Written evidence submitted by the International Court for the Environment
Introduction
This evidence is submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee as part of its inquiry into Preparations for Rio +20: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. It relates to the institutional frameworks (at an international level), required for sustainable development. The proposal is for the creation of an International Court for the Environment (ICE), and can be summarised as follows:
• The aim of the ICE would be the promotion, development, determination and enforcement of environmental law at the international level; • The ICE would provide a forum both for states and for non-state entities; • The ICE Coalition propose that there could be a progression from the initial stage of providing an arbitral tribunal, to the eventual creation of the International Court for the Environment, under an international treaty; • It is further proposed that the ICE could sit alongside a World Environmental Organisation (WEO), uniting scientists, entrepreneurs, governments and civil society; • The ultimate aim would be the establishment of one single court dealing with all UN environmental law. Additionally, for the consolidation of the various environment-related treaties to be incorporated into one single document, the interpretation of which would be within the ICE’s jurisdiction.
The Nature of the Problem
1. In his Foreword to the first edition of “Principles of International Environmental Law”, 1995, by Philippe Sands, Sir Robert Jennings QC, former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), wrote: “It is a trite observation that environmental problems, although they closely affect municipal laws, are essentially international; and that the main structure of control can therefore be no other than that of international law”.1 Despite the increased awareness of climate change nowadays, many may think that we are hardly any further forward in establishing a “structure of control”.
2. When Jennings wrote in 1995, the problems were perceived mostly in terms of major cases of environmental pollution which were regarded as having potentially international implications. Perhaps the most infamous case of environmental liability on the part of a trans-national corporation occurred on 2nd December 1983 in Bhopal, India, when Union Carbide, a multi- national company incorporated in the United States, released 40 tonnes of toxic methyl isocyanate from its plant, killing 3,500 people and affecting over 200,000 others. Proceedings brought in the United States courts having failed, the injured parties settled the ensuing litigation in the Indian courts for some $470 million (an average of about $15,000 per deceased person).
3. Scroll forward to 2011, and, the potential effects of climate change have of course been given an altogether new and critical focus by a number of recent developments, including reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by Nicholas Stern on behalf of the UK
1 Sands, P., 2003. Principles of International Environmental Law. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Page 187 Government. Few now deny the urgency of a solution to these problems, though even fewer claim to have to hand a serious and comprehensive set of solutions.
4. In these circumstances, it seems at least timely (a) to review those international legal instruments which already exist to facilitate a solution to the problem, and (b) to suggest that the creation of a new instrument deserves consideration. In line with the latter, Rio+20 recognises the need for reformed environmental governance, one of the pillars of sustainable development, as seen in the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI). The creation of an International Court for the Environment (ICE) sits in line with the proposed reforms, and seeks to address the deficit in access to justice for environmental disputes, on an international level. In essence, an ICE would create a forum for people whose justice system does not enable them to seek redress for environmental harm.
Dispute Resolution Systems
5. The oldest legal institution dedicated to resolving international disputes is the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), established in 1899. The PCA has jurisdiction over disputes when at least one party is a state (or an organisation of states) and when both parties to the dispute expressly agree to submit their dispute for resolution. In 2001 the PCA adopted some ‘optional rules’ for arbitration of disputes relating to the environment and/or natural resources. However, at least one party to any dispute must be a state, the Court has no compulsory jurisdiction and, importantly, its decisions are not made available for public inspection.
6. Turning to the ICJ, established in 1945; here jurisdiction depends on whether two or more states have consented to its jurisdiction. While the ICJ may accept cases that are environmentally related, only states have standing. The ICJ established within its structure in 1993 a Chamber specifically to deal with environmental matters. However, no state has ever submitted a dispute to that environmental Chamber and the Chamber has now been disbanded. On rare occasions, the ICJ has heard a case in an environmental context, including most recently the case of the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay. This case was ultimately resolved on procedural grounds. Some have said that the judgment would increase doubts in the international legal community as to whether the ICJ, as an institution, is well-placed to tackle complex scientific questions.
7. In 1992 the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 10, providing for improved public awareness and participation. This preceded the signing of the Kyoto protocol in Japan on 11th December 1997, which for the first time, contained international obligations requiring countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions below specified levels. It came into force in 2005, when countries emitting 55% of the world’s carbon dioxide had ratified. The United States of America is the only developed nation not to have ratified. However, constraints upon enforcement remain in the view of many a significant weakness.
8. Another important method of dispute resolution is international arbitration. An environmental treaty can provide for the submission of disputes to arbitration by mutual consent of the relevant parties. Also relevant is the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) regime, which was established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This tribunal has governed the implementation and interpretation of the Convention, on an international level, since 1996. 9. At the European level, the European Union (EU) has, for many years, legislated on environmental matters. In 1998, a number of states, principally European, entered into the so- called “Aarhus Convention on Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters”, ratified by the UK in February 2005; although a number of states within the EU are not in full compliance with this. The Aarhus Compliance Committee has recently heard just such a complaint against the United Kingdom. Moreover, the Aarhus Convention of course only applies to its signatory states. There is no global equivalent.
10. An important dispute resolution mechanism not directly relating to the environment arises under the procedures of the World Trade Organisation, created by an inter-governmental conference in 1994. Difficult questions have arisen as to whether the WTO can regulate issues that do not themselves involve trade, but which have a direct impact on conditions of trade, for example environmental standards for goods or agricultural produce traded internationally. There is however, no provision for panels adjudicating on environmental cases to have specific environmental expertise, although there is a requirement that panels adjudicating on financial matters should have the necessary financial services expertise.
