In its Contribution to the Zero Draft of the Rio+20 outcome document, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability (an association of over 1220 local government Members who are committed to sustainable development with members from 70 different countries and representing more than 569,885,000 people) calls for a UN Decade of Sustainable Urbanization to raise awareness, create synergies and to share solutions and good practices.
In ICLEI’s view, the world does not need another declaration. If Rio+20 is to be a worthwhile multilateral conference justifying the enormous financial and human resources invested in it, Heads of States and Governments have to be personally involved in jointly deciding upon and presenting concrete actions.
ICLEI therefore sees greening the “urban” economies as an essential part of the global transition to a green economy. Local Government Organisations (LGOs) such as ICLEI can draw upon the vast implementation capacity of cities around the world, thus tapping into a large potential for green economy transitions. A green urban economy realizes opportunities to enhance human well-being and local natural resources, while reducing future costs, ecological scarcities and environmental risks.
According to ICLEI, the common conceptualization of sustainable development as having three pillars – social, economic and environmental – is misleading. While there is an interconnection between the three spheres, ICLEI doubts that they can be seen as equal and the concept of “harmony” between them is solid. Why should humans and their societies, and why should the environment be brought in harmony with the
economy?
ICLEI sees the economy as a servicing system, not as an end in itself. The economy is dependent upon productive and functioning natural resources and ecosystem services, which it processes into products and services for people. It is thus the mechanism between nature and humans. It must ideally use as little natural resources as possible to enable as many people as possible to live well. With an increasing global population and finite natural resources, this is essential in order to secure decent livelihoods for all human beings now and in future. The way the economy works – whether wasteful or efficient, whether polluting or clean, whether exploitative or just – determines the extent of sustainability of our civilization.
The need for Sustainable Development Goals
ICLEI supports that one central outcome of Rio+20 should be Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the framework and goal set for action until 2050:
- SDGs must ensure that in 2050 all 9 billion people will be able to live within the planetary boundaries with decent living conditions. Continuing with a business-as-usual approach will lead to a dearth of natural resources and the possibility of conflict over scarce remaining natural resources. This threat must be addressed decisively and immediately.
- SDGs should be based on scientific evidence and expertise, particularly regarding current assessments and projections for 2050 under business-as-usual and other models, as well as analyzing which actions now would lead to which revision of trends.
- SDGs should be quantifiable, measurable, reportable and verifiable.
- SDGs must address urbanization and its impacts on sustainable development of all societies on this planet. Urbanization trends are interlinked with most of current key challenges such as poverty and resource scarcity exacerbated by climate change, biodiversity loss and globalization.
- SDGs must include clear targets for global sustainable development standards to be met jointly by all actors. It should also set up a centralized registry of commitments that keeps track of which country or institution has agreed to do what, and the extent to which that commitment has been fulfilled.
- Local Governments and Local Government Organizations (LGOs) such as ICLEI will be crucial for successful implementation of SDGs and should be included in relevant global decisions on the definition of SDGs. Discussions on SDGs and governance should be interlinked, since good sustainable development governance at global, national and local level will be crucial for the successful implementation of the SDGs.
- SDGs should be clearly linked to and seen in conjunction with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Towards a green and sustainable economy: beyond GDP
When considering the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, it is not a question of environmental protection or economic growth, but rather a structurally and qualitatively different type of economic growth which values the finite natural resources the economy relies upon. This is the idea behind green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. After the financial and economic crises the world has undergone in the past years, we must once more realize that the current global economic model is unsustainable.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most widely used metric of the economic performance of a country. However, it is now widely recognized that GDP is an inadequate measure of social progress: measuring efforts and not results, focusing only on quantity of expenditure and not quality, masking inequalities, and disregarding the value of natural capital.
Developing a more comprehensive indicator would allow for more nuanced performance measurement. The Human Development Index (HDI) and other alternatives have existed for a long time. More recently Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index and the OECD’s Better Life Index among others have also gained some recognition. ICLEI welcomes and supports the recent efforts made to seek more nuanced measurement of performance and considers it possible to move to a better indicator of national well-being than GDP.
ICLEI expects the Rio+20 Conference to take a decision to generally introduce a new performance measurement framework for countries and their economies.
ICLEI demands that such improved indicator(s) should allow for being translated into locally used indicators as part of a coherent global monitoring and evaluation framework for globally and nationally agreed targets.
As part of the transition to a green economy, ICLEI requests that existing ideas such as the internalization of costs and the ‘polluter pays’ principle must finally be fully implemented. In addition, ICLEI proposes the introduction of a new principle, the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle, for the sake of inter-generational justice: those actors of the current generation who use and benefit from the use of resources or natural capital have to bear the full costs. In the energy sector, for example, energy prices from diverse sources would be extremely different under the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle. Since the current use of fossil fuel both depletes finite resources and pollutes the planet for future generations, a fairer price for the long-term effects of that which benefits us today should be levied.
