Coalition: Sustainable Development

D:\Docs\2017-07-17\078356d9a4e5db0f08518d9fe0b22b1e.doc

COALITION: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

A paper by the moderator of the coalition, the Rev. Ilkka Sipilainen, Secretary for Social Responsibility, Church Council, Ev.Luth. Church of Finland

Sustainable Development is one of the two main themes at the Fourth ECEN Assembly in Volos.

In the Enabling Team meeting in Vienna (March 2002) it was decided that the Economy/Ecology coalition would be transformed into a working group on sustainable development. This group will get input from all other coalitions in Volos on the WSSD assessment, and will draft a final text or statement for the Assembly. The group should also decide how it will continue its work after the Assembly. It is possible that the CSC Working Group on Economy, Ecology and Social Issues will probably cease to exist after the CEC Assembly (Trondheim 2003). This means that the ECEN Sustainable Development group could continue, defining long term implications of the challenges of SD for the churches. Ilkka Sipilainen will lead the SD group in Volos in consultation with Peter Pavlovic1.

1 Enabling team, Minutes, Geneva, October 2002.

1 UNCED: Social, environmental and economic needs must be in balance

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the "Earth Summit," was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. The Earth Summit was held on the 20th anniversary of the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm 1972. The conference brought global attention to the understanding that environment protection and natural resource management were closely linked to economic and social conditions, such as poverty. It recognised that social, environmental, and economic needs must be met in a balance with each other for sustainable outcomes in the long term. It captured this concept in the term "sustainable development" defined as ". . . development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

After UNCED sustainable development is usually understood to consist of three pillars: economic, social and environmental.

WSSD: The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)2 met from 26 August – 4 September 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa. The WSSD’s goal, according to UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 55/199, was to hold a ten-year review of the UNCED at the Summit level to reinvigorate global commitment to sustainable development. The WSSD gathered 21,340 participants from 191 governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, the private sector, civil society, academia and the scientific community. WSSD had been preceded by four preparatory meetings (PrepComs) over the previous eighteen months.

The WSSD negotiated and adopted two main documents: the Plan of Implementation and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development. Major areas of disagreement included: time-bound targets for sanitation, renewable energy, energy subsidies, chemicals and health, natural resource degradation, biodiversity loss and fish stocks; Rio Principles 7 (common but differentiated responsibilities) and 15 (precautionary approach); governance; trade, finance and globalisation; the Kyoto Protocol; and health and human rights.

The Plan of Implementation is designed as a framework for action to implement the commitments originally agreed at UNCED and includes eleven chapters: an introduction; poverty eradication; consumption and production; the natural resource base; health; small island developing States (SIDS); Africa; other regional initiatives; means of implementation; and institutional framework. The Johannesburg Declaration outlines the path taken from UNCED to the WSSD, highlights present

2 Based on the Report on the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Johannesburg 2002, by David G. Hallman. WCC web pages: http://wcc-coe.org./wcc/what/jpc/wssd-report.html

2 challenges, expresses a commitment to sustainable development, underscores the importance of multilateralism and emphasises the need for implementation.

According to the report of Dr. David G Hallman for the WCC WSSD was a missed opportunity. The World Summit on Sustainable Development could have been a turning point. The global community could have responded seriously to the injustice of the disparity between the access to resources by the wealthy and what is available to the poor as well as taking concerted action to address the on-going assaults on the ecological well-being of the Earth. Instead, agreements were negotiated which are likely to have limited impact on improving the lives of the marginalised and the health of the planet.

The reasons for this failure are not difficult to find. The impoverishment of so many in the world and the ecological destruction around us are primarily a function of economic and political forces whose primary focus is the increase in wealth for the privileged and the unlimited expansion of production and consumption with its attendant consequence of depleting resources and increasing wastes. The countries and corporations which most benefit from the current economic model are also the ones that hold much of the power in international negotiations such as at WSSD. They were not about to make commitments that would undermine their position of privilege and respond with urgency to global injustice and the ecological threats that were, if one had eyes to see, visibly manifested in the South African context right outside the doors of the conference centre where we were meeting.