Institutional Reform
11. Even before the recent Copenhagen summit held under the UNFCCC, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, and President Sarkozy of France, in a letter to the U.N. Secretary General asked for the Copenhagen climate talks to progress the creation of a World Environmental Organisation (WEO). More recently, some months ago, ministers and officials from more than 135 nations converged for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) annual meeting. Its Executive Director, Achim Steiner stated that environmental governance reform was a key part of the discussions and that governments had raised the possibility of a WEO. He said that a high level ministerial group had been established to continue the process with greater focus and urgency.
12. As Philippe Hugon has said in ‘After Copenhagen: An International Environmental Agency Needed'2 a WEO might unite four parties in its drive to advance the environmental cause: scientists, entrepreneurs, governments, and environmental organisations.
13. Those of us who support the case for an ICE do not in any way exclude the notion that an ICE could sit alongside or be part of a WEO. Mr Steiner said that a WEO could be modelled on the WTO which as already mentioned, has its own dispute resolution mechanisms. A WEO might be granted jurisdiction to refer cases to an ICE and indeed it might be provided that complaints intended to be referred to the ICE should first be referred to the WEO for consideration and investigation.
A New Proposal
14. The arrangements for the establishment of an ICE would include: (i) an international convention on the right to a healthy environment, with broad coverage; (ii) direct access by NGO’s and private parties as well as states; (iii) transparency in proceedings; (iv) a scientific
2 Hugon, P., 2010. The Need for an International Environmental Agency . IRIS. Available at: {HYPERLINK "http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/items/view/The_Need_for_an_International_Environmental_Agency"} body to assess technical issues; and (v) a mechanism (perhaps to be developed by the Court itself) to avoid forum shopping.
15. Such a proposal was mooted as long ago as 1999 at a conference in Washington sponsored by a foundation which had been set up to investigate the establishment of an international court for the environment. The proposals then considered defined the functions of the Court as including: (i) adjudicating upon significant environmental disputes involving the responsibility of members of the international community; (ii) adjudicating upon disputes between private and public parties with an appreciable magnitude (at the discretion of the President of the Court); (iii) ordering emergency, injunctive and preventative measures as necessary; (iv) mediating and arbitrating environmental disputes; (v) instituting investigations, where necessary, to address environmental problems of international significance. A similar proposal has been under consideration by a Foundation based in Rome (see also below).
16. The potential benefits of an International Court for the Environment, particularly for the global business community, would include: (i) a centralised system accessible to a range of actors; (ii) the enhancement of the body of law regarding international environmental issues; (iii) consistency in judicial resolution of international environmental disputes; (iv) increased focus on preventative measures; (v) global environmental standards of care; and perhaps also (vi) facilitation and enforcement of international environmental treaties.
The Judicial Role
17. Because environmental law is a comparatively new branch of law, the judiciary is well positioned actively to influence the law's normative development. This was confirmed by Judge Christopher Weeramantry, the former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice in a UNEP ‘Judges Handbook on Environmental Law’3.
18. Earlier, in 2002, over 120 senior Judges from 60 countries around the world - including 32 Chief Justices - met in Johannesburg on the eve of the World Summit on Sustainable Development to discuss the role of the judiciary in promoting governance and the rule of law in the field of environmental and sustainable development. The outcome of the Symposium was a unanimous recognition of the crucial role that the judiciary plays in enhancing environmental governance and the rule of law through the interpretation, development, implementation and enforcement of environmental law in the context of sustainable development. They also concluded that an independent judiciary and judicial process is vital for the implementation, development and enforcement of environmental law.
3 “It is often the judiciary that gives shape and direction to new concepts and procedures incorporated in national legislation. As more situations come before judges, these individual decisions initiate trends, which give the newly emerging discipline of environmental law the requisite conceptual framework and momentum for its development.” 19. A further illustration of the judicial role can be found in the first annual report of the UK Supreme Court, which observes that a key role for the Court is to educate as well as adjudicate. The Court is unique in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in that its proceedings can be and are routinely filmed and footage made available to broadcasters. Since the Court came into existence, its website ({HYPERLINK "http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk"}) has received around 19,000 distinct visitors a month, from virtually every country in the world. An ICE could operate in a similarly transparent way.
Possible Objections
20. I would classify the main objections under three headings. Firstly the question is raised, what law would be applied by such a body; secondly, why is it necessary for there to be a new body when existing juridical or dispute resolution institutions already exist to undertake the role envisage for an ICE; thirdly, what would be the point of establishing a new international judicial body such as an ICE if it was unable to enforce its decisions. 21. As to the first issue, international law is already sufficiently developed to enable the court itself to decide upon the appropriate law to apply to a dispute. Clearly if the dispute arises in an area to which a specific bilateral or multilateral treaty relates, then the terms of that treaty will be influential or decisive but on other issues one might expect and indeed hope that the court itself would develop the law. 22. As to the second issue, I do not in any way rule out the idea that one or more of the existing institutions grappling with some of these problems might enlarge its role. Indeed as I have indicated the WTO Appellate body has moved in this direction. But it seems doubtful to me that any individual existing institution will be able to assume a role of the kind which we envisage for an ICE. 23. As to the third issue, there is an interesting answer to this objection in ‘An Introduction to International Law’ by J. G. Starke.4
The early stages of an ICE
24. I now turn to consider how one might move towards the establishment of an ICE. It will almost certainly require an international treaty, and prior to this a campaign over a number of years. To that end there has been established the ICE Coalition, a company limited by guarantee, to which many enthusiasts, young and old, have already lent their support.
