pic: Aaron Parecki

inside:

a multi-stakeholdermagazine on

climate changeand sustainable

development

27 April 2012

www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/

A bold and courageous IFSD

Sustainable Development Goals for the New Generation

out reach.

Vicki-Ann Assevero ICommittee on International Environmental Law

Natalene Poisson UCLG

Jan-Gustav Strandenaes Stakeholder Forum

Farooq Ullah Stakeholder Forum

Bridget Brady Mount Holyoke College

OUTREACH IS PUBLISHED BY:

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

4

3

Editorial Advisors Felix Dodds Stakeholder Forum

Farooq Ullah Stakeholder Forum

Editor Georgie Macdonald Stakeholder Forum

Co-editor Amy Cutter Stakeholder Forum

Editorial Assistant Jack Cornforth Stakeholder Forum

Print Designer Jessica Wolf Jessica Wolf Design

Web Designer Thomas Harrisson Stakeholder Forum

Web Designer Matthew Reading-Smith Stakeholder ForumAbout Stakeholder Forum

Stakeholder Forum is an international organisation working to advance sustainable development and promote democracy at a global level. Our work aims to enhance open, accountable and participatory international decision-making on sustainable development through enhancing the involvement of stakeholders in intergovernmental processes. For more information, visit: www.stakeholderforum.org

Outreach is a multi-stakeholder publication on climate change and sustainable development. It is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena, published at various international meetings on the environment; including the UNCSD meetings (since 1997), UNEP Governing Council, UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) and World Water Week. Published as a daily edition, in both print and web form, Outreach provides a vehicle for critical analysis on key thematic topics in the sustainability arena, as well as a voice of regional and local governments, women, indigenous peoples, trade unions, industry, youth and NGOs. To fully ensure a multi-stakeholder perspective, we aim to engage a wide range of stakeholders for article contributions and project funding.

If you are interested in contributing to Outreach, please contact the team (gmacdonald@stakeholderforum.org or acutter@stakeholderforum.org) You can also follow us on Twitter: @OutreachLive

OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM

6

Hiroshi Komiyama, Yuko Sakita

Japanese National preparatory committee

Ania Rok ICLEI

Michele Morek UNANIMA International

Meg Patterson WWF

Olimar Maisonet-Guzman Ben Vanpeperstraete

Marian Schreier

1 A bold and courageous IFSD

2 Local action has moved the world: 20 years of local sustainability

3 Freshwater governance: An opportunity for Rio +20

4 Building a Global Network of National Councils for Sustainable Development

5 Workshop invitation: Building a Global Network of National Councils for Sustainable Development (NCSDs)

6 Cities, metropolises, regions and their associations contributing to Rio+20

8 Why the science-policy interface should not be forgotten in Rio

9 Invitation to a one day workshop on the challenges of IFSD 10 Sustainable Development Goals for the New Generation

12 Dynamic Scaffolding: A New Conceptual Framework for IFSD

13 Japanese stakeholders for the promotion of sustainable development Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

14 Reflections on the negotiations

contents.

pic: Alan English

1

A bold and courageous IFSD

Were the delegates who founded the UN braver and more forward looking than those negotiating

IFSD at present?

Almost seventy years ago, back in1945, the founding nations of the UN devised and constructed a system of governance that has proved to be more successful than many of its critics would give it credit for. The UN and its governance system have taken us through Cold War crises, civil war on many continents, and both natural and man-made catastrophes. The system has not always been given the chance to solve problems at their root causes, but it has been able to give humanity a chance to struggle out of its many predicaments, and remains a permanent symbol of hope.

With the advent of Rio+20 and the emergence of IFSD as one of its key agenda points, it would do negotiators a lot of good to think about what kind of governance system they should create to be able to shoulder challenges and unplanned for events for the next seventy years. The impression from the negotiations is not one of people thinking ahead, making brave decisions, or embracing the future. Rather the impression is of people being overly cautious about making institutional mistakes and afraid to propose changes that might cost money. The world today needs a governance system that is forward looking, and will have relevance until 2082 and beyond.

Emerging issues are an inevitable part of the Rio+20 agenda. An emerging issue cannot by nature be defined, as it is of an unpredictable nature. Global politics are an incessant array of emerging issues. To deal with them efficiently and adroitly, whenever they emerge, a new and robust institutional system must be in place.

Responsible delegates and a hard working UN secretariat coined the name for the Rio+20 Conference ‘The Future We Want’. Perhaps they were glancing sideways to future generations. The twenty-somethings. Perhaps the delegates hoped that such a move would placate the impatience of youth, demanding a forward looking and constructive outcome from Rio+20. The High Commissioner for Future Generations is a novel idea that would incorporate the concerns of youth across all high level decision making. The concept is well founded

in environmental law, but has almost been killed off by delegate after delegate asking rhetorically – what does it really mean, and where in the system is its proper place? Perhaps today’s hardened negotiators should be reminded of the words of Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General: “A society that cuts off from its youth severs its lifeline.”