According to the report of Dr, Hallman there were modest accomplishments that we can celebrate. The diligent pressure from civil society participants including non- governmental organisations and the ecumenical participants in conjunction with some governments genuinely committed to responding to the urgency of the issues resulted in some language in the agreed texts which provide openings for new and innovative work. Beyond small victories within the formal agreements, the network and capacity building that occurred among civil society groups will reinforce the justice movements of resistance and the modelling of alternative approaches that could genuinely lead to sustainable community.

Brief history of ecumenical reflections on sustainable development3

Sustainable development has become the key concept in the follow-up process after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit leading up to the WSSD. The term was popularised in the 1986 Brundtland Report (the World Commission on Environment and Development). But over a decade before the Brundtland Commission, the concept of sustainability was being articulated at a World Council of Churches (WCC) gathering of scientists,

3 Ibid.;

3 theologians and economists in Bucharest. This 1974 consultation was convened in response to the Club of Rome’s report, The Limits to Growth which sounded an alarm about how natural resource depletion, pollution, and population growth was placing an intolerable strain on the Earth’s resources. What emerged out of the Bucharest discussion on the role of science and technology in the development of human societies was the articulation of a concept called “sustainability” - the idea that the world’s future requires a vision of development that can be sustained in the long run, both environmentally and economically. The awareness of the need to link socio-economic justice and ecological sustainability has been a recurring theme within the ecumenical community and has been a gift to the broader global community.

UNCED held in Rio in June 1992 was a high point in ecumenical involvement in issues of sustainability and in interaction with the broader global community. The churches, in addition to representatives from other faith groups, were able to provide a substantial profile of religious communities at UNCED witnessing to our belief that the issues being addressed by the Earth Summit had ethical, spiritual and theological dimensions which could not be ignored. The event also diffused more broadly than ever before within the ecumenical community a recognition of the inter-relatedness of environment and development.

Since Rio, the ecumenical community is increasingly questioning the term “sustainable development” because we find it often misused in order to legitimise current economic approaches which are premised on unlimited economic growth and a continuous and unregulated expansion of production and consumption for the world’s rich. Thus according to Dr. Hallman to measure progress toward sustainable development in this context is to avoid challenging the very dynamics which are increasing the gap between the rich and the poor in the world and causing environmental destruction. All economic systems must be tested from the perspective of their effect on the poor, the oppressed and the marginalised, which in these days includes many members of the natural world as well. God has created the whole cosmos to be good; it is a common inheritance for all peoples for all times to be enjoyed in just, loving and responsible relationships with one another. This understanding is foundational in our vision of a just and moral economy where: a) people are empowered to fully participate in making decisions that affect their lives, b) public and private institutions and enterprises are accountable and held responsible for the social and environmental impacts and consequences of their operations, and c) the Earth and whole created order is nurtured with utmost respect and reverence rather than exploited and degraded.

Rather than “sustainable development”, the ecumenical movement (i.e. the WCC) has started to speak increasingly of “sustainable community”. While continuing to carry the long-term perspective of sustainability, it moves away from the term

4 “development” and focuses instead on “community” wherein can occur the nurturing of equitable relationships both within the human family and also between humans and the rest of the ecological community - in other words, justice within the whole of God’s creation.

Community is understood in a broad sense. It includes the centrality of the local setting in which people meet their needs and find meaning. Beyond that, it is important to discern principles of community that apply to relations among nations where we are reminded that we live in a global village. Further, community encompasses our relationships beyond the human family - the web of life in which we are only one of the many inter-related members.

