.
A “green economy” gives the impression of an economy that is environmentally-friendly, sensitive to the need to conserve natural resources, minimise pollution and emissions that damage the environment in the production process, and produces products and services the existence and consumption of which do not harm the environment.
The difficult questions are whether the attainment of such an economy constrains other aspects (including economic growth of poor countries, social development such as poverty eradication and job creation), how to identify and deal with the trade-offs; what are the appropriate combinations between these aspects and at different stages of development as well as stages in the state of the environment; what is the role of the state and regulation, and what is the appropriate way to address the market and private sector; how to build an economy that is more environmentally-friendly, and how to handle the transition from the present to the greener economy?
The Green Economy issue being discussed here must also be context specific, or specific to the framework in which it is being discussed. This context is the Rio Plus 20 conference, which is a follow up to Rio 1992. The green economy is thus not an academic idea for free brainstorming. It must be derived from and rooted in the spirit, objectives, principles and operationalising of UNCED 1992, and especially the Rio Principles and Agenda 21. This should be supplemented by the Rio Plus 10 conference.
The main framework of UNCED 1992, its related agreements (UNFCCC, CBD etc) and its follow-up processes is to place the environment together with development in a single context. This is a unique achievement which has to be preserved and advanced, and not detracted from or diverted from. The UNCED framework recognised and built in some of the key complexities:
-- It recognised the environmental crisis and the need for deep reform of production and consumption patterns. It recognised the sustainability principle, that present production should not compromise meeting the needs of the future. It recognised the precautionay principle.
-- It also also recognised the “right to development” and the development needs and priorities of economic growth in developing countries plus social development goals including poverty eradication, jobs creation, food, health, education, etc.
-- From the recognition of the above, the three pillars of “sustainable development” were accepted as environmental protection, economic development and social development.
-- It recognised the need not only for national action but also international policies and actions in understanding and addressing the issues, and that for developing countries national action must be supported by international policies and actions to enable implementation of sustainable development.
-- In this context it recognised that countries played different roles in contributing to the environmental crisis, that countries are at different stages of development, and that these must lead to key principles and have important implications for actions and for the international cooperation framework.
-- Out of this arose the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. It recognised that the major contribution to pollution (including Greenhouse Gas emissions) and resource depletion was by developed countries, and that developing countries are now disadvantaged because there is little “environmental space” left, which has implications for their future development. In practical terms, there should be a three-prong approach to achieving sustainable development: (1) The developed countries have to take the lead in changing production and consumption patterns (their economic model); (2) Developing countries would maintain their development goals but take on sustainable development methods and paths; (3) Developed countries commit to enable and support the developing countries' sustainable development through finance, technology transfer and appropriate reforms to the global economic and financial structures or practices (this is why there were chapters on finance, technology, trade, commodities etc in Agenda 21).
The “green economy” concept must thus placed integrally within this holistic framework of UNCED, the Rio Principles and Agenda 21. This framework also was the fundamental basis of the UNCED and CBD. The green economy should have as its basis the environmental imperative, the development imperative (economic dimension and social development) and the equity principle that links the environment and development dimensions. The green economy should thus be defined and operationalised in this EDE (environment, development, equity) framework, which must also incorporate both the national and international dimensions. Objectives, principles, policies, proposals, initiatives, on the green economy should be within this EDE framework and criteria.
There are ideas or policies for promoting the green economy in the sustainable development context, and there are policies to avoid so that the “green economy” does not get a bad name.
The positive aspects of the green economy that should be examined include:
-- Recognising the economic and social value of the environment, that conserving resources such as clean air, water, forests, mangroves etc have positive externalities which are valuable for meeting basic and human needs besides their intrinsic environmental worth. Conservation should thus be promoted, and the rehabilitation or replenishment of natural resources. However there should also be recognition of the opportunity cost of not “exploiting” or using up the resources. The short term usefulness of using Nature and the short and long term usefulness of conserving Nature (or making use of resources sustainably) should be both recognised and reconciled, and international support to developing countries in offsetting the opportunity costs is important.