Sustainable development today is housed within the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, sitting low in the UN’s political hierarchy. With little political prestige and less credibility, CSD has struggled for years to show the world that it must take sustainable development seriously. With the advent of Rio+20, many are now seriously talking about creating a new institution for sustainable development. A brave proposal is to create an institution at Council level, with authority second only to the General Assembly. A Council for Sustainable Development will give the issue the necessary political prestige, power and clout. And if governments are serious enough, they will make sure the institution is given the responsibility of integrating the three dimensions of sustainable development – leading the green economy transition, addressing social issues and tackling environmental challenges. Governments have the power to direct their ministers of finance, social affairs, environment, and foreign affairs to work together for and within this institution. Instead of this forward looking move, however, governments seem more preoccupied with what this would cost, and what structural implications it might have. Francis Fukuyama, one of the world’s leading political theorists has aptly described what appears to be currently happening at UN: “When the surrounding environment changes and new challenges arise, there is often a disjunction between existing institutions and present needs. We often see existing institutions supported by legions of entrenched stakeholders who oppose any fundamental change”.

Seventy years ago, novelty, innovation and a desire to create institutions that could handle the future were created by the founding nations of the UN. With all our knowledge and creativity should we not be able to act in a similar bold and courageous manner and create the IFSD for the future? Or will the legacy of those at Rio+20 be – ‘they had the chance to change, but not the courage to do so’.

Jan-Gustav StrandenaesStakeholder Forum

RIO+20

RIO+202

Local action has moved the world:

In preparation for the Rio+20

Conference, ICLEI (Local Governments

for Sustainability) is publishing

a Local Sustainability 2012 study,

consisting of a global review of

the position of local governments

as sustainable development actors

and a collection of 14 case studies.

Both publications include a set of

recommendations for the future of

local action and will be available

shortly at www.iclei.org/local2012. The success of local sustainability processes, inspired by the Local Agenda 21 mandate and today taking place in thousands of cities around the world, is widely acknowledged as one of the most remarkable outcomes of the 1992 Earth Summit. Even though global sustainability remains a distant goal, it is clear that local initiatives have profoundly changed the way we think about sustainable development, making a lasting mark not only on local but also on national and international governance systems, pushing the boundaries of what is achievable.

In recent years there has been significant growth in the number of cities involved in sustainability initiatives. The variety of local sustainability processes that have emerged around the globe – across a range of diverse political and economic cultures – is striking. Illustrated with numerous examples of local initiatives from all over the world, ICLEI's review, Local Sustainability 2012: Taking stock and moving forward, focuses on the main driving forces behind local processes and identifies 5 key types of local sustainability processes: local government strategy; civil society initiatives; concerted action; national policy; and international cooperation. By discussing the strengths and weaknesses of each type, the report adds to the global debate on the need for a new, multi-level governance framework. Local governments have shown that they are able to drive the implementation of sustainable development and to initiate respective local processes – sometimes much more effectively than national governments or international organisations. The review describes significant changes in how local sustainability has been understood and governed over the last two decades, ranging from an enhanced culture of public participation to the recognition of local governments on the international scene.

Sustainable development has been successfully localised and is no longer a distant, theoretical concept but rather one filled with meaning and evoked in everyday activities. However, much more needs to be done in order to escape the impending environmental and social crisis and ensure well-being for all within the limits of planetary resources. Amongst others, the following conclusions and recommendations form the essence of the review:

Local consciousness about global and future impacts of today's action has never been as high. However, in order to fully exploit this awareness, information on global trends and the impacts of any local activity on the lives of future generations must be made available as a standard basis for political and economic decision-making.

A good local sustainability process harnesses various driving forces. The effectiveness of local sustainability processes – as well as of programmes designed to support them – could be enhanced by combining the strengths of the five process types identified.

Local sustainability processes are hubs of social innovation. By combining classic methods of consultation and participatory policy development with new forms of spontaneous and collective action, local sustainability processes can strengthen their role as testbeds of sustainable innovation.

Greening the economy is a chance to address the sustainability crisis. However, for the Green Economy to become a serious contributor to sustainable development, it has to be linked not only technological – but also social – innovation. Decentralised solutions and public control over common goods will be key.

Sustainable development needs a multilevel governance system with a multi-sectoral approach. Any global governance framework for sustainable development should include local governments as equal governmental partners and at the same time initiate national and international legislation that supports their efforts.

The case study collection Local Sustainability 2012: Showcasing Progress accompanies the review, portraying an active and strong involvement of local governments in pioneering greater urban sustainability. From Portland (USA) to Cape Town (South Africa), from Rizhao (China) to Melbourne (Australia), the examples included in this collection confirm that every city can embark on the journey towards urban sustainability.

Ania RokICLEI

20 years of local sustainability

RIO+20 3

Freshwater governance:

The need for water is obvious. What is less clear is how to ensure reliable access to adequate supplies of good quality water for people, environments, and economies. The challenges facing freshwater systems are considerable and include: climate change, increasing urbanisation, global population growth, pollution, overexploitation, and desertification. Freshwater ecosystems are already the most threatened of all biomes, and 20% of all freshwater fish species are in rapid decline. Water also plays an integral role in international security, in part due to its close linkages with energy and food security. Worldwide, over one billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and around 2.6 billion people have no access to adequate sanitation. Water shortages already affect two billion people in over 40 countries.