"Christians are called to anticipate the just and loving community, the shalom kingdom that God wills and promises. Jesus came to give abundant life. We see in him the signs of genuine community: his healing ministry, his inclusion of outcasts, children, women, and his servanthood on behalf of the world. The saving work of the Spirit restores community and brings harmony within creation. Christians should be salt and yeast in society for the sake of justice, peace and the integrity of creation" writes Hallman in his report.

In our vision of community, sufficiency is a key element - there is enough for all and all have enough. This vision includes physical, mental and spiritual health, food security in quantity and quality, clean air and water, good housing, educational opportunities, and adequate transportation. Relationships of justice and sufficiency produce a high degree of contentment, celebration and spiritual fulfilment that stands in marked contrast to the spiritual poverty of compulsive consumerism that is so much a part of many contemporary societies.

The question of consumerism has been addressed deeply in the Church of Norway. The General Synod dealt in 1996 with the issue of Consumerism and Justice. The declaration and the debate following had its impact in the Norwegian society. The Bishops' Conference published a statement "A Better Future for all" by the in October 2002. According to the Norwegian bishops the UN Millennium Development Goals "also necessitate the evaluation of our consumption, both as a nation and as individuals. Today we see many encouraging signs of departure from a one-sided, consumption-oriented lifestyle. But the influence from the opposite direction is massive: The inner dynamics of the consumer society maintain our dissatisfaction and increase our need for constantly new commodities and services. That has brought the Norwegian society to a level of consumption that is not sustainable. The continuation of this development cannot be defended morally, neither in relation to the world’s poor, to future generations nor to life on earth."

5 Many churches have worked with the question of commercialising Sundays, i.e. the Sunday opening of retail operations. The situation in European counties varies a lot. In Sweden and Spain the opening times are freely chosen, but in many counties, like Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark and Greece , the opening has been regulated until recently. The Evangelical Church of Germany (EKD) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland have campaigned against widening the Sunday opening of the retail sector. Keeping Sundays free has been grounded by the welfare of the employees and the Creation as well as criticising consumerism.

Governments and UN organisations involved in WSSD spoke frequently about what they have come to term the three pillars of sustainable development: the social, the environmental and the economic. This is a step forward in that it moves further in acknowledging the importance of inter-linkages. However, there was little evidence at WSSD of any fundamental critiquing of the exploitative model of economic development which in fact undermines all three of these pillars by increasing disparity within the world and further denigrating the ecological foundation of life.

CEC Church and Society Commission's working groups on Sustainable development

The Church and Society Commission has had three working groups on sustainable development, the third one published its report "Sustainable Development and the European Union; The need to Develop New Strategies and New Lifestyles" in May 2002.4 The main point has been to ask if unlimited economic growth and sustainable development are compatible at all.

In the latest report the working group is convinced that sustainable development of society cannot be achieved without proper attention being given to its ethical

4 CEC, Geneva May 2002.

6 dimension. From the church perspective, sustainable development cannot be defined exclusively in terms of material wealth and material growth. Rather and more positively, a sustainable system requires a way of life which respects all aspects and needs of humanity including just and responsible behaviour to other human beings, living creatures and respect for the earth. Basic ethical principles need to be recognised as an integral part of the sustainable system.

Consideration of these principles is also informed by the limits that exist on any human activity within the limited resources present in the world. In this regard we again raise the fundamental question of the compatibility of the dominant economic model based on growth and the concept of sustainable development.

Ecumenical Consultations on Globalisation: Budapest 2001 and Soesterberg 2002

Important conferencec with regard of sustainable development and churches were the Budapest and Soesterberg consultations on globalisation. The Budapest consultation "Serve God, Not Mammon: The Joint Consultation on Globalisation in Central and Eastern Europe: Responses to The Ecological, Economic And social Consequences was held in June 2001 in Budapest, Hungary and the Sosterberg conference on the Economy in the Service of Life that took place in June 2002 in Soesterberg (The Netherlands). Both the conferences were part of an ongoing process of churches evaluating and responding to urgent challenges raised by economic globalisation, as it affects the lives of people and the rest of creation around the world.