-- Allowing prices to better reflect their environmental values, but keeping in mind also the development dimension, in guaranteeing access of the public (especially the poor) to basic amenities and basic livelihood opportunities. Subsidies that promote environmentally damaging activities or products should in general be minimised but with the condition that access of the poor to amenities is not affected. On the other hand, incentives (subsidies, access to credit, tax breaks, etc) should be given by developing countries to producers and consumers to promote good processes and products (renewable energy, organic food production and consumption, etc).
-- Recognising and promoting the link between small producers and communities especially in rural
areas and the environment, and policies to ensure that the resources that form the base of their livelihoods and their basic amenities (water, food, housing etc) are not damaged or depleted, and instead that these resources (including soil, land, forests, mangroves etc) are rehabilitated and improved. The rights of the communities should be recognised and respected.
-- At the international level, systems and mechanisms should be established or strengthened for developed countries to support and enable developing countries. These would include the provision of adequate financing, and through appropriate financial mechanisms; and technology transfer, which includes the promotion of endogenous environmentally-sound technology in developing countries.
-- Reforms and improvements in the global economic frameworks, structures and processes with the view to enable and support developing countries in the transition to sustainable development processes and models. Reviews and reforms in trade rules (multilateral rules as well as regional and bilateral FTAs) are required, for example, in the areas of reducing developed countries' agricultural subsidies, reviewing industrial subsidies to enable developing countries to promote environmentally-sound practices or products such as renewable energy, establishing appropriate intellectual property rules that enable access to environmental technologies at affordable cost, etc. On finance, mechanisms for the provision of adequate and appropriate types of financing to developing countries for sustainable development policies and measures should be established.
On the other hand, there are risks that the promotion of the “green economy” concept may give rise of unhelpful or negative developments, and these must be avoided.
The first risk is that the “green economy” is defined or operationalised in a one-dimensional manner, taken out of its being embedded in the sustainable development framework, and promoted in a purely “environmental” manner (without considering fully the development and equity dimensions) and without consideration of the international dimension, especially its negative effects on developing countries. The Rio Plus 20 process should be safeguarded against this.
The second risk is that a “one size fits all” approach is taken, in treating all countries in the same manner. This would lead to failures either for environment, development or both. The levels and stages of development of countries must be fully considered.
The third risk is that the “green economy” is inappropriately made use of by countries for trade protectionist purposes, and that in particular developed countries may use this as a principle or concept to justify unilateral trade measures against the products of developing countries. One example is the proposed “carbon tariff” or “border adjustment tax” to be imposed to products, on the ground that they generated higher emissions during the production process than the products of the importing countries. This would tend to penalise developing countries that do not financial resources or technical access to low-emission technologies, and thus violate the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Another potential problem is the adoption of environmental standards for products; developing countries that are unable to meet the standards face the prospect of losing their exports. The approach towards developing countries should be to provide resources and technology for upgrading their environmental technology and standards, and not to penalise them.
A fourth risk is that the “green economy” is used as new conditionality on developing countries for aid, loans, and debt rescheduling or debt relief. This may pressurise affected developing countries to take on one-dimensional environmental measures rather than sustainable development policies that take economic and social development and equity goals into account.
Another major issue in considering the “green economy” is the role of the pubic sector, the role of the private sector and the use of regulatory mechanisms and market and mechanisms. There is a long and large debate on this issue. Many believe that the environmental crisis is a result and sign of “market failure”, that the private sector and markets left to themselves would generate the resource exploitation and depletion, pollution and Greenhouse Gas emissions that have led to the environmental crisis.
Thus, regulation of the private sector, especially the large companies, is important. Regulatory mechanisms such as limits to pollution and emissions, pesticides in food, water contamination, and use of environmental taxes and fines, are thus seen as crucial policy instruments, that should be major or central components to promoting the “green economy”.
However, there is also an increasing trend instead of creating and relying on “markets” whereby companies (and countries) can pollute beyond their assigned limit by buying pollution or emission certificates from other companies or countries. Such markets for buying and selling “pollution rights” is increasingly seen as an alternative to companies or countries having to take their own adequate action, and to pass the action on to others. There is an increasing body of criticisms about this trend, including the avoidance by developed countries and their companies from environmental action, the problems including fraudulent practices in the workings of these markets, the dangers to both the environment and to social development of turning Nature and natural resources into commodities, and dangers of creating new financial speculative instruments.