4 Starke, J. G., 1963. An Introduction to International Law. 5th Edition. Butterworths. Pages 28-29: “Assuming however that it be a fact that international law suffers from the complete absence of organised external force, would such circumstance necessarily derogate from its legal character. In this connection, there is a helpful comparison to be made between international law and the canon law, the law of the Catholic Church. The comparison is the more striking in the early history of the law of nations when the binding force of both systems was founded to some extent upon the concept of the “law of nature”. The canon law is, like international law, unsupported by organised external force, although there are certain punishments for breach of its rules, for example, excommunication and the refusal of sacraments. But generally the canon law is obeyed because as a practical matter the Catholic society is agreeable to abide by its rules. This indicates that international law is not exceptional in its lack of organised external force… In other words the problem of the binding force of international law ultimately resolves itself into a problem no different from that of the obligatory character of law in general”. 25. There are two points to make here, first relates to the work already done and second to how, ahead of reaching the ultimate goal of a court, the ICE proposal might be advanced in the meantime. 26. As to the first point, it is worth taking note of the considerable work already done in this field by other organisations with aims broadly similar to or consistent with the ICE Coalition. For example, an organisation called ICEF, in Rome, has for a number of years being looking at the possibility of creating an ICE. It is to be hoped that cooperation with such organisations can be facilitated. I spoke last year at an ICEF event in Rome, alongside the Rt Hon Lord Justice Robert Carnwath, perhaps our most distinguished environmental lawyer at judicial level. 27. As to the second point, one possibility to consider is that, en route to the ultimate goal, the ICE is constituted as something less than a fully mandated international court, more akin to an arbitral tribunal, providing declaratory relief and dispute resolution services to those who agree to submit to its jurisdiction. States, NGOs, corporations and individuals would all be able to agree to use and have access to the ICE. This role requires no international treaty; and the ICE might well sit at a number of different locations. 28. This straightforward arbitral tribunal model would also be able to perform a valuable role as the dispute resolution institution of choice under specific international agreements.
The ultimate goal
29. Ultimately, it is envisaged that the ICE might be mandated as the international environmental tribunal. On the basis that the ICE will, on the interim approach set out above, be offering its services to a wide cross-section of the international governmental, non-governmental and business communities. 30. The ICE could sit above and adjudicate on disputes arising out of the UN “environmental” treaties, including the UN Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, the Kyoto Protocol (and any successor text to Kyoto and addition or amendment to the UNFCCC that is agreed), the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, any other applicable UN environmental law and, in addition, customary international law. The aim might be for it to incorporate all of the work of the existing tribunals under the existing UN environment treaties (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol Enforcement Branch). However, to the extent that any such incorporation is not possible or not possible to start with, there could be a “carve out” of the ICE’s jurisdiction so as to prevent overlap with these existing bodies. The aim would be, ultimately, to achieve one single court dealing with all UN environmental law, under a consolidated treaty. 31. In addition, it is envisaged that the ICE could provide a judicial review function in respect of environmental decisions made by bodies involved in the interpretation of international environmental obligations – e.g. the Kyoto Enforcement Branch, or any successor or replacement institution established by the COPs under the UNFCCC Kyoto processes; the WTO; and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and its interpretation of the Equator Principles.5
5 See Kingsbury, B. and others, 2005. The emergence of global Administrative Law. 32. A possible additional feature of the ICE might be the establishment of specialist panels – e.g. relating to aviation or shipping or extractive industries. This feature could be present in both the interim (arbitral tribunal) version and in the final version of the ICE.
33. Once the ICE was fully established, it is envisaged that its judicial “bench” could incorporate both legal and scientific experts. This would assist the court in being able to make informed decisions, including in areas which demand specific expertise. 34. Depending on the views of signatory states, there might be a restriction to investigate only the “most serious” breaches – in line with a similar restriction upon the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction. Equally, there might well be a restriction of the remedies available to non- State actors purely to declaratory relief. 35. The sanctions imposed could include declaratory relief, fines and, along the lines of the EU Environmental Liability Directive, sanctions of restoration and rehabilitation of damaged habitats. The ICE could also be empowered to hand down declarations of incompatibility as regards Signatory State legislation where it conflicts with the UN environmental rules. In addition it could sanction Signatory States for failures to permit enforcement of judgments. There would also be provision for interim measures, specifically, injunctions, enforceable in Signatory States. 36. It is suggested that the ICE would produce a half-yearly or annual report listing its activities and possibly naming and shaming wrongdoers (be they those who have breached the law or Signatory States which permit failures to enforce judgments). It is also suggested the ICE has a panel of environmental experts to assist it.
Recent steps
37. The proposals set out above have been the subject of considerable discussion over the past few years, including at a symposium on “Climate Change and the New World Order” in November 2008, hosted by my Chambers at 6 Pump Court, Temple – and a seminar on A Case for an International Court for the Environment hosted by the ICE Coalition and Global Policy, and chaired by Lord Anthony Giddens at the LSE in November 2009. That same year, the ICE Coalition met with the Legal Counsel to the UN Secretary General in New York and presented at COP 15 in Copenhagen. In 2010 I was fortunate enough to speak about the project in the 8th Steinkraus Cohen lecture to the United Nations Association and in a presentation to the World Bar Conference (where the proposal received the endorsement of Justice Brian Preston, Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales). A draft Protocol setting out the “constitutional rules” of an ICE is in the course of preparation. 38. Throughout 2010 and early 2011, the ICE Coalition has expanded its campaign to multiple fronts within the international environmental governance realm, including the Rio+20, UNEP and UNFCCC processes.