Such challenges are exacerbated in freshwater systems that mark or cross international boundaries – there are 276 such basins in the world. These transboundary water systems are home to about 40% of the global population, cover 50% of the earth’s land surface, and account for about 60% of global freshwater flows. Yet only 40% of the world’s international watercourses have cooperative management frameworks, and many of those agreements have significant gaps and failings.

The water crisis is increasingly recognised as one of governance, first and foremost. Unlike other global challenges like climate change and desertification, however, no global legal instrument is in force to govern these vital resources. In 1997, more than 100 states joined together to adopt the UN Watercourses Convention. Yet, this vital treaty remains the only multilateral environmental agreement (MEA) adopted during or as a follow-up to the first Rio Conference in 1992, that has not yet entered into force. This is a significant gap in the institutional framework for sustainable development – but one that can easily be remedied.

The UN Watercourses Convention is a flexible and overarching global legal framework that establishes basic standards and rules for cooperation between watercourse nation states on the use, management, and protection of international watercourses. It offers legal stability and consistency for preventing and dealing with water-related disputes, while providing a flexible instrument in support of inter-state cooperation, which can facilitate adaptive water management in response to ever-changing conditions like those caused by the effects of climate change.

For this reason, WWF and numerous partners have been working since 2006 to raise the levels of awareness and understanding of the UN Watercourses Convention among key actors, in addition to providing support for countries that are interested in assessing the role and relevance of the Convention, as well as going through the ratification process.

Having in place an effective UN Watercourses Convention will enable parties to benefit from the linkages with other MEAs, such as the Conventions on Climate Change, Desertification, Wetlands, and Biodiversity, as well as with the Millennium Development Goals. Exploring such linkages will promote the Convention’s aims, principles and procedures to a wider audience, as a contribution to improving the institutional framework for sustainable development.

While the freshwater challenge is large, it is not insurmountable. Rio +20 is the perfect venue for governments to show a renewed commitment to sustainable development, and to acknowledge water’s integral role in it. Ratifying the UN Watercourses Convention is an important step in that direction. It is also an easily-measured goal that is within reach – the Convention needs just 11 more ratifications to enter into force.

Meg PattersonWWF

An opportunity for Rio +20

MORE INFOMore information on the UN Watercourses Convention and WWF’s work is available at: www.wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/policy/conventions/water_conventionspic: Alan English

RIO+20

Farooq UllahStakeholder Forum

4

Building a Global Network of National Councils

National Councils for Sustainable Development (NCSDs)

and National Strategies for Sustainable Development (NSSD) were products of Agenda 21 in

1992. Both were given new life and support at the World Summit

on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 as integral

elements of work on sustainable development, where all countries committed to have both councils

and strategies in place by 2005.

Not all UN member states managed to comply with these recommendations. But the importance of NCSD, as well as NSSD, has been reinvigorated by many of the submissions to the Rio+20 Zero Draft process, including the outcome documents from the Regional Preparatory Meetings in connection with Rio+20. Currently within the negotiating text there is a reasonably good call to ‘establish and strengthen, as appropriate, national institutions dealing with sustainable development to enable national efforts to coordinate, consolidate and ensure the mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues’ – Para 61.

NCSDs have a direct stake in the themes and objectives of Rio+20. The position of the national councils allows them to be actively engaged in the implementation of the Green Economy and bring global recommendations to the national and local level. As the Councils are multi-stakeholder in nature, they represent best practice on bottom-up approaches and may function as important vehicles for developing and contributing to good governance at all levels. This in turn will strengthen Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) efforts at the national, regional and local level. Furthermore, as the Councils are national and rely on multi-stakeholder engagement, they are also uniquely positioned to identify and implement on emerging issues.

To help improve the effectiveness of NCSDs, the Government of Finland and Stakeholder Forum along with partners, are working together to establish a global network through which NCSDs can share best practice and promote sustainable development domestically and internationally.

This work has several aims:

• toseehowNCSDs,alongwithstrengthened NSSDs, can be integrated in the Rio+20 work;

• toexplorehowthecouncilscanplayamajorrole in delivering and implementing Rio+20 outcomes;

• tohelpstimulateandcreateanetworkthrough which NCSD throughout the world can engage in order to share best practice, discuss lessons learned and build support for initiatives.

We hope that Rio+20 will retain the call to re-establish or further develop and strengthen NCSD with appropriately developed national strategies and funding and governance structures where all stakeholders/ major groups are fully integrated. If so, a Global NCSD Network will have increased importance in helping build capacity and share best practice going forward.

For example, as a potential key outcome of Rio+20, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be global agreed ambitions. Yet delivery of these goals will primarily happen at the national level. Joining up the NCSDs in an international network creates an important level of the multi-layered governance that is needed for sustainable development. And in those countries which have progressively established and retained their NCSDs in line with Agenda 21, it uses existing infrastructure to do so. NCSDs can be an important anchoring point at national level for international initiatives, and address a relatively underdeveloped part of the Rio+20 agenda.