Source
Friday, November 4, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Green Economy Generates Trade Concerns in Run-Up to Rio+20
Participants in recent regional meetings paving the way for the Rio+20 Conference next June are struggling to find agreement on the concept of a “green economy.” While some see a redefinition of the economy in green terms as a path toward sustainable development, others fear the concept is synonymous with green trade protectionism and conditionalities - to the point where participants at one regional meeting chose not to mention the green economy in their meeting conclusions.
In the past six weeks, there have been four of the Regional Preparatory meetings for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), or Rio+20, which is taking place from 4-6 June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro. The Rio+20 Conference marks the twentieth anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
The conference’s objective is to secure renewed commitment for sustainable development and meet new and emerging challenges by focusing on two themes: the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and the institutional framework for sustainable development.
The preparatory meeting for the Latin America and Caribbean Region took place from 7-9 September in Santiago, Chile; for the Arab Region from 16-17 October in Cairo, Egypt; for the Asia and the Pacific Region from 19-20 October in Seoul, Korea; and for the African Region from 20-25 October in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
During the four regional preparatory meetings, the challenges with regard to the green economy as a Rio+20 theme cut across regions. The definition of the green economy came under challenge from a number of national delegations, with many wanting clearer answers before committing themselves. This was largely blamed on a lack of an internationally-agreed definition of the term “green economy.”
Most clear, however, was the across-the-board insistence that the transition to a green economy must rule out any possible restrictions to trade.
Latin America, Caribbean Sceptical
At the Latin America and Caribbean meeting last month, many delegations were sceptical of the utility of the green economy as a means of promoting sustainable development. Reiterating many familiar positions and concerns, some delegates questioned whether the green economy could potentially be used to justify the imposition of trade conditionalities on the basis of environmental standards as well as protectionist measures to insulate countries’ own green industries.
Some delegates specifically questioned how complementary previously-stated development goals under the WTO’s Doha Round of trade talks - especially with regards to special and differential treatment for developing economies - are with the implementation of the green economy.
Sources at the meeting told BioRes that even Brazil, the host of Rio+20, distanced itself from the green economy by shifting the discussion away from an attempt to clearly define the term, choosing instead to focus on sustainable development in the hope for more agreement.
These positions were translated into the official conclusion of the meeting, where no mention was made of the green economy.
Defining a green economy
The discussion of green economy also featured towards the end of the Arab Region preparatory meeting. As a concept, delegates converged around it being a possible “tool” of sustainable development, rather than replacing sustainable development.
Given the recent social upheavals occurring in the region, the discussion focused on some of the causes of this unrest. Pinpointing unemployment and poverty, participants suggested that the social side of sustainable development be brought to the fore at the Rio+20 Conference.
The Arab preparatory meeting ended with a set of recommendations on the green economy. These called for a clear definition, one that should not substitute sustainable development. The meeting also came up with a series of prescriptions of what the green economy should not be. These included, in particular, not allowing the green economy to become a means to limit the right of developing countries to utilise their natural resources, nor as a tool to exempt developed countries from their commitments in relation to their developing country partners.
The participants at the Asia and the Pacific meeting were reportedly more supportive of the green economy. However, given the strong export interests of the region, there were many who also voiced concerns regarding potential restrictions and conditionalities.
In the “Seoul Outcome” of the meeting, the green economy was firmly established as one of the means to achieve sustainable development within the limitations of national circumstances and stages of development.
Green economy in Africa
While delegates discussed similar issues as their counterparts in other regions during the official sessions of the preparatory meeting, they also looked more in-depth at the linkages between trade and the green economy during a side event in Addis Ababa dedicated to this topic.
Event participants examined challenges and opportunities related to the green economy in the African context, hearing both from economists and exporters that have developed green products. The participants highlighted significant opportunities for African countries in a green economy, such as exports of organic agricultural products, forestry, and other certified products. However, they also said measures such as environmental standards need to be examined further and harmonised.
Additionally, some stressed that green subsidies used as a driver of the green economy should be time-bound and implemented according to WTO rules. One of the biggest development challenges for Africa itself is the move away from exporting raw materials and moving up the value chain in a sustainable manner, participants stressed.
Source
In the past six weeks, there have been four of the Regional Preparatory meetings for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), or Rio+20, which is taking place from 4-6 June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro. The Rio+20 Conference marks the twentieth anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
The conference’s objective is to secure renewed commitment for sustainable development and meet new and emerging challenges by focusing on two themes: the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and the institutional framework for sustainable development.