ICE in the Rio+20 Process
39. Through its partnership with the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future (SF), the ICE Coalition had the opportunity to publish articles on the news section of the website and to publicise its concept as a direct contribution from civil society to the 2012 Earth Summit (Rio+20) on sustainable development. The ICE Coalition also contributed content for a document called “The Pocket Guide to Sustainable Development Governance”, initiated by the SF and the Commonwealth Secretariat in response to the perceived ‘knowledge gap’ on the history and dynamics of global governance for sustainable development. Its aim is to provide the necessary background information on global sustainable development governance to allow both governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to familiarize themselves with the key issues more comprehensively. The associated programme on Sustainable Development Governance (SDG), called the SDG2012, is focused on contributing to the Rio+20 conference's theme of an institutional framework for sustainable development. The ICE Coalition produced a think piece on “Environmental Institutions for the 21st Century: an International Court for the Environment” within this framework. In addition to its work with SF, the ICE Coalition has responded to a UN Secretary General's Questionnaire designed to inform country reports for the Rio+20 Summit and shape the Summit agenda in the preparatory process. 40. The resolution of the UN General Assembly on 24 December 2009 (A/RES/64/236) announcing Rio+20 invited NGOs to “submit ideas and proposals to contribute to the preparatory process”. The International Centre of Comparative Environmental Law (ICCEL) in partnership with the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Environmental Law, Land Use and Urban Development (CRIDEAU-OMIJ) of the University of Limoges, selected a number of topics for discussion that could lead to proposals for new conventions or generate specific recommendations for States to include in the Conference's final document. The ICE Coalition has been selected to contribute on the topic of “The institutional framework for sustainable development and international environmental governance” and the idea of an International Court for the Environment in particular. This contribution will be analysed by a scientific committee in Limoges (France) by mid-September 2011 on the occasion of the third global meeting of lawyers and environmental law associations.
ICE in the United Nations Environment Programme Stream
41. Much of the Coalition’s work with respect to the UNEP stream has overlapped with Rio+20 efforts. The UNEP and Stakeholder Forum organised a conference in March 2011 entitled: “IEG, Sustainable Development Governance and Rio+20: A Stakeholder Consultation”. This conference provided an opportunity for stakeholders to approach the ongoing discussion on International Environmental Governance (IEG) under the UNEP-led process alongside the broader issue of Sustainable Development Governance. Two panels were organized, one examining the major building blocks of IEG reform and the other determining how IEG should be linked to Sustainable Development Governance. I was invited to speak on the “IEG reform” panel, making the case for monitoring and enforcement mechanisms as key components of functional reform.
ICE in the UNFCCC stream
42. In 2010 the ICE Coalition attended COP 16 in Cancun, at which campaign leaders lobbied and operated an exhibit space, participated in a side event and presented at a private ministerial event to build support and further expand its profile within the international environmental governance community. The Coalition aims to deploy its campaign for the COP 17, which will take place in Durban in 2011.
Overall conclusion
43. In essence, the establishment of an ICE is fundamental to the future progression of resolving environmental disputes. It would enable communities, campaigning organisations and individuals, as well as countries, to seek environmental justice. As acknowledged throughout this submission, environmental issues are rarely localised, and often have an international dimension. Currently there is no structure in place to adequately meet these demands. It is hoped that through this proposal, there can ultimately be one court, and one treaty that governs UN environmental law.
44. Many may feel that some of these ideas are very idealistic, but 100 years ago the same would have been said of the idea of the UN itself. For further details of the ICE Coalition, please see {HYPERLINK "http://www.icecoalition.com"}. It is to be hoped that support will be forthcoming. At stake is our very survival.
30 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by Compassion in World Farming
1. Summary
1.1 Compassion in World Farming belongs to the UK Food Group and supports their submission to this Inquiry. We wish to enlarge on that submission and add our own perspective, with a particular emphasis on “greening” agriculture.
1.2 Sustainable agriculture must:
• be low-impact on the earth and the climate, • promote multifunctional farming systems; • support small producers; • adopt the polluter pays principle; • acknowledge the real value of resources, natural capital and ecosystem services • protect and promote the wellbeing of farm animals
1.3 The Ethical dimension of sustainability includes animal welfare:
• it is generally accepted that sustainability includes an ethical dimension such as the need to avoid consuming natural resources at a rate that compromises the quality of life of future generations.
• we urge the UK government to press for Rio+20 to accept that the ethical dimension includes the need to ensure a good level of animal protection based on the Lisbon Treaty (TFEU)’s recognition of animals as sentient beings and its requirement for all EU Member States to “pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals” (EU, 2008). The consequence of including animal welfare in the ethical dimension is that other elements of sustainability should not be achieved by farming practices that impair the welfare of animals.
2. Low Impact:
2.1 Livestock production is a major cause of environmental pollution, habitat damage and biodiversity loss. Pig slurry is 75 times more polluting than raw domestic sewage (Archer, 1992).