However, determining how such a network would work is not a job for Stakeholder Forum or the Government of Finland. It must be self-determining by member NCSDs themselves. To this end, we will be working with all stakeholders to draft a Voluntary Charter of Principles for NCSDs Post-Rio+20 for sign up at Rio in June. Provisionally entitled Taking Rio Home, this charter will enable the councils, and related bodies, to decide how they can work together and learn from each other, to promote sustainable development and deliver the future we want.

for Sustainable Development

pic: Robert Garcia

RIO+20 5

RIO+206

Cities, metropolises, regions

United Cities and Local Governments

(UCLG) and UN-Habitat, with the

support of Cities Alliance and United

Nations Advisory Committee of Local

Authorities (UNACLA), gathered local

and regional government leaders and

networks in a meeting in New York on

23 April, where they presented key

messages for Rio+20 to UN Secretary-

General Ban Ki-moon, UN officials and

the group of 23 states, Friends of

Sustainable Cities.

Eight joint recommendations of local and regional government

The ‘Joint Messages of Local and Sub-national Governments’, signed by UCLG, Forum of Global Associations of Regions (FOGAR), ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), C40 Cities, NRG4SD, with the support of the Ford Foundation and UN-Habitat, put forward eight recommendations covering sustainable urbanisation, metropolisation and regionalisation.

The eight recommendations stress the importance of acknowledging the positive role that urbanisation can play in development. They advocate for a new multi-level governance that promotes effective partnerships in building sustainable cities, and call on Member States to take into account the specific perspective of local and sub-national governments for addressing global challenges.

Good urban development is the key to sustainable development.

Urbanisation is a driver for global economic growth and development. Yet it is in the cities around the world that the pressures of globalisation, migration, social inequality, environmental pollution, climate change and youth unemployment are most directly felt. On the other hand, they have for centuries been a cradle of innovation and currently produce above 75% of world GDP. We should strive to achieve cities that are environmentally sustainable, socially responsible and economically productive.

Local and sub-national authorities would like to transmit a sense of urgency – the need to act is now. This calls for concrete actions and measurable commitments and results.

Natalene PoissonUCLG

In consideration of the above, local and sub-national authorities put forward the following recommendations:

1. A new multi-level governance architecture is neededWe commit to promoting effective partnerships in building sustainable cities, integrating all relevant partners into plans of action for sustainable urban development at all levels. We should encourage the exchange of experiences and best practices from cities, possibly through an e-platform and a global partnership for sustainable cities, involving multi-stakeholder participation – cities and local governments, civil society, national governments and the private sector.

We emphasise the importance of citizen participation and the ability of the local community to involve the many actors including both civil society and the private sector.

As governmental stakeholders, we call on Member States to take into account the specific perspective of local and sub-national governments in international governance, deriving from their proximity to citizens. It is essential that these groups are taken into account in any future institutional frameworks for the sustainable development agenda. This is crucial to the implementation of good governance mechanisms based on transparency, participation, equity and accountability.

2. Sustainable Cities should be a crosscutting issue in the Sustainable Development agenda. Potential Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should include at least one goal on ‘Sustainable Cities for All’ and make reference to:

A. Access to quality basic services. This is a fundamental responsibility of local and sub- national governments; they should be empowered with adequate human and financial resources – unfunded mandates should be avoided. To improve living conditions in cities, we also need to upgrade basic services such as health,

and their associations contributing to Rio+20

pic: Alistair Knock

RIO+20 7

nutrition, safe potable water, sanitation, and waste management. City leaders should protect and sustain our natural and built environments, and foster the development of sustainable and efficient infrastructure through the promotion of sustainable building regulations and incentives, as well as the development of sustainable transport, infrastructure solutions and a renewable energy infrastructure that enables access to sustainable energy for all. An integrated approach to infrastructure planning and provision should be maintained across the urban development process.

B. Social inclusion and equity. This includes gender equality and the needs of children and youth, and should be guaranteed through strong and accountable local governments. Only by investing in human capital and ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth – in particular to reduce national disparities – will it be possible to achieve the susta inable eradication of poverty and a territory balance throughout the development process.

C. Environment. This implies recognising a legal status for global public goods. The adaptation to climate change, disaster risk reduction and resilience planning are key issues that should receive increased attention and resources. We also see a need for comprehensive risk management strategies that would ensure greater resilience to natural disasters due to geologic instability, weather and climate change impacts which can all have severe impacts on cities.

3. Cohesion among territories in development policies should be fostered

As sustainability challenges and responsibilities go beyond political borders, consultation mechanisms, solidarity among territories and integrated governance frameworks should be promoted in the outcomes of Rio+20.

Strengthened structural capacities of territories and investments in infrastructures are crucial to poverty eradication.

National urban policies designed in full cooperation with sub-national authorities should enable them to address sustainable urbanisation.

4. Culture should be acknowledged as an important dimension of sustainable development.

We urge local authorities to use culture as a force for urban regeneration and social inclusion, by encouraging heritage preservation, fostering creative industries, and recognising the added-value of cultural diversity.