The preparatory meeting for the Latin America and Caribbean Region took place from 7-9 September in Santiago, Chile; for the Arab Region from 16-17 October in Cairo, Egypt; for the Asia and the Pacific Region from 19-20 October in Seoul, Korea; and for the African Region from 20-25 October in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
During the four regional preparatory meetings, the challenges with regard to the green economy as a Rio+20 theme cut across regions. The definition of the green economy came under challenge from a number of national delegations, with many wanting clearer answers before committing themselves. This was largely blamed on a lack of an internationally-agreed definition of the term “green economy.”
Most clear, however, was the across-the-board insistence that the transition to a green economy must rule out any possible restrictions to trade.
Latin America, Caribbean Sceptical
At the Latin America and Caribbean meeting last month, many delegations were sceptical of the utility of the green economy as a means of promoting sustainable development. Reiterating many familiar positions and concerns, some delegates questioned whether the green economy could potentially be used to justify the imposition of trade conditionalities on the basis of environmental standards as well as protectionist measures to insulate countries’ own green industries.
Some delegates specifically questioned how complementary previously-stated development goals under the WTO’s Doha Round of trade talks - especially with regards to special and differential treatment for developing economies - are with the implementation of the green economy.
Sources at the meeting told BioRes that even Brazil, the host of Rio+20, distanced itself from the green economy by shifting the discussion away from an attempt to clearly define the term, choosing instead to focus on sustainable development in the hope for more agreement.
These positions were translated into the official conclusion of the meeting, where no mention was made of the green economy.
Defining a green economy
The discussion of green economy also featured towards the end of the Arab Region preparatory meeting. As a concept, delegates converged around it being a possible “tool” of sustainable development, rather than replacing sustainable development.
Given the recent social upheavals occurring in the region, the discussion focused on some of the causes of this unrest. Pinpointing unemployment and poverty, participants suggested that the social side of sustainable development be brought to the fore at the Rio+20 Conference.
The Arab preparatory meeting ended with a set of recommendations on the green economy. These called for a clear definition, one that should not substitute sustainable development. The meeting also came up with a series of prescriptions of what the green economy should not be. These included, in particular, not allowing the green economy to become a means to limit the right of developing countries to utilise their natural resources, nor as a tool to exempt developed countries from their commitments in relation to their developing country partners.
The participants at the Asia and the Pacific meeting were reportedly more supportive of the green economy. However, given the strong export interests of the region, there were many who also voiced concerns regarding potential restrictions and conditionalities.
In the “Seoul Outcome” of the meeting, the green economy was firmly established as one of the means to achieve sustainable development within the limitations of national circumstances and stages of development.
Green economy in Africa
While delegates discussed similar issues as their counterparts in other regions during the official sessions of the preparatory meeting, they also looked more in-depth at the linkages between trade and the green economy during a side event in Addis Ababa dedicated to this topic.
Event participants examined challenges and opportunities related to the green economy in the African context, hearing both from economists and exporters that have developed green products. The participants highlighted significant opportunities for African countries in a green economy, such as exports of organic agricultural products, forestry, and other certified products. However, they also said measures such as environmental standards need to be examined further and harmonised.
Additionally, some stressed that green subsidies used as a driver of the green economy should be time-bound and implemented according to WTO rules. One of the biggest development challenges for Africa itself is the move away from exporting raw materials and moving up the value chain in a sustainable manner, participants stressed.
Source
Canadian Earth Summit Coalition: Green economy should not replace sustainable development
The Canadian Earth Summit Coalition expects that the UN Conference on Sustainable Development will lead to A green economies’ roadmap that sets out clear, mutually-agreed upon sustainable development goals and targets (to complement and build on the Millennium Development Goals) accompanied by a timeline to undertake the great global transition to sustainability.
The Canadian Earth Summit Coalition puts forth the following specific remarks on the green economy:
-The concept of the “green economy” should not replace “sustainable development”; although greening economies plays an important role in achieving sustainable development, current definitions of a green economy ignore or gloss over the central questions of fairness, social justice and the rights of both humans and non-humans.
-The overarching goal of the green economy should be defined in the context of sustainable patterns of consumption and production that are built on a fair and socially just economic system that meets the needs of all people and respects animal welfare within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet.