2.2 Over-use of nitrogen fertilizers can saturate soils, encouraging leaching of nitrates into water supplies, causing eutrophication, with potential damage not just to fish and other species, but to human health (FAO, 1996). Use of nitrogen fertilizers must be better controlled. Alternative methods of enhancing soil fertility should be used where possible.
2.3 Agricultural policies must not only be based on sound environmental principles, but must encompass long term impact on the climate. Forests and grasslands sequester carbon and must be protected and enhanced. Pastureland used for grazing farm animals can act as an environmentally beneficial carbon “sink” (Rotz et al, 2009).
2.4 Livestock production, on the other hand, is responsible for 18% of the global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) generated by human activity, making it a major contributor to global warming (Steinfeld et al, 2006). Livestock is responsible for as much as 37% of our emissions of methane and 35% of nitrous oxide – both far more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide (Steinfeld et al, 2006).
2.5 Globally, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Agriculture has a role to play in mitigating its impact on climate change by, for example, more prudent use of nitrogen fertilizers, better manure management and protecting and enhancing carbon sinks such as forests and grasslands.
2.6 Promote multifunctional farming systems: The World Bank is extremely positive about the benefits of mixed farming (World Bank, 2009). In mixed farming, crop residues and locally grown crops are used to feed animals. Their manure, rather than being a pollutant, fertilizes the land and improves soil quality.
2.7 Agricultural policy should support smaller-scale agroecological and other forms of sustainable, ecological food production.
3. Support small producers:
3.1 A World Bank report stresses that industrial livestock production presents “a significant danger that the poor are being crowded out, the environment eroded and global food security and safety compromised”. The report concludes that the World Bank should “avoid funding large-scale commercial grain-fed feedlot systems and industrial milk, pork and poultry production…” (World Bank, 2001).
3.2 Small-scale farmers in developing countries must be supported in gaining access to adequate and appropriate animal feed and veterinary care for their farm animals. There should also be support for measures to assist with marketing of agricultural products, such as co-operatives, training and investment in rural infrastructure. It is vital that smallholders are protected from the effects of the competitive advantages enjoyed by large-scale producers such as economy of scale and access to global markets.
3.3 The United Nations reports that “small farm holders are at the heart of the food security challenge” but also that “small-scale and diversified farming continues to have significant advantages over largescale monoculture systems in terms of productivity (20-60 per cent higher yields), food production and environmental protection (including climate change mitigation)” (UN, 2011).
4. Adopt the Polluter Pays principle:
4.1 Farms and other companies which emit greenhouse gases and release polluted wastes into water and soil should pay for these practices.
4.2 Governments and international bodies should decide on fair mechanisms for recouping the costs of repairing the damage done by the polluters. At the same time positive encouragement should be given to farming systems that pollute less and sequester carbon, such as pasture-based farming.
5. Acknowledge the real value of resources, natural capital and ecosystem services:
5.1 Just as polluters should pay, those farmers who protect on-farm biodiversity, use robust native breeds of animals and farm in ecologically sound ways should be supported by governments, relevant international organisations and the market place (where that possibility exists or until such time as it exists).
6. Protect and promote the wellbeing of farm animals:
6.1 Animals are sentient beings. They can feel pain, fear, anticipation and pleasure. They can suffer. The Treaty of Lisbon, 2009, binding within the European Union, recognizes that animals are sentient beings and that their welfare must be protected (EU, 2008).
6.2 Factory farming abuses animals by denying their sentience, breeding them for such high rates of productivity that their own bodies are no longer capable of a normal life span, and keeping them in conditions of confinement, isolation or overcrowding so that their psychological, social and behavioural needs are thwarted.
6.3 Millions of animals are reared in totally abhorrent conditions: dairy cows permanently on concrete, pregnant pigs and veal calves confined in crates so narrow they cannot turn round, and laying hens in cages in which they cannot even stretch their wings. (The European Union banned the use of narrow veal crates (2007)).
7. Ethical Dimension:
7.1 Resource Use: The FAO estimates that one-third of the world’s cropland is used to grow crops, not to feed people, but to feed animals (Steinfeld et al, 2006). Over 90% soy and around 40% global cereals are grown primarily for animal feed, not human consumption (Lundquist et al, 2008; Steinfeld et al, 2006).
7.2 Using so much of the earth’s productivity to feed farm animals could only be justified if the animals produced more in output than was fed to them. Sadly this is not so. With industrial intensive farming, research shows that to get 1kg edible beef you need to give the animal 20kg feed. For pigs the figure is around 7.3kg feed, and for chickens, around 4.5kg (Smil, 2000). This means that much of what we feed to animals is in fact wasted from the point of view of feeding the world.
7.3 Animal welfare: All countries should adopt legal protection for animals and place a duty of care on the keepers of animals. The United Nations is urged to adopt a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare which would call on all members to protect the wellbeing of animals, including farm animals.
7.4 The consequence of including animal welfare in the ethical dimension is that other elements of sustainability should not be achieved by farming practices that impair the welfare of animals. Climate change mitigation measures, e.g. to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals, should always be subject to an assessment of their impact on animal health and welfare.