The World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) General Council in Debrecen 1997 called the churches to “ a committed process of progressive recognition, education and confession (processus confessionis) regarding economic injustice and ecological destruction”. The Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Harare later strongly endorsed this position, stating “that all churches around the world must begin to reflect on the meaning of the Christian confession in this time of increasing injustice and uninterrupted environmental destruction”. The Lutheran World Federation has begun a related process with a working paper, “Engaging Economic Globalisation as a Communion.” Three joint consultations took place in Bangkok in 1999 and in Budapest and in Fiji in 2001.

In June 2001 met 47 representatives of churches from Central and Eastern Europe, along with resource persons in Budapest. They were from Orthodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, including a presenter delegated by the Council of the European Bishops’ Conferences. In addition, 30 guests and staff persons of regional

7 and international ecumenical and civil organisations from around the world were present.

According to the message of the conference "Serve God, not Mammon", about a decade ago the people and churches in Central and Eastern Europe rejoiced as they realised that they were free. It was as if a deep shadow had passed by and that full daylight had returned.

As the past ten years are reviewed, it becomes clear that the magnitude and content of the problems encountered have been grossly underestimated by both governments and churches. All difficulties do not arise directly out of what happened more than ten years ago. This suggests the need to be more vigilant in our journey with the women and men of Central and Eastern Europe. The countries in the region enjoy great cultural and religious diversity. Some of them show economic growth, increasing employment and environmental improvements according to the data available. In the region as a whole, however, rising unemployment and the falling value of pensions and wages has plunged millions of women and men into poverty. Health care, schooling and education standards declined. Commerce based criminality grew rapidly.

Whereas Communism had depended on unrestricted state planning, politicians and leaders now embraced the unrestrained market-mechanism as the path to a better future. They did not discern that a market without social, cultural, and institutional frameworks would undermine the very fabric of society. Privatisation, liberalisation and deregulation of the market for the sake of economic growth was made a prerequisite for receiving external loans and financial assistance . This neo-liberal ‘shock therapy’, requiring a shrinking role for the state, simply disabled existing social provisions for ordinary women and men.

The meeting arrived in a conclusion: No authority inside or outside the region should ever escape its responsibility to do to justice to the poor and the needy by claiming the unavoidability of the requirements of globalisation.

In the message was quoted the Basic Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church: "...the danger of differences that may emerge between people’s will and international organisation’s decisions should not be underestimated. These organisations may become instruments for the unfair dominion of strong over weak countries, rich over poor, the technologically and informationally developed over the rest. They may also practice double standards, by applying international law in the interest of more influential states. All this compels the Orthodox Church to call the powers that be, both on national and international

8 levels, to utter responsibility." (cf. The Foundations of the Social Concept of the ROC)5

The conference made recommendations. Here are listed some of those connected to sustainable development -Global finance should not be allowed to monopolise the decisive role in national and regional economies by rendering them over-dependent on Foreign Direct Investment and speculative capital. We strongly recommend that governments persist in striving for the development of their home-economy, with special attention to the role of medium and small businesses, and warn them against prioritising export-orientation at their expense. -Local economic initiatives need to be supported. This implies the strengthening of local governments. Public authorities at all levels should insist on the maintenance of adequate social support for the poor and strong environmental standards and resist international financial pressure to eliminate them. -We ask governments to support the international actions of those governments and civil organisations which, in order to democratise the international monetary system, seek to regulate the flow of speculative international capital. We ask the same support, especially from the rich industrialised countries, for international efforts (like in Rio and Kyoto) in favour of the environment. -Nations seeking entry to the European Union should equip their electorate to make informed decisions through accurate and transparent evaluation of the impact on social security and other vital interests of their citizens. -Governments should safeguard cultural values, the dignity and rights of all women and men, and their unhindered development. Economic globalisation in its present form threatens values such as justice, charity, peace and sobriety which are rooted in Christian traditions. It replaces them with the values of unrestrained consumerism and increasing commercialisation (or monetisation) of society. Education, health care, arts, sports, the media, the environment and even safety are increasingly dominated by financial considerations. The culture of economic rivalry is usurping the culture of social co-operation with adverse consequences for weak and vulnerable people. - Public resources, which from a Christian perspective are designed to serve the common good, should not be ransomed to privatisation policies by governments whether or not they are under pressure from external donors.