It should thus be recognised that while there is an interest in learning about the use of pricing mechanisms, taxes and payment for entrance of cars into urban centres, there is also a debate on the appropriateness and effects of the use of “markets” for pollution permits or for “offsetting” in the implementation of environmental commitments.
On a more general level, the role and importance of government policies, measures and actions on promoting environmental goals as well as sustainable development should be properly recognised with lessons to be transferred.
Finally, there are many challenges and obstacles facing developing countries in moving their economies to more environmentally friendly paths. On one hand this should not prevent the attempt to urgently incorporate environmental elements into economic development. On the other hand, the various obstacles should be identified and recognised and international cooperation measures should be taken to enable and support the sustainable development efforts. The conditions must be established that make it possible for countries, especially developing countries, to move towards a “green economy.” The main conditions and dimensions have been recognised in the negotiatioins that led to Rio 1992, and are well established in the Rio Principles and in Agenda 21. The treatment of the “green economy” in Rio Plus 20 should be be consistent with the sustainable development concept, principles and framework, and care should be taken that it does not detract or distract from “sustainable development”. Thus the “value added” to the Green Economy as contrasted to sustainable development should be identified.
Martin Khor, Executive Director, South Centre
Inter-sessional session on Rio Plus 20 (Panel on Green Economy), 10-11 Jan 2010
The “green economy” is not a concept that has yet to enjoy widespread agreement (among economists or environmentalists) nor an international consensus. It is an extremely complex concept and it is unlikely there can be a consensus on its meaning, use and usefulness and policy implications, in a short time. This is a brief note on some of the issues surrounding this term.
A “green economy” gives the impression of an economy that is environmentally-friendly, sensitive to the need to conserve natural resources, minimise pollution and emissions that damage the environment in the production process, and produces products and services the existence and consumption of which do not harm the environment.
The difficult questions are whether the attainment of such an economy constrains other aspects (including economic growth of poor countries, social development such as poverty eradication and job creation), how to identify and deal with the trade-offs; what are the appropriate combinations between these aspects and at different stages of development as well as stages in the state of the environment; what is the role of the state and regulation, and what is the appropriate way to address the market and private sector; how to build an economy that is more environmentally-friendly, and how to handle the transition from the present to the greener economy?
The Green Economy issue being discussed here must also be context specific, or specific to the framework in which it is being discussed. This context is the Rio Plus 20 conference, which is a follow up to Rio 1992. The green economy is thus not an academic idea for free brainstorming. It must be derived from and rooted in the spirit, objectives, principles and operationalising of UNCED 1992, and especially the Rio Principles and Agenda 21. This should be supplemented by the Rio Plus 10 conference.
The main framework of UNCED 1992, its related agreements (UNFCCC, CBD etc) and its follow-up processes is to place the environment together with development in a single context. This is a unique achievement which has to be preserved and advanced, and not detracted from or diverted from. The UNCED framework recognised and built in some of the key complexities:
-- It recognised the environmental crisis and the need for deep reform of production and consumption patterns. It recognised the sustainability principle, that present production should not compromise meeting the needs of the future. It recognised the precautionay principle.
-- It also also recognised the “right to development” and the development needs and priorities of economic growth in developing countries plus social development goals including poverty eradication, jobs creation, food, health, education, etc.
-- From the recognition of the above, the three pillars of “sustainable development” were accepted as environmental protection, economic development and social development.
-- It recognised the need not only for national action but also international policies and actions in understanding and addressing the issues, and that for developing countries national action must be supported by international policies and actions to enable implementation of sustainable development.
-- In this context it recognised that countries played different roles in contributing to the environmental crisis, that countries are at different stages of development, and that these must lead to key principles and have important implications for actions and for the international cooperation framework.
-- Out of this arose the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. It recognised that the major contribution to pollution (including Greenhouse Gas emissions) and resource depletion was by developed countries, and that developing countries are now disadvantaged because there is little “environmental space” left, which has implications for their future development. In practical terms, there should be a three-prong approach to achieving sustainable development: (1) The developed countries have to take the lead in changing production and consumption patterns (their economic model); (2) Developing countries would maintain their development goals but take on sustainable development methods and paths; (3) Developed countries commit to enable and support the developing countries' sustainable development through finance, technology transfer and appropriate reforms to the global economic and financial structures or practices (this is why there were chapters on finance, technology, trade, commodities etc in Agenda 21).