References
Archer, J. R. and Nicholson, R. J. (1992) ‘Liquid Wastes from Farm Animal Enterprises’, in Phillips, C. and Piggins, D., (eds) Farm Animals and the Environment. CAB International, Wallingford
Defra (undated) ‘Nitrates and watercourses’. {HYPERLINK "http://www.defra.gov.uk/food‐farm/land‐manage/nitrates‐ watercourses"}
EU (2008) Article 13 in: ‘Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union’. Official Journal of the European Union C 115/47. {HYPERLINK "http://eur‐ lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF"}
FAO (1996) Control of water pollution from agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. www.fao.org/docrep/W2598E/W2598E00.htm
Lundqvist, J., de Fraiture, C. and Molden, D. (2008) ‘Saving Water: From Field to Fork – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain’. SIWI Policy Brief, SIWI
Rotz, C.A. et al (2009) ‘Grazing Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Dairy Production Systems’. Plant Management Network International. Abstract at: www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=239774
Smil, V.(2000). Feeding the world: a challenge for the twenty-first century. MIT Press
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and de Haan, C. (2006) ‘Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options’. FAO, Rome.
UN (2011) ‘World Economic and Social Survey 2011’. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. {HYPERLINK "http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/index.shtml"}
World Bank (2009) ‘Minding the stock: bringing public policy to bear on livestock sector development’. World Bank. Report No. 44010-GLB. {HYPERLINK "http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/FinalMindingtheStock.pdf"}
World Bank (2001) ‘Livestock development - implications for rural poverty, the environment and global food security’. {HYPERLINK "http://tinyurl.com/3vhy6pa"}
30 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by Dr Edward Echlin
Summary 1. The government should demand action to mitigate climate change, and all forms of environmentally unsustainable living. 2. The concept ‘sustainable development’ is questionable, an oxymoron. Promote an economics without growth, and with alternative energies. Follow the proximity principle, i.e. living and ‘trading’ as near to home as possible. 3. There should be government ministers and departments as ‘Protectors of the environment’, or ‘sustainability officers’. 4. Promote small scale genuinely ‘traditional’ agriculture such as was practiced for 10,000 years before the advent of agribusiness. 5. The UK should lead in a sustainable economy of prosperity without infinite growth on a finite earth.
1. The government should urgently address government and smaller units’, including the best NGOs, actions to mitigate induced climate change. It should also assess and implement action to halt biodiversity loss; and increase biodiversity. Urge action to halt deforestation, and to reforest. It should encourage and assist small farmers and growers to remain on the land and not move to urban areas. It should also consider adapted forms of rural and urban agrarianism. A major issue it should avoid, indeed challenge, is the mantra of consistent economic growth on a finite planet. It should avoid promotion of nuclear power, industrial chemical agriculture, technical fixes such as biofuels, biotechnology, and genetic engineering.
2. The concept ‘sustainable development’ is questionable. Sustainable means what is indefinitely symbiotic with the environment. Development usually means ‘growth’ in activities that often take from the earth without restoration. The committee should urge lifestyles and economics that bring prosperity without growth. ‘Greening’ the economy will not only eradicate poverty, it will make continued life on earth possible. Alternative energies to fossil fuels and nuclear should be implemented. The UK government should promote and prioritise the above, and strive to be a world leader in sustainable economy which alleviates poverty without growth in so-called ‘GDP’. It should promote a genuine alternative agrarianism, including in towns. Promote labour intensive, biodiverse, small scale agro-ecological food production, including adapted urban agrarianism. Promote less meat eating and farming, and more eating and growing of a variety of plants and fruit.
3. There should be environment protectors, and ‘sustainability officers’ at every level with genuine authority to prevent what is unsustainable, and to promote alternative energies, water harvesting, planting, biodiversity, protection of seas and sea life, soil fertility, in brief all that contributes to sustainability.
4. Ideally this Rio+20 should reach genuine agreements for a sustainable future. This will involve alternative economies with emphasis on the local and not globalization. Small agriculture, including mixed farms, and sustainable fishing should be fostered.
5. Among the risks are that the countries represented will not implement the sustainable agreements made. Government ministers and representatives at Rio and environmental protectors should lead with their own example of personal sustainable, alternative lifestyles.
22 August 2011 Written evidence submitted by the Soil Association
This response is made on behalf of the Soil Association and produced by its policy department. The Soil Association is the main organisation for organic food and farming in the UK, and is a membership charity with over 27,000 members including approximately 4000 producer members. The Soil Association also owns an accredited organic certification company.
Summary
1. At the current time, when the multiple problems with our global food and farming system are manifest in famine, high and volatile food prices, and an epidemic of obesity and other diet- related health problems, the Soil Association believes that the most urgent issue that should be addressed at Rio+2O is the transition to a new way of feeding ourselves that provides healthy, humane and resilient food, farming and land use for all.
2. Agro-ecological farming systems, such as organic, should be at the core of new agricultural developments worldwide. New investments in agriculture research and rural development by national governments and international institutions should focus on agroecology. Evidence shows how agro-ecological systems have economic, social and environmental benefits in both the Global South and Global North. A focus on developing agroecology has received high- level political support from within the UN including from the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition and Olivier De Schutter, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
3. The UK Government should ensure that the recommendations of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report published in 2009 and supported by 400 scientists and 60 countries, form the basis of new agricultural strategies. This gives support to agro-ecological systems.
4. A reformed UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is welcomed as the principal governing body for food, agriculture and rural development policy and related financial issues, and as the interlocutor on these issues with the proposed new UN environmental network. It should implement the conclusions of the IAASTD report.
5. The UN should commit in 2012 to a negotiating process leading to an international technology assessment and information mechanism that strengthens national sovereignty and technology policy choices and respects the ‘Precautionary Principle’.