We encourage the adoption of information and communication technologies in order to foster smart, connected cities that provide access to the knowledge economy, and enhance public services through e-government websites.

5. Development of legal mechanisms for local and sub-national governments.

Sound rules are needed for local and sub-national authorities to set up good governance systems which will for instance allow them to: a) develop modern municipal solid waste management systems that emphasise the 3Rs – reduce, reuse, recycle; b) enable urban land registration and land use planning c) optimise urban management through improved monitoring and intervention.

We commit to implement land policy development and both regulatory and procedural reform programmes, if necessary, so as to achieve sustainable urban development and to better manage climate change impacts, ensuring that land interventions are anchored within effective land governance frameworks. In this context, the link between rural and urban societies is of significant importance. The argument has been made that appropriate rural policies might be important for the management of the urbanisation process.

6. Development of financial mechanisms for local and sub-national governments.

We call for increased investments in urban infrastructure and call on national and international financial institutions to develop innovative financing mechanisms to enable improved service delivery including, among others: i) sustainable transport options and services management, particularly mass transit and non-motorised transport; and ii) water supply networks and waste water treatment facilities.

7. Local and sub-national governments as hubs of green growthA structurally and qualitatively different type of economic growth is needed. Incentives should direct growth towards more resource-productive, resilient, low-carbon and low risk urban infrastructure, and renewed urban design. A global green gconomy needs to comprise of inclusive green urban economies, and empower both local and sub-national governments.

8. The Rio+20 Conference should be considered as the first step towards Habitat III, whose focus will be on the global commitment to reinvigorate the urban agenda.

We commit to develop national urban policies, defined in full cooperation with local and sub-national authorities. These policies are integral to integrating efforts across all spheres of government to support a holistic, integrated and multilevel governance approach to urban design and development that empowers local and sub-national governments, paying special attention to the unique and critical challenges of metropolitan areas.

We call upon all states to prioritise sustainable urban development through increased investment in, and attention to, urban design, legislation, economy and governance.

RIO+208

Marian Schreier

Why the science-policy interface should not be

In the 40 years since the Club of Rome’s ground-breaking book, Limits to Growth, was published, it has become more widely accepted that infinite growth is not possible on a planet with finite resources. Furthermore, since the 1972 Stockholm conference on the human environment, the science around this issue has continued to evolve and solutions to tackle the related challenges have emerged. Nonetheless, governments have – more or less – failed to turn the scientific progress into action. Consequently, what is needed from Rio+20 is a mechanism to facilitate the translation of science into sound policies. The Major Group for Children and Youth, amongst others, thus propose the establishment of an Intergovernmental Panel on Sustainable Development (Sciences) to address the apparent failings on science at the UN level. The following outlines why such a panel is needed and what it could look like.

The international community faces three key challenges with regard to science.

• The fragmentation of the bodies that collect and assess scientific evidence – ranging from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Moving forward in sustainable development, it will be important to avoid the fragmentation that has occurred with multilateral environmental agreements over the last 40 years.

• The lack of coherence between the scientific and policy communities. In other words, there is a growing sense of mistrust and a clear lack of communication. In one of its latest publications – the Foresight Report – the United Nations Environment Programme listed the malfunctioning science-policy interface as the fourth most urgent issue on a list of 21 challenges for the 21st century, which resulted from a global survey of hundreds of scientists.

• The lack of public trust in sustainable development related sciences, which has been undermined in the last few years as a result of several scandals, most notably ‘Climategate’ before the Climate Summit in Copenhagen in late 2009. The most telling example of this development is the rising number of people in the United States who disagree with the notion of man-made climate change.

The role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Sustainable Development (Sciences) would be threefold:

• Toreviewscientificprogress;

• Tobridgethescience-policynexus;and

• Tore-buildtrustinscientificadvice.

To address the growing fragmentation of knowledge, it could function as an umbrella organisation for all international science bodies. A key responsibility would be the design of a sustainable development research agenda for the 21st century, through the review of relevant scientific knowledge from all strands of science. This could be achieved through assessment reports, such as those of the IPCC.

The strengthening of the science-policy interface could be realised through, for example: the development of summaries for policy-makers – along with clear-cut policy proposals; the initiation of an open-ended process on how to integrate scientific evidence into policy-making; the evaluation of existing and future policies; and the promotion of science-based decision-making.

The history of the IPCC has shown that science can, and should, play a crucial role to raise awareness and induce behavioural change. Therefore, the Panel’s mandate should also include public outreach. Duties could encompass the development of easily comprehensible reports, education programmes, public seminars and, most importantly, a transparent methodology and working process, which in sum could help to re-build trust in scientific advice.

All in all, an Intergovernmental Panel on Sustainable Development (Sciences) could function as the interlocutor for sustainable development-related sciences and a key resource for evidence-based policy making .

forgotten in Rio

pic: Nicola Since 1972

RIO+20 9

RIO+2010

Olimar Maisonet-Guzman and Ben Vanpeperstraete

Sustainable Development Goals

The international community is looking

for a successor to the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs), which will

expire in 2015. The current framework

helped the international community to

rally behind a common understanding

of poverty eradication, and provided

targets and indicators to guide

policy decisions. However, the MDGs

emphasised economic poverty over

the other dimensions of deprivation

and gave limited attention to the

structural causes of poverty.