The conference saw competition, consumption and comfort as modern idols. "Today we are confronted by the domination of the idols of competition, consumption and

5cf. The Foundations of the Social Concept of the RussianOrtodox Church (http://www.russian-orthodox-church.org.ru/sd00e.htm)

9 comfort. The Christian understanding of oikonomia, of the world as God’s household, embraces relations between people and God, social harmony and peaceful coexistence of human beings with the whole of God’s creation. This urges churches and Christians to show the world the example of living according to the principles of co-operation, interdependence and compassion deeply rooted in the Trinitarian basis of our faith. We ask the Holy Spirit for the gift of discernment by which to read the signs of our time and to ‘distinguish the spirits’." In challenging economic globalisation the Church is confronted with Jesus' words, The message of the conference quoted Mathew: "You cannot serve God and mammon." (Mt. 6:24). A question was made: "Will the churches have the courage to engage with the ‘values’ of a profit-orientated way of life as a matter of faith, or will they withdraw to a private life? This is the question our churches must answer... or lose their very soul! " -Churches need to engage in a serious way with the following questions. Which processes in international politics and the economy are caused by the intrinsic development of trade, information flow, cultural exchange etc.? and Which are the result of ‘forced global transformation’ aimed at securing the dominance of the richest countries, as well as economic and political groups? What are the positive aspects of increasing international co-operation which can be employed for advancing the Christian mission in word and deed? How can Christian values, traditions and cultures be preserved and thrive in the context of globalisation?

Recommendations: -The negative social consequences of globalisation must be counterbalanced by effective attention to the needs of the poor, the vulnerable and the powerless. We call upon churches: To resist socially counterproductive policies, especially social and tax dumping and to preserve the dignity of labour. -We call the churches to remember that they are founded on families and therefore need them to be strong. -We call our churches to make the care of the environment a major priority for Christian reflection and social action. It is the ‘sustainable society’ and ‘sustainable communities’ rather than economics, which matter. The European Christian Environmental Network is a useful contact. -We urge the churches in the region to increase public awareness about globalisation and its consequences for their population. -Churches and ecumenical groups in the region are encouraged to use the expertise and linkages that the Centre for Networking, Training and Development being established by European Contact Group, the Work and Economy Network, and the Ecumenical Academy in Prague can provide. -We ask churches in our region to respond more actively to WCC’s invitation to reflect on globalisation and to search for alternatives to it; to CEC’s process on the role of churches in European integration and also to WARC’s Debrecen call for

10 Processus Confessionis – a committed process of recognition, education and confession regarding economic injustice and ecological destruction. -We call the churches in the West to resist the destructive forces of economic globalisation and to be advocates for global social justice. We ask the churches and the people in the West to influence public opinion and to persuade decision-makers in politics, economy and other sectors of society to stop the exploitation and exclusion of the majority of the population of the world and the destruction of the earth by the 'golden billion' - the population of Western industrialised countries. -We ask the churches to educate their members so that they may rediscover the traditional Christian values of self-restraint and asceticism (simplicity of lifestyle), and to propagate them in society as a way of counteracting individualism and consumerism, and as an alternative foundation for economic and social development. -We strongly support the Message to the Churches in the North from the participants of the Symposium on the Consequences of Economic Globalisation (Bangkok, Thailand, November 12-15, 1999) that was shared at our meeting. 16.We assure the churches in the global South of our solidarity. Our part of Europe bears a considerable measure of responsibility for many developments, with both good and bad consequences, in Southern countries. -Today our peoples share many similar problems and challenges, and we deeply need each other in order to find solutions. In the spirit of ecumenical partnership for mutual being we call the WCC and other ecumenical organisations to support co- operation and networking between churches in Europe and with churches in the global South