6. The notion of a ‘green economy’ and the process of ‘greening the economy’ need clear definition. Human scale, diverse and equitable food and farming systems that respect resource limits can form the basis of multiple ‘green economies’.
The Committee is interested in receiving written evidence that looks at:
A. the issues which should be urgently addressed at Rio, and any that it should avoid;
7. At the current time, when the multiple problems with our global food and farming system are manifest in famine, high and volatile food prices, and an epidemic of obesity and other diet- related health problems, the Soil Association believes that the most urgent issue that should be addressed at Rio+2O is the transition to a new way of feeding ourselves that provides healthy, humane and resilient food, farming and land use for all.
8. The Rio+20 process should avoid understanding the ‘food security’ problem only in the simplistic terms of the need to vastly increase yields through ‘sustainable intensification’. Attention needs to be paid the wider causes of hunger and malnutrition that include not only availability but distributional issues and ensuring regular, appropriate access to food.
9. This involves considering the impact of the dietary transition from carbohydrate-rich staples (cereals, roots, tubers) to vegetable oils, animal products (meat and dairy foods) and sugar that has occurred in the Global North and is beginning to occur in the Global South. These structural changes in diet are having a negative impact on both human health and the mitigation of climate change.1
10. Consideration should be given to the issue of competing uses of land, and the impact this is currently having on the global food supply, the price of food and thus the prevalence of hunger. A recent report from High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security noted the major impact the ‘biofuel boom’ has had on the demand for cereals and vegetable oils.2
11. The role of agriculture should be conceived as not just increasing food supply, which is of course a necessary but not sufficient condition for eliminating hunger and poverty, but through raising the incomes of farmers, investing in infrastructure and markets, as well as ensuring environmental and resource limits are respected. There must be a focus on the questions of who produces food, who has access to technology and knowledge to produce it, and who can afford to acquire it.3
12. Agro-ecological farming systems, such as organic, should be at the core of new agricultural developments worldwide. Agroecology should be the focus of new investments in agriculture research and rural development by national governments and international institutions. Agroecology is ‘the science of applying ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable food systems’4 but ia also an approach ‘to meeting people’s need for food which gives equal attention to the goals of sustainability, resilience and equity and not only to production’. 5
13. At a global scale, high level political support for agroecology has been given by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, who identified agroecology as ‘a mode of agricultural development which not only shows strong conceptual connections with the right to food, but has proven results for fast progress in the concretization of this human
1 Lopez, A., Mathers, C., Ezzati, M., Jamison, D., and Murray, C., (Eds) (2006) Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors, Oxford, Oxford University Press; Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Bordisky, B., (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production, Global Environmental Change, 20, pp. 451-462; Deckers, J., (2010) Should the consumption of farmed animal products be restricted, and if so, by how much?, Food Policy 13, pp. 497-503; FAO (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Options, FAO, Rome; McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C.D., Uauy, R., (2007) Energy and Health 5: Food, livestock production, energy, climate change and health, The Lancet, Vol, 370, October 6th 2007; Carlsson- Kanyma, A and Gonzalez, A., 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89, pp.1704S-1709S. 2 HLPE (2011) Price volatility and food security. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome 2011.
3 UNEP-UNCTAD (2008) Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, United Nations. 4 Gliessman, S.R. (2007) Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Boca Raton, CRC Press, Florida. 5 UK Food Group (2010) Securing future food: towards ecological food provision, UK Food Group.
right for many vulnerable groups in various countries and environments.’6 In June 2010 he urged the international community to re-think the current agricultural policies and build on the potential of agroecology;
‘Governments and international agencies urgently need to boost ecological farming techniques to increase food production and save the climate… But scant attention has been paid to agro-ecological methods that have been shown to improve food production and farmers’ incomes, while at the same time protecting the soil, water, and climate…’ 7
Support for agroecology was also given by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security in July 2011:
‘Governments should look at the work on agro-ecology and some of the alternative ways of understanding the costs and benefits of investment in different models of agriculture. Because of the low use of commercial inputs, agro-ecology is also well adapted to poor farmers with no access to input and credit markets. Because of the diversification of production within farm, agro-ecology also increases resilience in the face of biological, climatic and economic shocks.’8
14. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report published in 2009 was supported by 400 scientists and 60 countries and directed by the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser Bob Watson. Its aims were to assess the impacts of past, present and future agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) on the reduction of hunger and poverty, improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and equitable, socially, environmentally and economically sustainable development. One of its key findings was support for agro-ecological farming systems:
‘An increase and strengthening of AKST towards agro-ecological sciences will contribute to addressing environmental issues while maintaining and increasing productivity.’ 9
It also recommended the greater and more effective involvement of women and use of their knowledge and skills and experience; and the targeting of small-scale agricultural systems by forging public and private partnerships; and the creation of opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship explicitly targeting resource poor farmers and rural labourers.