A green economy calls us to:
-Make sustainability a political priority
-Think in terms of systems, and act on the high leverage points (structures and mindsets)
-Develop a bold, new economic vision that plans for the long term and provides for future
Generations
-Live within safe ecological margins, and redefine our relationship to the natural world and to
each other
-Address unjust disparities of wealth and income
-Prioritize meeting the needs of the world’s poor (in both high- and low-income countries) while simultaneously reducing the unsustainable Ecological Footprint of the world’s rich along a global framework of ‘contraction and convergence’
-Redefine prosperity in more than simply economic and consumptive terms, and adopt new measures of progress and wellbeing
-Recognize that a country cannot “go at it alone”, and that reciprocity and cooperation is a key pillar of global wellbeing
Read the Canadian Earth Summit Coalition Input for Zero Draft compilation document from here
The Canadian Earth Summit Coalition puts forth the following specific remarks on the green economy:
-The concept of the “green economy” should not replace “sustainable development”; although greening economies plays an important role in achieving sustainable development, current definitions of a green economy ignore or gloss over the central questions of fairness, social justice and the rights of both humans and non-humans.
-The overarching goal of the green economy should be defined in the context of sustainable patterns of consumption and production that are built on a fair and socially just economic system that meets the needs of all people and respects animal welfare within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet.
A green economy calls us to:
-Make sustainability a political priority
-Think in terms of systems, and act on the high leverage points (structures and mindsets)
-Develop a bold, new economic vision that plans for the long term and provides for future
Generations
-Live within safe ecological margins, and redefine our relationship to the natural world and to
each other
-Address unjust disparities of wealth and income
-Prioritize meeting the needs of the world’s poor (in both high- and low-income countries) while simultaneously reducing the unsustainable Ecological Footprint of the world’s rich along a global framework of ‘contraction and convergence’
-Redefine prosperity in more than simply economic and consumptive terms, and adopt new measures of progress and wellbeing
-Recognize that a country cannot “go at it alone”, and that reciprocity and cooperation is a key pillar of global wellbeing
Read the Canadian Earth Summit Coalition Input for Zero Draft compilation document from here
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Consumption International calls on Rio+20 to implement UN guidelines on sustainable consumption
By Consumers International
Consumers International (CI) has joined a host of other NGOs, coalitions and pressure groups in submitting its recommendations on sustainable development to Rio+20. This 'Zero Draft' consultation is viewed by many as a key part in the processes of influencing any agreement that can be reached at next June's UN Earth Summit in Rio.
Drawing on two decades of work of sustainable development, CI is calling on the Rio+20 process to put consumers and consumption patterns at the heart of decision-making on sustainable development.
CI believes the rights and responsibilities of consumers can and must play a pivotal role in making this great leap to a sustainable future. What and how we consume must be a cornerstone of the transition to a green economy that puts human well-being and social equity at its heart, while progressively reducing our individual and collective impact on the environment.
To this end, CI wants to see the following agreed at Rio+20:
1. An explicit commitment to measures that will support sustainable consumption, including the full implementation of section G of the UN guidelines for consumer protection.
Secured by CI in 1999, section G of the UN guidelines remains a key principle of the consumer movements fight for more sustainable modes of production and consumption:
"Governments, in partnership with business and relevant organizations of civil society, should develop and implement strategies that promote sustainable consumption through a mix of policies that could include regulations; economic and social instruments; sectorial policies in such areas as land use, transport, energy, and housing; information programmes to raise awareness of the impact of consumption patterns; removal of subsidies that promote unsustainable patterns of consumption and production; and promotion of sector-specific environmental management best practices".
2. Support for, and endorsement of, an ambitious 10-Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on Sustainable Consumption and Production.
In 2002, governments at the Johannesburg summit called for the development of a 10-year framework of programmes in support of regional and national initiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable patterns of consumption and production. CI has been working as part of the Marrakech Process on developing the framework and now wants to see the programme implemented in a systematic and integrated manner with the proper involvement of national consumer organisations.
Read the full CI submission from here
Consumers International (CI) has joined a host of other NGOs, coalitions and pressure groups in submitting its recommendations on sustainable development to Rio+20. This 'Zero Draft' consultation is viewed by many as a key part in the processes of influencing any agreement that can be reached at next June's UN Earth Summit in Rio.
Drawing on two decades of work of sustainable development, CI is calling on the Rio+20 process to put consumers and consumption patterns at the heart of decision-making on sustainable development.
CI believes the rights and responsibilities of consumers can and must play a pivotal role in making this great leap to a sustainable future. What and how we consume must be a cornerstone of the transition to a green economy that puts human well-being and social equity at its heart, while progressively reducing our individual and collective impact on the environment.
To this end, CI wants to see the following agreed at Rio+20:
1. An explicit commitment to measures that will support sustainable consumption, including the full implementation of section G of the UN guidelines for consumer protection.
Secured by CI in 1999, section G of the UN guidelines remains a key principle of the consumer movements fight for more sustainable modes of production and consumption:
"Governments, in partnership with business and relevant organizations of civil society, should develop and implement strategies that promote sustainable consumption through a mix of policies that could include regulations; economic and social instruments; sectorial policies in such areas as land use, transport, energy, and housing; information programmes to raise awareness of the impact of consumption patterns; removal of subsidies that promote unsustainable patterns of consumption and production; and promotion of sector-specific environmental management best practices".