In the meantime, the historical and development context in which MDGs were anchored, has changed. For example, the world has seen the rise of the middle-income countries, making poverty and inequality more complex issues. Additionally, the challenges of climate change, water and biodiversity loss further complicate the interdependencies between poverty eradication and environmental protection.

The Debate The debate on the post-2015 framework can be summarised into three key viewpoints:

• KeepthecurrentMDGsbutextendtheir deadline to 2020 or 2025;

• Implementanupgradedversionof theMDGs, with global goals, but more room for nationally appropriate indicators;

• Establishaglobalagreementthatcombines poverty eradication targets for developing countries and sustainable consumption targets for the developed world.

The final proposal presents the most bold and visionary policy position and reflects the needs of young people and future generations. Additionally, these goals will represent the shifting sustainable development paradigm.

Sustainable Development Goals

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) should have sufficient ambition to meet environmental and social challenges. The new SDGs framework should tackle the underlying drivers of social injustice and environmental degradation. Furthermore, it should consider, in particular, the links between poverty, gender inequality, climate change, biological diversity, and human rights protection.

With less than 3 weeks of negotiations left, it will be hard to capitalise on the valuable lessons of the MDGs to develop a common understanding of poverty eradication that can be translated into an action-oriented framework. Instead, what could be achieved at Rio+20 is the provision of strong guidance on the process to develop the post-2015 framework, crucial content, and guidance on structure.

Process

Rio+20 should take an unambiguous position for an inclusive process. Namely, the SDGs must be deliberated though an open, transparent, and accountable process. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development identifies that access to information and decision-making is the foundation of good environmental governance. A series of national consultations of people impacted by poverty should be run through 2013 and the results must be carefully considered in the formation of the SDGs. The final deliberation of the goals must be completed by 2015, making the SDGs an operational framework starting in 2015 and running until 2030.

This framework must promote compatibility with the MDGs. The MDGs remain a valid set of objectives in their own right. The UN General Assembly office, under the guidance of the UN Secretary General, is considering the post-Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) framework. The Secretary General has stated that the adoption of the SDGs must be streamlined with the follow-up of the MDGs. In a recent report, the Secretary General acknowledged Rio+20 as an important international event that could contribute to the post-2015 framework. Hence, the SDGs should not create an additional process to the elaboration of the post-2015 framework for development.

The process should provide opportunities to harness synergies between the experienced negotiators in environmental sustainability and those who are active in development.

for the New Generation

RIO+2011pic: Sean Ellis

Content

We believe that negotiators have considerable expertise to provide additional guidance on the content of SDGs. Documents such as Agenda 21, the Forest Principles, the Rio Conventions, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, and the draft decision on Sustainable Production and Consumption, offer valuable language on how to operationalise the interlinked nature of SDGs, and to capitalise on synergies across sectors.

The specific trade-offs between environmental sustainability and economic development must be addressed by negotiators at Rio+20. Consequently, it is important to provide additional guidance on international cooperation on specific sectors such as: energy, climate, oceans, food, and water. While the MDGs have too much focus on the economic dimension of development, we should not get carried away by focusing exclusively on environmental sectors targets. We must guarantee that all dimensions of sustainable development are considered and both Green Economy and Institutional Framework elements are covered. Moreover, we must include references to human rights, gender equality, and social justice.

The goals could, for example, include targets for resource efficiency, productive processes and the phase-out of fossil fuel subsides. In terms of the institutional framework there is a need to include targets for national social protection floors and for the establishment of specific sustainable development institutions. Clear references to existing human rights’ treaties must also be visible in the proposals.

Structure

The agreement on SDGs should be universal and the goals should be accompanied by guidance and direction for all countries, developed or developing. Common but differentiated responsibilities will be considered a guiding principle. The SDGs provide an opportunity to focus action by considering the respective capabilities of states in delivering progress on the goals. Given that equity should run like a common theme through the SDGs, the framework must target inequality between and within countries, and respond to the needs of the most vulnerable and marginalised peoples.

A strong accountability framework and related institutional arrangements should be developed to guarantee review of the implementation and compliance to the sustainable development proposals that will stem out of Rio+20. A UN General Assembly Council on Sustainable Development seems like the premier venue to make timely assessment and provide political and technical assistance to countries on their strategies to achieve SDGs.

Finally, such framework should also include an Intergovernmental Panel on Sustainable Development to offer new strides in inter- and multidisciplinary scientific consensus. We consider the proposal of an Ombudsman for Future Generations as a crucial component for the promotion of sustainable development. The Ombudsman will be able to translate these identified challenges into politically salient issues and guide further debates with a view on the long-term stakes.

The debate on SDGs is one that will last beyond Rio+20, because of the need to establish a post-2015 framework that reflects the realities of sustainable development and streamlines existing MDGs’ strategies.

Although we do not expect Rio+20 to provide answers to all sustainability challenges, we expect it to be the stepping stone for stronger institutional frameworks and an economy that truly reflects the interests of ours and future generations.