The “green economy” concept must thus placed integrally within this holistic framework of UNCED, the Rio Principles and Agenda 21. This framework also was the fundamental basis of the UNCED and CBD. The green economy should have as its basis the environmental imperative, the development imperative (economic dimension and social development) and the equity principle that links the environment and development dimensions. The green economy should thus be defined and operationalised in this EDE (environment, development, equity) framework, which must also incorporate both the national and international dimensions. Objectives, principles, policies, proposals, initiatives, on the green economy should be within this EDE framework and criteria.
There are ideas or policies for promoting the green economy in the sustainable development context, and there are policies to avoid so that the “green economy” does not get a bad name.
The positive aspects of the green economy that should be examined include:
-- Recognising the economic and social value of the environment, that conserving resources such as clean air, water, forests, mangroves etc have positive externalities which are valuable for meeting basic and human needs besides their intrinsic environmental worth. Conservation should thus be promoted, and the rehabilitation or replenishment of natural resources. However there should also be recognition of the opportunity cost of not “exploiting” or using up the resources. The short term usefulness of using Nature and the short and long term usefulness of conserving Nature (or making use of resources sustainably) should be both recognised and reconciled, and international support to developing countries in offsetting the opportunity costs is important.
-- Allowing prices to better reflect their environmental values, but keeping in mind also the development dimension, in guaranteeing access of the public (especially the poor) to basic amenities and basic livelihood opportunities. Subsidies that promote environmentally damaging activities or products should in general be minimised but with the condition that access of the poor to amenities is not affected. On the other hand, incentives (subsidies, access to credit, tax breaks, etc) should be given by developing countries to producers and consumers to promote good processes and products (renewable energy, organic food production and consumption, etc).
-- Recognising and promoting the link between small producers and communities especially in rural
areas and the environment, and policies to ensure that the resources that form the base of their livelihoods and their basic amenities (water, food, housing etc) are not damaged or depleted, and instead that these resources (including soil, land, forests, mangroves etc) are rehabilitated and improved. The rights of the communities should be recognised and respected.
-- At the international level, systems and mechanisms should be established or strengthened for developed countries to support and enable developing countries. These would include the provision of adequate financing, and through appropriate financial mechanisms; and technology transfer, which includes the promotion of endogenous environmentally-sound technology in developing countries.
-- Reforms and improvements in the global economic frameworks, structures and processes with the view to enable and support developing countries in the transition to sustainable development processes and models. Reviews and reforms in trade rules (multilateral rules as well as regional and bilateral FTAs) are required, for example, in the areas of reducing developed countries' agricultural subsidies, reviewing industrial subsidies to enable developing countries to promote environmentally-sound practices or products such as renewable energy, establishing appropriate intellectual property rules that enable access to environmental technologies at affordable cost, etc. On finance, mechanisms for the provision of adequate and appropriate types of financing to developing countries for sustainable development policies and measures should be established.
On the other hand, there are risks that the promotion of the “green economy” concept may give rise of unhelpful or negative developments, and these must be avoided.
The first risk is that the “green economy” is defined or operationalised in a one-dimensional manner, taken out of its being embedded in the sustainable development framework, and promoted in a purely “environmental” manner (without considering fully the development and equity dimensions) and without consideration of the international dimension, especially its negative effects on developing countries. The Rio Plus 20 process should be safeguarded against this.
The second risk is that a “one size fits all” approach is taken, in treating all countries in the same manner. This would lead to failures either for environment, development or both. The levels and stages of development of countries must be fully considered.
The third risk is that the “green economy” is inappropriately made use of by countries for trade protectionist purposes, and that in particular developed countries may use this as a principle or concept to justify unilateral trade measures against the products of developing countries. One example is the proposed “carbon tariff” or “border adjustment tax” to be imposed to products, on the ground that they generated higher emissions during the production process than the products of the importing countries. This would tend to penalise developing countries that do not financial resources or technical access to low-emission technologies, and thus violate the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
Another potential problem is the adoption of environmental standards for products; developing countries that are unable to meet the standards face the prospect of losing their exports. The approach towards developing countries should be to provide resources and technology for upgrading their environmental technology and standards, and not to penalise them.