2. Support for, and endorsement of, an ambitious 10-Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on Sustainable Consumption and Production.
In 2002, governments at the Johannesburg summit called for the development of a 10-year framework of programmes in support of regional and national initiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable patterns of consumption and production. CI has been working as part of the Marrakech Process on developing the framework and now wants to see the programme implemented in a systematic and integrated manner with the proper involvement of national consumer organisations.
Read the full CI submission from here
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Africa Regional Meeting Prepares Africa Consensus Statement to Rio+20
By IISD Reporting Services
The UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20) Africa Regional Preparatory Meeting was organized by UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the African Union (AU). Participants deliberated on the themes and objectives of Rio+20, agreed on a consensus statement and adopted a draft resolution on Africa’s effective participation at Rio+20.
The meeting convened in conjunction with seventh session of the Committee on Food Security and Sustainable Development (CFSSD-7), and took place from 20-25 October 2011, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Over 250 delegates from member States, regional and subregional organizations, UN agencies, Major Groups and intergovernmental organizations attended the meeting. Delegates participated in the Expert Segment and CFSSD-7 from 20-22 October. The Ministerial Segment convened from 24-25 October 2011.
During the Expert Segment, delegates discussed progress in implementing the Food Security and Sustainable Development (FSSD) work plan for the biennium 2010/2011, heard progress reports on implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the development of strategic agricultural commodity value chains, and food security in Africa.
As part of the Africa regional preparatory process, delegates considered the Africa Regional Review Report for Rio+20 as well as the Africa reports on: New and emerging challenges; Green economy in the context of sustainable development; Institutional and strategic frameworks for sustainable development (IFSD); International Environmental Governance (IEG); and Means of Implementation. An open-ended drafting group was established to deliberate on the Africa Consensus Statement to Rio+20, which met from Saturday, 21 October until Monday, 24 October. During the Ministerial Segment, delegates took part in policy dialogues on the themes of Rio+20, which contributed to the Consensus Statement.
Delegates engaged in lively discussions on the themes of Rio+20, with most participants agreeing on the need for strengthened IFSD. While there was some opposition to the idea of transforming the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) into a specialized agency, all participants agreed on the need to strengthen the organization.
Delegates supported the concept of green economy, with the caveat that it needs more definition. They agreed that transitioning to a green economy should not result in protectionism or trade conditionalities, there is a need for enabling environments, and sustainable land management should be a part of the green economy framework.
On means of implementation, delegates committed themselves to a number of objectives including ensuring improved environmental governance, transparency and accountability. They also called on the international community to meet existing commitments, such as the need to double aid to Africa.
Overall, there was strong agreement that a favorable outcome at Rio+20 for the African continent and ensuring that the relevant issues are addressed can only be achieved through speaking with “one” regional voice. As a result, delegates spent many hours deliberating over the consensus statement. There was some concern among delegates as to which organizations and initiatives form part of the sustainable development framework and what issues are hindering sustainable development progress. However, at the end of the day, the will to reach an agreement prevailed and ensured that the issues most pertinent to Africa were included in the consensus statement, which will be submitted to the Rio+20 Preparatory Committee.
Source
The UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20) Africa Regional Preparatory Meeting was organized by UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the African Union (AU). Participants deliberated on the themes and objectives of Rio+20, agreed on a consensus statement and adopted a draft resolution on Africa’s effective participation at Rio+20.
The meeting convened in conjunction with seventh session of the Committee on Food Security and Sustainable Development (CFSSD-7), and took place from 20-25 October 2011, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Over 250 delegates from member States, regional and subregional organizations, UN agencies, Major Groups and intergovernmental organizations attended the meeting. Delegates participated in the Expert Segment and CFSSD-7 from 20-22 October. The Ministerial Segment convened from 24-25 October 2011.
During the Expert Segment, delegates discussed progress in implementing the Food Security and Sustainable Development (FSSD) work plan for the biennium 2010/2011, heard progress reports on implementing the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the development of strategic agricultural commodity value chains, and food security in Africa.
As part of the Africa regional preparatory process, delegates considered the Africa Regional Review Report for Rio+20 as well as the Africa reports on: New and emerging challenges; Green economy in the context of sustainable development; Institutional and strategic frameworks for sustainable development (IFSD); International Environmental Governance (IEG); and Means of Implementation. An open-ended drafting group was established to deliberate on the Africa Consensus Statement to Rio+20, which met from Saturday, 21 October until Monday, 24 October. During the Ministerial Segment, delegates took part in policy dialogues on the themes of Rio+20, which contributed to the Consensus Statement.