In Soesterberg met 80 participants to analyse how economic globalisation and the role of money affects societies in Western Europe, and to develop the response of Western European churches to questions raised previously by churches in Central and Eastern Europe and in the South. It is obvious that the Soesterberg consultation dealt more with environmental aspects of economic globalisation than the Budapest consultation, centered much more on the social side, had done.

Here are some central aspects of the Letter to the Churches in Western Europe connected to the issue of sustainable development.

 The Gospel promises life in all its fullness for all people and the whole creation (John 10:10). This promise was incarnated in Jesus Christ. Nobody is excluded from God’s household of life. The Christian community reflects this vision, for the sake of the whole world. Guided by this vision, we strive for an economy in the service of life. Markets and money should enable the exchange of goods in order to satisfy human needs and contribute to the upbuilding of human community.

11  Today, however, we see a growing domination of real life by private financial and corporate interests. Economic globalisation is guided by a logic which gives priority to accumulating capital, unbridled competition and the securing of profit in narrowing markets. Political and military power are used as instruments to secure safe access to resources and to protect investment and trade. This guiding logic is often identified as neo-liberalism. The neo-liberal economic doctrine unleashes the forces of economic globalisation in ways which do not recognise limits. This form of liberalisation has quickly resulted in profound political, social, cultural and even religious repercussions, which affect the lives of people all around the world through growing inequality, impoverishment, injustice and environmental destruction.

 Churches participating in the ecumenical process (for example at the WCC Harare Assembly) have affirmed that the ideology of neo-liberalism is incompatible with the vision of the oikoumene, of the unity of the Church and the whole inhabited earth. Extensive and growing injustice, exclusion and destruction are opposed to the sharing and solidarity associated with being the body of Christ. What is at stake is the quality of communion, the future of the common good of society and the credibility of the churches’ confession of and witness to God, who stands with and for the poor.

 For the sake of the integrity of their communion and witness, churches are called to confront the neo-liberal doctrine and practice and to follow God. From the consultations so far, there is growing agreement that running the global market according to an unquestioned neo-liberal doctrine becomes idolatrous, leading to exclusion, violence and death. This reality, but also the possibility of transformation and alternatives, unfolded as we shared stories of those suffering consequences of the implementation of neo-liberalism and listened to the letter and the messages from our Southern and Central and Eastern European sisters and brothers.

In the ongoing process the conference asked in its letter congregations and synods of our churches to consider the following questions regarding positions and practices by the churches themselves6:

 Why are our churches addressing poverty but hesitate to address wealth?  How do our churches deal with their own money, their pension funds, investments and real estate? Are banks, to which our churches are related, involved in tax evasion, in ethically unacceptable investment and speculation practices and other activities undermining the capacity of the state to strive for the common good?

6 Here are only some questions connected to the SD.

12  Is our observation correct that in many European countries the state has increasingly surrendered to the concept of the free market, reducing its historic role as guardian of the common good and defender of the weak?  As far as we as churches with our social and health services are involved in competitive markets, do we realise our potential to shape market conditions in the interest of the public good as well as in the interests of our churches? How do we respond to the increasing privatisation of public and social goods and services essential for life such as water, health care, education etc.?  What kind of consumption and life-style do we practice and promote? How can we as churches and individual church members raise awareness of climate change and work for environmental protection, using, for example, energy more carefully in church buildings, housing, transport etc.?  How do we engage in the public discourse on economic policies and with institutions promoting and implementing neo-liberal economic practices? How do we build alliances with social movements, which are calling on governments to strive for the common good and for restoration of a just and sustainable political and social framework for economic activities?