A fourth risk is that the “green economy” is used as new conditionality on developing countries for aid, loans, and debt rescheduling or debt relief. This may pressurise affected developing countries to take on one-dimensional environmental measures rather than sustainable development policies that take economic and social development and equity goals into account.
Another major issue in considering the “green economy” is the role of the pubic sector, the role of the private sector and the use of regulatory mechanisms and market and mechanisms. There is a long and large debate on this issue. Many believe that the environmental crisis is a result and sign of “market failure”, that the private sector and markets left to themselves would generate the resource exploitation and depletion, pollution and Greenhouse Gas emissions that have led to the environmental crisis.
Thus, regulation of the private sector, especially the large companies, is important. Regulatory mechanisms such as limits to pollution and emissions, pesticides in food, water contamination, and use of environmental taxes and fines, are thus seen as crucial policy instruments, that should be major or central components to promoting the “green economy”.
However, there is also an increasing trend instead of creating and relying on “markets” whereby companies (and countries) can pollute beyond their assigned limit by buying pollution or emission certificates from other companies or countries. Such markets for buying and selling “pollution rights” is increasingly seen as an alternative to companies or countries having to take their own adequate action, and to pass the action on to others. There is an increasing body of criticisms about this trend, including the avoidance by developed countries and their companies from environmental action, the problems including fraudulent practices in the workings of these markets, the dangers to both the environment and to social development of turning Nature and natural resources into commodities, and dangers of creating new financial speculative instruments.
It should thus be recognised that while there is an interest in learning about the use of pricing mechanisms, taxes and payment for entrance of cars into urban centres, there is also a debate on the appropriateness and effects of the use of “markets” for pollution permits or for “offsetting” in the implementation of environmental commitments.
On a more general level, the role and importance of government policies, measures and actions on promoting environmental goals as well as sustainable development should be properly recognised with lessons to be transferred.
Finally, there are many challenges and obstacles facing developing countries in moving their economies to more environmentally friendly paths. On one hand this should not prevent the attempt to urgently incorporate environmental elements into economic development. On the other hand, the various obstacles should be identified and recognised and international cooperation measures should be taken to enable and support the sustainable development efforts. The conditions must be established that make it possible for countries, especially developing countries, to move towards a “green economy.” The main conditions and dimensions have been recognised in the negotiatioins that led to Rio 1992, and are well established in the Rio Principles and in Agenda 21. The treatment of the “green economy” in Rio Plus 20 should be be consistent with the sustainable development concept, principles and framework, and care should be taken that it does not detract or distract from “sustainable development”. Thus the “value added” to the Green Economy as contrasted to sustainable development should be identified.
10_steps_to_the_10yfp_on_scp_-_by_jeffrey_barber.pdf | |
File Size: | 789 kb |
File Type: |
Ten Steps to the 10YFP
A suggested navigation guide
by Jeffrey Barber
(A contribution to the SCP Intersessional meeting, 13-14 January 20011, Panama City)
(The full version with graphics is in the above PDF document)
This paper presents a “ten step” approach to developing the 10 Year Framework of Programs (10YFP) based on discussions that have taken place among civil society organizations (CSOs) since the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and in particular building upon discussions evolving from the 2007 NGO Forum at the 3rd International Experts Meeting on the 10YFP in Stockholm. After almost ten years of discussing the possibilities, it is time to start building.
Reversing the trends
One key recommendation[1] of the NGO Forum was that the overall goal of the10YFP needed to be “reversal of the worsening social and ecological trends” highlighted at the World Summit. This goal and challenge would give functional meaning to the undefined “overarching objective” of “changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns” since these trends are the consequence of those “patterns” and relentlessly continue today.
Commitment by governments, business and civil society to this goal of “reversing the trends” represents an important starting point for developing a meaningful 10YFP. The 10YFP effort could then position itself within the broader landscape of efforts to address climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger, poverty and livelihood, water scarcity and other trends which are largely driven by production and consumption patterns.