Delegates engaged in lively discussions on the themes of Rio+20, with most participants agreeing on the need for strengthened IFSD. While there was some opposition to the idea of transforming the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) into a specialized agency, all participants agreed on the need to strengthen the organization.
Delegates supported the concept of green economy, with the caveat that it needs more definition. They agreed that transitioning to a green economy should not result in protectionism or trade conditionalities, there is a need for enabling environments, and sustainable land management should be a part of the green economy framework.
On means of implementation, delegates committed themselves to a number of objectives including ensuring improved environmental governance, transparency and accountability. They also called on the international community to meet existing commitments, such as the need to double aid to Africa.
Overall, there was strong agreement that a favorable outcome at Rio+20 for the African continent and ensuring that the relevant issues are addressed can only be achieved through speaking with “one” regional voice. As a result, delegates spent many hours deliberating over the consensus statement. There was some concern among delegates as to which organizations and initiatives form part of the sustainable development framework and what issues are hindering sustainable development progress. However, at the end of the day, the will to reach an agreement prevailed and ensured that the issues most pertinent to Africa were included in the consensus statement, which will be submitted to the Rio+20 Preparatory Committee.
Source
Solar-powered internet school set to benefit children in rural Africa
By David Smith, The Guardian (October 28, 2011)
Resilient mobile classroom incorporating laptops, video camera and electronic blackboard will work in areas without electricity
Their days of sitting in a ramshackle, sweltering school building, or taking lessons under the shade of a tree, could be about to change. Children in the farthest corners of rural Africa are the target of a mobile, solar-powered classroom that was launched in Johannesburg this week.
The classroom, built inside a 12-metre-long shipping container by electronics firm Samsung, has an array of gadgets including laptops, a video camera and a 50-inch e-board in place of a blackboard.
According to the manufacturers, the "solar powered internet school" can easily be carried by truck to remote areas, survive harsh weather conditions and, crucially, operate where there is no electricity supply.
Foldaway solar panels provide enough energy to power the classroom's equipment for up to nine hours a day, and for one and a half days without any sunlight at all. The panels are made from rubber instead of glass to ensure they are hardy enough to survive long journeys across the continent.
Samsung said: "Electricity remains Africa's largest economic challenge with the level of penetration lower than 25% in most rural areas.
"This lack of power isolates communities, and limits their access to education and information, both of which are key to fast-tracking a nation's development."
The classroom has space for 21 pupils and a teacher, and includes a ventilation system designed to maintain a "temperate environment".
It is fitted with a variety of computers including solar-powered laptops and tablets. It also has an energy-efficient fridge, a file server loaded with educational content, a router, a video camera and a "world first" Wi-Fi camera, all of which communicate via 3G.
This allows a central location, such as the department of education, to monitor classes and deliver curriculum-based content directly to the laptops of both pupils and staff.
If the best-laid plans are struck by a computer glitch, teachers can still use a regular built-in whiteboard and chalkboard.
The prototype is being piloted at the Samsung Electronics Engineering Academy in Boksburg, east of Johannesburg. It will then be sent to Qunu in the Eastern Cape to undergo further testing.
President and chief executive of Samsung Electronics Africa, KK Park, said: "We have set an ambitious goal for ourselves in Africa: to positively impact 5 million lives by 2015."
Source
Resilient mobile classroom incorporating laptops, video camera and electronic blackboard will work in areas without electricity
Their days of sitting in a ramshackle, sweltering school building, or taking lessons under the shade of a tree, could be about to change. Children in the farthest corners of rural Africa are the target of a mobile, solar-powered classroom that was launched in Johannesburg this week.
The classroom, built inside a 12-metre-long shipping container by electronics firm Samsung, has an array of gadgets including laptops, a video camera and a 50-inch e-board in place of a blackboard.
According to the manufacturers, the "solar powered internet school" can easily be carried by truck to remote areas, survive harsh weather conditions and, crucially, operate where there is no electricity supply.
Foldaway solar panels provide enough energy to power the classroom's equipment for up to nine hours a day, and for one and a half days without any sunlight at all. The panels are made from rubber instead of glass to ensure they are hardy enough to survive long journeys across the continent.
Samsung said: "Electricity remains Africa's largest economic challenge with the level of penetration lower than 25% in most rural areas.
"This lack of power isolates communities, and limits their access to education and information, both of which are key to fast-tracking a nation's development."
The classroom has space for 21 pupils and a teacher, and includes a ventilation system designed to maintain a "temperate environment".