 for the continuation of efforts for cancellation of bi- and multilateral debts of the poorest developing countries and the establishment of a debt arbitration mechanism to reduce substantially the debt burden of other developing countries; the repudiation of illegitimate and odious debt, i.e. in the strategy of Jubilee 2000 and Jubilee South;

 for mechanisms to deter excessive, destabilising currency speculation (such as an effective currency transaction tax, Tobin Tax), i.e. the work of ATTAC7 and ecumenical groups and churches supporting it;  for studying the possibility to treat and tax money like all other commodities, given the fact that currencies are no longer instruments in the service of the economy, but are themselves traded in the financial markets;  for national and regional central banks to exercise more control over monetary policy and in relation to the markets; develop a multilateral approach to defining common standards to minimise opportunities for tax avoidance by both transnational corporations (TNCs) and investment funds; i.e. supporting the goals of the ongoing political processes in several countries and at the global level to close off-shore centers, control hedge-funds and micro-control of private banks;

7 ATTAC is the Association for the Taxation of financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens. ATTAC was founded in France in 1998, and now has over 80,000 members worldwide. It is an international network of independent national and local groups in 33 countries. It promotes the idea of an international tax on currency speculation (the Tobin Tax) and campaigns to outlaw tax havens, replace pension funds with state pensions, cancel Third World debt, reform or abolish the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and, more generally, recapture the democratic space that has been lost to the financial world.

13  for a multilateral agreement that allows states to tax TNCs on a global unitary basis, with adequate mechanisms to allocate tax revenues internationally;  for an increase in official development aid and alternative funding for investments in public goods (health, education, sanitation, water) and basic social services, i.e. by staying engaged with the UN – Financing for Development – Follow-up Process by the ecumenical team of the WCC and by church related NGOs of the South and North (i.e. Social Watch Report, Montevideo);

 for legal frameworks guaranteeing corporate social and environmental accountability;  for strengthening church support to other ways of conducting business with higher social returns, the idea of ecological and social components of business, i.e. as realised in fair-trade, Oikocredit, the economy of communion of the Focolare movement, etc.  to join the movement for Socially Responsible Investments, ethical investment and ethical/ecological funds, i.e. as in Dutch Green Funds;  to promote the introduction of tax credits as an instrument to increase investments in Green Funds and Social-Ethical Funds, i.e. the recent legislation enacted in the Netherlands.  for increased individual consumer responsibilities regarding goods, financial transactions, services, i.e. as documented in “Shopping for a better world”;

 for support of the many initiatives by movements and NGOs monitoring and criticising the EU position in international trade negotiations and the International Financial Institutions;  for more public accountability of the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, especially regarding their role in Central and Eastern Europe;

 for more equitable access and more democratic participation in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), promotion of fair trade  for a halt on the negotiations on the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), pressing municipalities and governments even more to privatise basic public services (e.g. water, energy, health);

 for refusal to go along with the justification of wars, militarisation of global politics, and increasing military spending in the name of “war against terrorism” instead of using the resources for abolishing the root causes of terrorism by social and economic justice and through better international co-operation in the multilateral UN system;  for the restriction of the arms trade, as i.e. in the Small Arms Campaign

14  for support by the churches for civil society groups and movements to be listened to and taken seriously by governments so that a real dialogue becomes possible, i.e. joining movements like ATTAC as just done by the Alliance of Reformed Churches in Germany  for a multilayer approach by Churches engaging with the grassroots in lobbying, and networking at local, national, regional and international levels; , i.e. by strengthening co-operation with and between church related development agencies, mission boards, WCC, World Communions and their member churches and partners;

These initiatives are concrete steps to reverse the tide and to overcome neo-liberal globalisation. They are examples of engagement and communication between economic, ethical and theological perspectives with often underlying antagonistic values, language and institutional rationalities. They often require high sensitivity to make constructive encounters possible. Churches may have a prominent role to play in developing communication between often alienated world views. .