An important contribution the 10YFP can make in the coming decade is highlighting the specific production and consumption patterns at the root of these global problems. By encouraging partnerships and collaboration among the many thousands of initiatives implementing or advocating action strategies and policies, the 10YFP can enable and help mobilize a wide range of practices targeting specific production and/or consumption patterns in each region and sector.
A ten step plan to produce the 10YFP
These ten steps move through two basic stages. The first stage involves a progression of six critical activities that can establish a solid foundation upon which to build the framework. This foundation building begins with identification of the specific trends resulting from unsustainable production/consumption, to be targeted and monitored in the next ten years and ends with an assessment of the specific needs of those engaged in the various initiatives in each region addressing the underlying roots of those trends.
The second stage involves building and launching the framework. This stage involves four steps, beginning with bringing together people and organizations with specific expertise and resources to establishing a council-type body to share information and coordinate activities among program partnerships involved.
Establishing a foundation
Establishing a foundation involves activities needed to maintain a practical context upon which to build and operate the 10-year programs and framework. Much of this foundational work is already being done, but the information needs to be consolidated into a functional frame of reference serving the 10YF programs
1. Identify and monitor the trends
Given a strong commitment to reversing the worsening social and ecological trends, the first step is to agree upon which trends should be the base-line reference for assessing overall progress. This analysis and monitoring of key trends from before 1992 to those projected for the coming decade, provides an overall context to position the rest of the activities of the 10YPF. Those organizations, agencies and researchers already involved in global and trend analysis should be invited as partners in this ongoing activity.
2. Define the targets
Each major trend – climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger, fresh water scarcity, poverty, pollution – tends to be linked with internationally established policy targets. In some cases there are disagreements on the targets. These targets need to be integrated into the 10YFP’s vision for the coming decade. This means building linkages between the work of the 10YF programs and the work in these international policy processes (e.g., CBD, IPCC, MDG).
3. Identify the drivers
For each trend and target there needs to be a clear identification of the underlying production/consumption patterns driving them. This attention to the roots of the problem, not just the symptoms and impacts, is one of the most important contributions of the sustainable production and consumption approach and should be highlighted.
Much of this analysis has already or is currently being done, but it needs be consolidated and presented in a systematic way. The 10YFP can provide a point of integration for this research, framing this knowledge for the 10YF and its programs.
4. Specify the strategies, policies and practices
The next step is to specify the kind of actions needed to change the production/consumption patterns driving each trend. Again, much of this analysis has been done. Over the years researchers and practitioners have reported and listed the many strategies, policies, regulations, and practices addressing different production and consumption patterns. This step is a bit more ambitious, drawing upon and integrating current knowledge of strategies and practices addressing each of the trends and production/consumption drivers, configuring this knowledge for practical use by the community of partners in the 10YFP.
5. Survey and map the initiatives
To effectively support the various initiatives and organizations putting these strategies and policies into practice, there needs to be a survey and mapping of the different types and kinds of initiatives and communities of practice operating in each region. There are most likely thousands of groups and initiatives working individually and in networks and communities to accelerate the shift.
This mapping effort is a very different approach from the more common identification of a few “best practices” to highlight and emulate. The 10YFP should not select a small circle of familiar favorites close to the UN agencies, but to encourage and serve the wide movement of efforts operating and often struggling within each region. Regional UN offices and regional organizations and networks as well as individual country governments can help with this mapping exercise, as well as promote cooperation among those groups and initiatives.
6. Assess needs of initiatives
10YFP partners need to build a continually growing knowledge of initiatives and communities of practice, and to better understand what kinds of practical support they need. This needs assessment can take place through dialogues, research, consultations and the ongoing accumulation of information and experienced gathered through the 10YF programs.
Building and implementing the framework
The second stage is the work of building the framework. This involves four steps moving from the development of programs to developing and implementing institutional structure to coordinate among and maintain the necessary supportive interfaces with the UN and stakeholders.
7. Bring together expertise/resources
The 10YFP needs to draw upon the growing community of practitioners, researchers, educators and others around the world with expertise, knowledge and resources. This is the basis for the working relationships and partnerships that is the substance of the 10YFP.