It is fitted with a variety of computers including solar-powered laptops and tablets. It also has an energy-efficient fridge, a file server loaded with educational content, a router, a video camera and a "world first" Wi-Fi camera, all of which communicate via 3G.
This allows a central location, such as the department of education, to monitor classes and deliver curriculum-based content directly to the laptops of both pupils and staff.
If the best-laid plans are struck by a computer glitch, teachers can still use a regular built-in whiteboard and chalkboard.
The prototype is being piloted at the Samsung Electronics Engineering Academy in Boksburg, east of Johannesburg. It will then be sent to Qunu in the Eastern Cape to undergo further testing.
President and chief executive of Samsung Electronics Africa, KK Park, said: "We have set an ambitious goal for ourselves in Africa: to positively impact 5 million lives by 2015."
Source
Why the message from Rio+20 matters more than ever
By Paul Hohnen, The Guardian
George Bernard Shaw saw the world as divided into two sorts of people. Those who looked at it and asked "why?", and those (like himself) who dreamed of things that never were and asked "why not?"
On the road to Earth Summit 3, governments and others need to think very carefully about demographic issues: what people think about sustainable development and how they will react to the outcomes. Just as financial analysts scrutinise decisions by G20 and EU summits and make investment decisions accordingly, the decisions taken, or not taken, by the Rio+20 conference will matter hugely. Moreover, they will be received differently by different sorts of people.
Over the last 20-odd years working on sustainable development, I have identified at least five broad groups of people. (In reading the taxonomy below, try to identify where you and your friends sit.)
The first group might be described as the "clueless". They are more or less unaware of the major physical and ecosystem changes taking place and, as a result, aren't able to contribute much to the necessary responses. Poverty is one of the main causal factors, as is poor education. I continue to meet millennials from wealthy OECD countries who have not learned anything about sustainability at school or university. (I doubt whether there are any Guardian readers in this category!)
The second group are the "cynics". They know about the issue but don't believe there is a problem. The world is still full of whales and the ozone hole didn't kill anyone. If sustainability issues were important, governments would regulate. They readily point also to the power of markets to develop new technologies. ("Look how London's smog was cleaned up!") In any case, it's all the fault of China or India, so what can they do?
The third group are the "curious". They understand that profound changes are afoot, but often feel disempowered. How can the efforts of a single person or community make any difference in the great scheme of things? They are open to living more sustainably but need help to understand why, how and how much. Without this, they could easily slip into the ranks of the cynics. With it, they could become one of the "champions".
The champions group comprises people who are convinced that there is a need to act on sustainability issues. They do this in their daily lives in how they shop, work, support causes, speak out on issues, invest and vote. They understand that governments and business need to act, and do their best to send them signals, while living their own values as best they can in the meantime. Many champions feel increasingly frustrated by an economic and political system that continues to build up unsustainable economic and ecological debts, and fails to "join the dots".
The fifth group might be called the calamitists. This comprises a very different collection of people who have just one thing in common. This is the view that it is now too late to save the world from a major breakdown. Members of this disparate group include scientists knowledgeable about the earth's 4bn-year history to members of faith groups that believe it was created 6,000 years ago and that an apocalypse is preordained.
In my experience, it also includes a number of senior people in government and business and civil society, including some who will be sitting around the table at Rio.
My point here is not so much to promote a specific taxonomy but rather to recognise that – two decades after the first Earth Summit – there is a need for actions and messaging which take into account the complex psychological and sociological dimensions surrounding sustainability. It will certainly not help implementation of future sustainability policies, much less the solution of many of today's economic and social problems, if Rio+20 helps swell the ranks of the calamitists and cynics.
So what needs to be done?
The clueless, cynics and curious need to hear that we have very real and urgent problems, that governments are working on them with a sense of renewed vigour and purpose, and that they are an important part of the solution. They need guidance on concrete actions they can take to improve their lot, both in the short and long term. A more catchy vision of the future, embracing the notions that it is smart to be resource efficient and socially just, might be more successful than 'sustainable development' in capturing attention to the same agenda.
The champions, for their part, need to hear that their pioneering efforts have helped point to new policies, technologies, financial instruments and lifestyle approaches which now need to be shared more widely. They need to be encouraged to broaden and deepen their efforts, including through more effective use of business and social mechanisms to promote the availability and use of low-carbon and material-efficient products and services, and greater transparency and utility of related consumer and investor information. Governments can't and won't do everything.
All groups, including the calamitists, need to hear that the game is far from over and that their constructive ideas and efforts will be essential. The Occupy Wall Street movement is just a small and recent example of a powerful human self-defence instinct, which will increasingly focus attention on how sustainable and just the actions of governments and business are.
The calamitists, in particular, need to understand that the future is not yet written and that their dark vision will not be the basis of policy. While major disruptive change cannot be ruled out, and indeed needs to be planned for in many cases, a new world order is in the making.