The conference encouraged to::  to join together in ecumenical processes to more seriously committing ourselves, from out of our faith convictions, to work more vigorously for justice in the economy and on the earth;  to struggle together for all to enjoy life in all its fullness;  to analyse the destructiveness of the current economic system and to speak out against the injustices of economic globalisation;  to search for alternatives by providing financial and spiritual support, and to support already existing and newly emerging economic and social alternatives like Oikocredit, the economy of communion of the Focolare movement, and fair trade;  to join hands with civil and social movements to further our common goals;  to facilitate networking to promote solidarity between the churches in the South and the churches in Central and Eastern Europe;  to call for fair, just and speedy negotiations on the EU integration and recognition of the justified claims of those who are not included in this process;  to work for social inclusion of all who are affected by negative impacts of economic and social policies;  to adopt self-restraint and simplicity in lifestyle, in resistance to the dominating cultural patterns of consumerism;  to call for the establishment of a truth forum, as suggested by the Argentinian Federation of Evangelical Churches8, and subsequently

8 cf. footnote 4

15  to seek redress for injustices, such as illegitimate debts and unfair trade conditions.

Previous Documents of the Coalition Economy/ecology:

* Suggestions for Activities, 1999-2001 - the social and environmental indicators to be used alongside traditional economic indicators, -the inclusion of externalities, like environmental costs, in energy and other resource use, -the use of taxation to shift practice away from unsustainable patterns of consumption, - the environmental implications of the notion and practice of global free trade, -the development of local and regional economic processes where sensitivity to the environment may be promoted more visibly. http://www.ecen.org/vilmeco3.htm

* Dossier on Economics and Environment for Vilemov Consultation 1998: http://www.ecen.org/topecon.htm

Important material on sustainable development:

* Sustainable Development and the European Union; The Need to Develop New Strategies and New Lifestyles; A report of the working group on Economy, Ecology and Social Issues. Conference of European Churches /Church and Society Commission, Brussels 2001 http://www.cec-kek.org/english/sustainableEU1.htm

* Serve God, Not Mammon: Message From The Joint Consultation on Globalization in Central and Eastern Europe: Responses to The Ecological, Economic And social Consequences, June, 24-28, 2001, Budapest http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/buda-statement.html

* World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002, Johannesburg ECEN web pages: http://www.ecen.org/wssdecen.htm WCC web pages: http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/wrapup.html

* Report on the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Prepared by David G. Hallman: http://wcc-coe.org./wcc/what/jpc/wssd-report.html

16 ______

Questions to discuss (collected from previous meetings):

Sufficiency: What do we mean with it

Consumerism

Commercialisation of Sundays

Sustainable development vs. Sustainable Communities

Corporate Social responsibility and the Churches

How do our churches deal with their own money, their pension funds, investments and real estate?9 Are banks, to which our churches are related, involved in tax evasion, in ethically unacceptable investment and speculation practices and other activities undermining the capacity of the state to strive for the common good (Soesterberg letter)?

As far as we as churches with our social and health services are involved in competitive markets, do we realise our potential to shape market conditions in the interest of the public good as well as in the interests of our churches?

How do we respond to the increasing privatisation of public and social goods and services essential for life such as water, health care, education etc. ((Soesterberg letter))?

What kind of consumption and life-style do we practice and promote? How can we as churches and individual church members raise awareness of climate change and work for environmental protection, using, for example, energy more carefully in church buildings, housing, transport etc.?

How do we engage in the public discourse on economic policies and with institutions promoting and implementing neo-liberal economic practices? How do we build alliances with social movements, which are calling on governments to strive for the common good and for restoration of a just and sustainable political and social framework for economic activities?

9 See for example Ethical Investment Policy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (helsinki 1999)