8. Launch program partnerships
At the heart of the 10YF mandate is a cluster of programs to provide “support to the national and regional initiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production.”
Thus, the framework needs to include a set of secondary “core” supportive programs that respond to the needs of those primary programs and initiatives directly engaged on the ground in different regions, sectors and communities.
Unfortunately there exists a lot of confusion in the terminology regarding the difference between “programs” and “initiatives,” which in the JPOI referred to two different things. The core programs are presumably global activities which created to support the various initiatives that are more directly engaged in changing production/consumption patterns. However, this distinction has become blurred in in recent discussions, as illustrated in the Annex of “SCP Programmes/Initiatives submitted by Member States, Agencies, and Major Groups.”
Hopefully the meeting in Panama will clarify this distinction between the core programs providing supportive infrastructure services (e.g., research, indicators, funding) and the initiatives and “programs” by communities of practice engaged in direct change efforts.
Many of the research and analysis activities of the foundation-building stage could be considered core infrastructure programs. Many of these programs were identified and highlighted at the 2007 NGO Forum and in later discussions, such as:
§ Global SPC research
§ Mapping the movement of SPC initiatives
§ Financing SCP
§ Measuring progress
§ Information clearinghouse
§ Multi-stakeholder dialogue
§ Global trend analysis
§ Monitoring and evaluation
§ Public communications
§ Education support
One particular quality of programs to be encouraged in the 10YFP is partnership among operational consortia of organizations, agencies and individuals, ideally representing a range of stakeholder groups. This partnership approach has been stressed especially by many civil society organizations as well as governments, and has been especially encouraged by the UN. The UN Partnership Program provides a supportive vehicle to help the 10YF develop and promote its programs.
9. Develop community of partnerships
The global movement to change production and consumption patterns is not directed from the top down or by any central organization and plan. This movement has already begun and is taking shape in thousands of different places and shapes and described in many different names. Likewise, this movement does not need the UN to lead and direct it, but to acknowledge, encourage and support it where it can. If there is common agreement that the UN’s role is not to act as the leader and center of this movement, but instead to support the efforts of those involved, to act instead as a partner, this point needs to be made clear, avoiding unnecessary conflicts.
To be most effective the 10 Year Framework of Programs needs to be a cooperative partnership among UN agencies, governments, civil society and private sector that through next decade will encourage, support and help enable the many thousands of initiatives around the world – initiatives now active or emerging at the local, national, regional and global levels to change production and consumption patterns.
The most effective framework will not be simply another UN program involving a circle of UN-focused organizations, but rather a community of partnerships reaching beyond the UN community, linking those at the top levels of institutional governance and policy with those on the ground doing the primary work. The structure will, however, not resemble a pyramid but a sphere of interconnecting links.
The thinking and language of the “10YFP” also needs to shift to consider those outside the familiar UN circle who do not understand or relate to insider UN terminology such as “major groups,” “10YFP,” “Marrakech Process,” or even “SCP.” A broader, more sensitive approach is needed which takes into account the different perspectives and language of those communities of practice which the framework seeks to serve or involve as active partners.
10. Establish partnership council
In contrast to the scenario of the administration of the 10YFP falling under a particular UN agency, giving directives to the various programs, we might consider a more parliamentary-type structure involving representatives from each program partnership as members of a partnership council that tracks and coordinates information on program activities and progress, which in turn provides reports to the public and UN.
Each participating program/partnership would designate a focal point responsible for communicating and coordinating with the other partnership programs and with the UN agencies, which would also have a place on the council. The research programs charged with monitoring and assessing the trends, impacts on production/consumption patterns, and activities of the initiatives and programs, would provide an important feed-back role for the Council and the 10YFP in general.
[1] NGO Recommendations to the Third International Expert Meeting on the 10 Year Framework on Sustainable Consumption and Consumption, NGO Forum, Stockholm, Sweden (26-29 June 2007). http://www.icspac.net/documents/FinalNGOrecommendationsStockholm.doc
(Mr. Jeffrey Barber is the Director of Intergrative Strategies Forum in USA. For further information pl contact [email protected])