While we cannot know what it will look like, its contours – as ever – will be defined by two things: the power of human imagination and the capacity of nature to provide the necessary foundations. Rio+20's job is to ensure those pillars are safeguarded as far as possible. In this new world, more than ever, we need those who, like Shaw, are prepared to ask "why not?"
Source
George Bernard Shaw saw the world as divided into two sorts of people. Those who looked at it and asked "why?", and those (like himself) who dreamed of things that never were and asked "why not?"
On the road to Earth Summit 3, governments and others need to think very carefully about demographic issues: what people think about sustainable development and how they will react to the outcomes. Just as financial analysts scrutinise decisions by G20 and EU summits and make investment decisions accordingly, the decisions taken, or not taken, by the Rio+20 conference will matter hugely. Moreover, they will be received differently by different sorts of people.
Over the last 20-odd years working on sustainable development, I have identified at least five broad groups of people. (In reading the taxonomy below, try to identify where you and your friends sit.)
The first group might be described as the "clueless". They are more or less unaware of the major physical and ecosystem changes taking place and, as a result, aren't able to contribute much to the necessary responses. Poverty is one of the main causal factors, as is poor education. I continue to meet millennials from wealthy OECD countries who have not learned anything about sustainability at school or university. (I doubt whether there are any Guardian readers in this category!)
The second group are the "cynics". They know about the issue but don't believe there is a problem. The world is still full of whales and the ozone hole didn't kill anyone. If sustainability issues were important, governments would regulate. They readily point also to the power of markets to develop new technologies. ("Look how London's smog was cleaned up!") In any case, it's all the fault of China or India, so what can they do?
The third group are the "curious". They understand that profound changes are afoot, but often feel disempowered. How can the efforts of a single person or community make any difference in the great scheme of things? They are open to living more sustainably but need help to understand why, how and how much. Without this, they could easily slip into the ranks of the cynics. With it, they could become one of the "champions".
The champions group comprises people who are convinced that there is a need to act on sustainability issues. They do this in their daily lives in how they shop, work, support causes, speak out on issues, invest and vote. They understand that governments and business need to act, and do their best to send them signals, while living their own values as best they can in the meantime. Many champions feel increasingly frustrated by an economic and political system that continues to build up unsustainable economic and ecological debts, and fails to "join the dots".
The fifth group might be called the calamitists. This comprises a very different collection of people who have just one thing in common. This is the view that it is now too late to save the world from a major breakdown. Members of this disparate group include scientists knowledgeable about the earth's 4bn-year history to members of faith groups that believe it was created 6,000 years ago and that an apocalypse is preordained.
In my experience, it also includes a number of senior people in government and business and civil society, including some who will be sitting around the table at Rio.
My point here is not so much to promote a specific taxonomy but rather to recognise that – two decades after the first Earth Summit – there is a need for actions and messaging which take into account the complex psychological and sociological dimensions surrounding sustainability. It will certainly not help implementation of future sustainability policies, much less the solution of many of today's economic and social problems, if Rio+20 helps swell the ranks of the calamitists and cynics.
So what needs to be done?
The clueless, cynics and curious need to hear that we have very real and urgent problems, that governments are working on them with a sense of renewed vigour and purpose, and that they are an important part of the solution. They need guidance on concrete actions they can take to improve their lot, both in the short and long term. A more catchy vision of the future, embracing the notions that it is smart to be resource efficient and socially just, might be more successful than 'sustainable development' in capturing attention to the same agenda.
The champions, for their part, need to hear that their pioneering efforts have helped point to new policies, technologies, financial instruments and lifestyle approaches which now need to be shared more widely. They need to be encouraged to broaden and deepen their efforts, including through more effective use of business and social mechanisms to promote the availability and use of low-carbon and material-efficient products and services, and greater transparency and utility of related consumer and investor information. Governments can't and won't do everything.
All groups, including the calamitists, need to hear that the game is far from over and that their constructive ideas and efforts will be essential. The Occupy Wall Street movement is just a small and recent example of a powerful human self-defence instinct, which will increasingly focus attention on how sustainable and just the actions of governments and business are.
The calamitists, in particular, need to understand that the future is not yet written and that their dark vision will not be the basis of policy. While major disruptive change cannot be ruled out, and indeed needs to be planned for in many cases, a new world order is in the making.
While we cannot know what it will look like, its contours – as ever – will be defined by two things: the power of human imagination and the capacity of nature to provide the necessary foundations. Rio+20's job is to ensure those pillars are safeguarded as far as possible. In this new world, more than ever, we need those who, like Shaw, are prepared to ask "why not?"
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)