RIO+2012

Vicki-Ann AsseveroCommittee on International Environmental Law

Dynamic Scaffolding:

‘We underscore that a fundamental prerequisite for

the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-

making. Sustainable development requires major groups… to play a

meaningful role at all levels. It is important to enable all

members of civil society to be actively engaged in sustainable

development…’ Paragraph 17 of the Zero Draft

This aspirational goal of inclusivity in collective decision-making about the sustainable management of our planet’s development is uncontested in the Zero Draft. A good first step.

A conceptual problem, however, remains. The supreme representatives of States are actors in an intergovernmental multilateral system. They cannot change the foundation of that system, which is based on national sovereignty. National sovereignty constrains our ability to address the interconnected nature and complexity of transboundary planetary issues. Consequently, delegates should acknowledge that no existing institutional framework successfully fosters broad and meaningful civil society participation. Being an observer, being consulted, attending a workshop or presenting a paper are all inputs, but they are not substitutes for the legitimacy required in a democratic decision-making system by equal partners. In order to advance the Framework for Action as articulated in paragraphs 22-24, we need to overcome a steep ‘doing curve’. Paragraph 23 calls for a reinvigoration of the global partnership for sustainable development, yet there has never been one in existence. There are laudable actions by civil society and governments towards sustainable development solutions but these are ad hoc, disparate, and certainly not coherently coordinated in order to prioritise and address the most vulnerable ecosystems or populations. The multilateral system itself, through its secretariat bureaus, has repeatedly called for coherence, coordination, and integrated multidisciplinary decision-making for its own hydra-headed institutional structure.

So a good outcome at Rio+20 would be the creation of a specific, purpose built institutional structure for civil society, which would include all non-nation state actors.

It is helpful to think of this IFSD as dynamic scaffolding. Scaffolding is a temporary structure on the outside of a building used by construction workers while building, repairing or cleaning an existing building. So while some of us work on the repair and clean up of Nation State multilateralism, others need to concentrate on building this temporary structure, which would form a lattice of transparent multi-perspective perches where any and all non-state actors could collaborate transnationally to solve specific sustainability problems. This is a structure for those actors – companies, NGOs, local communities, academic and scientific institutions and individual global citizens – willing to self organise to optimise wellbeing on, and for, Planet Earth.

Rio+20 should mandate the construction of a temporary, transparent and inclusive scaffolding structure – around our current multilateral intergovernmental institutions – which is specifically dedicated to the creation of pathways among functional sustainability initiatives at local and community levels. These projects should be community designed, linked to transnational activism and knowledge platforms, as well as newly redirected industrial and market forces. By creating a space for voluntary civil society collaboration to solve real and immediate problems, we will begin to understand what activities actually foster sustainability, while promoting productive enterprises and, most importantly, what knowledge, technology and skills are required to encourage non-state actors to self organise with the goal of ever widening circles of prosperity. By doing, we re-learn the foundational values, which improve sustainability.

At the side event organised by the International Association for the Advancement of Innovative Approaches to Global Challenges (IAAI), the Chair called for a Global Change Center right on the North Lawn of the UN Plaza. The Dynamic Scaffolding could start there and it would form a beautiful site and a magnet for those in the vanguard of shifting the current fossil fuel based industrial growth paradigm to an alternative renewable energy based inclusive and sustainable planetary prosperity.

A New Conceptual Framework for IFSD

pic: Christian Guthier

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar Date Time Room Title Organisers

27 Ap

ril 20

12 1:15-2:45 7 The State of the World Environment told by UNEP’s GEO-5 report and Global Solutions for Sustainability United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1:15-2:45 A Rights at Risk: Decoding the Green Economy France Libertes Foundation Danielle Mitterrand

1:15-2:45 4 Planet Under pressure ICSU-UNESCO-IGBP

30 Ap

ril 20

12

1:15-2:45 B The Power of One Child – Global Action Classroom Earth Child Institute

1:15-2:45 7 Advancing the Sustainability Science Agenda: To Support Sustainable Development and the Green Economy Chief Scientists Office, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1:15-2:45 3 From Harmful Subsidies to Safe Subsidies Greenpeace International

6:15-7:45 B New York + 20: Youth led action for sustainable development Columbia University Coalition for Sustainable Development

01 M

ay 20

12

1:15-2:45 7 Moving Towards Meaningful Private Sector Contribution to Sustainable Development Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future

1:15-2:45 BTaking Natural Capital into account: how can SDG’s, Green Economy Roadmaps and National Sustainability Plans properly maintain and value the Earth’s Natural Capital as part of a post-Rio+20 framework

BioRegional Development Group

1:15-2:45 3 People and the Planet: The priorities for Rio+20 The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

Japanese stakeholders for the promotion of Hiroshi Komiyama and Yuko Sakita Co-Chairs of the Japanese National preparatory committee for Rio+20

sustainable development

The Japanese National Preparatory Committee for Rio+20 was established on July 13, 2011, in order to promote dialogue about Rio+20 between stakeholders in Japan. It was established as a voluntary gathering of a stakeholders with an interest in Rio+20, including the 9 major groups.

In order to develop our input to the Zero Draft of the Rio+20 outcome document, we hosted workshops to share and exchange information, and collate views, from a wide range of Japanese stakeholders.

Key messages from Japanese stakeholders to develop a sustainable international society for the 21st century

1. Lessons learned from experiences from the Great East Japan Earthquake, Tsunami, and the subsequent Nuclear Power Plant Accident

The international community, together with countries that use nuclear power, must learn from this accident and take fundamental measures to strengthen nuclear power safety. The spirit of trans-national and trans-regional Kyoujyo (mutual assistance) illustrated in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami represents the attitude required to build a sustainable society. Green reconstruction supports the resilience of ecosystems – which are linked to the strength and affluence of a local community – ensuring that nature and society co-exist in harmony. Japanese earthquake-resistant technologies, safety management systems, and disaster prevention measures also played a role. To this end, we would like to further improve Japanese world-leading technologies and supporting social systems.

2. Recommended policy measures to build a sustainable global community are:

•Developmentof anewenergyvisionforthe21stcentury,with mechanisms in place to guarantee its implementation;

• Promotionof alow-carbonandsoundmaterial-cycle,with

an urban planning approach that takes into account local characteristics, such as initiatives of local communities and the surrounding natural habitat;

• Adoptionof mechanismstoensureemploymentandeconomic stability aimed at establishing a stable economic infrastructure;

• Promotionof theUNDecadeonBiodiversityandadoption of mainstream biodiversity practices, such as revitalisation of agricultural, fishing, and mountain villages;

• Continualimplementationof theUNDecadeof Education for Sustainable Development and the establishment of mechanisms that encourage active and responsible actions by consumers;

• Developmentandimplementationof toolssuchasindicators that support new approaches to sustainable development;

• Implementationof innovativefinancialmechanismsthatprovide the necessary funding to those in need;

• Disseminationof environmentallysoundtechnologiesand products throughout the world.

MORE INFOThe Japanese National Preparatory Committee for Rio +20 is organising a multi-stakeholder dialogue, Lessons from East Japan Great Earthquakes and Tsunami: Building Our Sustainable and Resilient Communities, in the Japan Pavilion at Rio+20 on 14 June, 2012.

The objective of the seminar is to:

• Disseminate the opinions of the various stakeholders in Japan;

•Discussissuestobuildsustainableandresilient communities with various stakeholders from across the world;

•IntroducethelessonslearnedfromNationalmulti-stakeholderdialogue

by The Japanese National Preparatory Committee for Rio +20.

www.mri.co.jp/SERVICE/thinktank/kankyou/2030913_1458.html.

RIO+2013

Outreach is made possible by the support of

Bridget Brady Mount Holyoke College

Michele Morek UNANIMA International

Wednesday’s afternoon session began with the decision to return later to paragraph 44 (c) which set the tone for the session. No agreement could be found regarding paragraph 44 (e) or 44 (e) bis, especially regarding the language ‘In particular in developing countries and those in special situations among them, bearing in mind the overarching objective of poverty eradication and the promotion of social inclusion and equity’. Paragraph pre 45, the first in section B. on the GA, ECOSOC, CSD, SDC proposal, was previously agreed ad ref but was the reopened by the G77 to include: better address the urgent global challenges of sustainable development ‘in accordance with the Rio Principles’. This amendment was supported by Switzerland, but not by the US or the EU. The G77 expressed concerns over the future of the Rio Principles if member states refuse to include their mention even when they are not being singled out. In paragraph 45 ter, the G77 was uncomfortable with the language of "reform and strengthening" of the IFSD, explaining that the wording was too strong and possibly contradictory. There was also disagreement on whether to mention the specific ‘legal and budgetary implications’ of changing the current IFSD. In paragraph 45, regarding the GA, there was a debate between whether its role and position is ‘central’ or ‘universal’. There was no CST for paragraphs 48-51, which will be returned to later. Negotiations concluded with the review of paragraph 54 and the question of whether or not it should include specific text on the World Bank, IMF, and regional development banks.

Reflections on the negotiations - Thursday, 26th April

The introductory paragraphs for section IV on the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development express the hope that sustainable development decisions will be based on: good information; all stakeholders and partnerships will be involved; progress on implementation of previous agreements (such as Agenda 21) will be monitored; and that the efficiency of the UN – and other international institutions – will be increased. In the discussion, countries seemed fairly aligned on what they wanted and much of the debate centered on where the content should be placed – in the general introductory section or later in the text. There was a constant ‘tug of war’ between the delegates’ desires to streamline the document and to be sure all favorite ideas were included.

The most serious area of disagreement centered around paragraphs 44 (e) and (f) on monitoring commitments and reinforcing coherence between UN agencies, when it became clear that the G-77 countries wanted these paragraphs to call the UN and developed countries to fulfill promises made to the developing countries – in Agenda 21 or MEAs – for financial help and technology transfer. To that end, the G-77 had drafted its own parallel text. The morning session ended with the Chair asking the representative of the G-77 to suggest how best to address their concerns.

pic: Alan English