15. The largest ever study of agroecology approaches in the Global South comprised analysis of 286 projects covering 37 million hectares in 57 countries. The study found that on average crop yields increased by 79 per cent. 10
16. Organic agriculture is based on the science of agroecology. At the core of organic production is a correctly designed and implemented crop rotation. This provides sufficient crop
6 De Schutter, O. (2010) Human Rights Council Sixteenth session, Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter 7th December 2010. 7 Olivier De Schutter (2010) Press release, Right to Food: “Agroecology outperforms large-scale industrial farming for global food security,” says UN expert, 22nd June 2010, Brussels available at http://www.ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10178&LangID=E. 8 HLPE (2011)Price volatility and food security. 9 IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads: Summary for decision makers of the global report. 10 Pretty et al (2005) Resource-conserving agriculture increases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology, 40 (4), 1114-1119.
nutrients and minimises their losses and provides nitrogen through leguminous crops (as well as the use of animal manures). It also controls weeds, pests and diseases, maintains the soil structure and organic matter content, as well as providing a profitable output of organic cash crops and livestock. Thus the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides is avoided.11
17. The 2008 UNCTAD-UNEP report analysed 114 projects in Africa and examined the role that organic agriculture can play in ensuring food security in Africa. This report concluded that:
‘Organic and near-organic agricultural methods and technologies are ideally suited for many poor, marginalised smallholder farmers in Africa, as they require minimal or no external inputs, use locally and naturally available materials to produce high-quality products, and encourage a hole systemic approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress.’ 12
18. The UNCTAD- UNEP report found that organic agriculture can lead to an increase in food availability. In the Global South agricultural yields in organic systems do not fall, and at least remain stable when converting from systems that use relatively low amounts of synthetic inputs such as those found in Africa. Over time, yields increase as capital assets in systems improve, thus outperforming those in traditional systems and matching those in more conventional, input-intensive systems.13 Gibbon and Bolwig (2007)14 found that organic conversion in tropical Africa is associated with yield increases rather than with yield reductions. Similar findings have already been noted by Scialabba and Muller-Lindenlauf (2010)15 and Badgeley et al (2007)16.
19. The UNCTAD-UNEP report found that organic farming increases access to food through several means: the increased quantity of food produced per farm can lead to household food security; the production and selling of food surpluses at local markets means that farmers benefit from higher incomes, thus increasing their purchasing power; fresh organic product becomes available to more people in the wider community; and organic farming enables new and different groups in a community to get involved in agricultural production and trade where previously they were excluded for financial or cultural reasons.17
20. The report found that organic farming can increase water retention in soils, improve the water table, reduce soil erosion, increase organic matter levels in the soil, and thus enabling farmers to grow crops for longer periods, with higher yields and in marginal conditions.18
21. There is clearly a need for investment and other policy support for agro-ecological agricultural systems in the Global South. UNCTAD-UNEP (2008) notes that organic agriculture is not directly and specifically supported by agricultural policy in most African countries and ‘that it is sometimes actively hindered by policies advocating the use of high- input farming management practices. If organic agriculture and its associated positive side- effects are to be scaled up, an enabling policy environment is critical.’
11 Soil Association (2008) The key elements of organic farming. 12 UNEP-UNCTAD (2008) Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. 13 Ibid. 14 Gibbon, P., and Bolwig, S. (2007) The economics of certified organic farming in tropical Africa: A preliminary analysis, SIDA DIIS Working Paper no 2007/3, Subseries on Standards and Agro-Food-Exports (SAFE) No.7. 15 Scialabbe, N., E-H and Muller-Lindenlauf, M. (2010) Organic agriculture and climate change, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25 (2) 158-169. 16 Badgeley, C., et al (2007) Organic agriculture and the global food supply, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2): 86-108. 17 UNEP-UNCTAD (2008) Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. 18 Ibid.
B. The objectives and roles the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run-up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU preparations and negotiations;
22. The UK Government should ensure that the recommendations of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report supported by 400 scientists and 60 countries, form the basis of new agricultural strategies.
C. The extent to which greening the economy can help eradicate poverty, including the tensions between growth and prosperity in the context of sustainable development;
23. The notion of a ‘green economy’ and the process of ‘greening the economy’, that form a central part of the Rio+20 process, need clear definition. Human scale, diverse and equitable food and farming systems that respect resource limits can form the basis of multiple ‘green economies’.
D. The institutional frameworks (at international, regional, national and local levels) required to deliver a “green economy” and a more sustainable future for all, now and into the future;
24. To enable better coordination among UN institutions in order to improve governance structures for both the environment and agriculture, a new, broad, participatory and transparent environmental network should be created, within which civil society can actively participate.
25. A reformed UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is welcomed as the principal governing body for food, agriculture and rural development policy and related financial issues, and as the interlocutor on these issues with the proposed new UN environmental network. It should implement the conclusions of the IAASTD report.
26. The UN should commit in 2012 to a negotiating process leading to an international technology assessment and information mechanism that strengthens national sovereignty and technology policy choices and respects the ‘Precautionary Principle’ as defined in Rio in 1992.
25 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by David Woodward
Summary
1. Climate change and binding constraints on global carbon emissions represent a profound change in the economic environment for development, going far beyond the scope of piecemeal “add-ons” directed to adaptation and mitigation at the country level.
2. The oil price crises of the 1970s, which triggered a sequence of events which had a devastating economic and human impact on developing countries, especially in Sub- Saharan Africa, demonstrates the potentially serious effect of climate change mitigation on development if not appropriately managed, especially in view of the much greater adjustment now required.
3. The fundamentally different context of accelerating climate change and responses to it, together with the failures of the current economic model to deliver on global objectives such as poverty eradication and health for all, indicate an urgent need for a fundamental reconsideration of the economic model of development itself.
4. This submission proposes some starting points for an alternative approach to economic development, based on papers written by the author for nef (the new economics foundation), Christian Aid and the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
5. The approach proposed is founded on a shift from focusing on economic growth as the central objective of development to the achievement of societal objectives: basic needs, well-being, and environmental sustainability.
6. The approach described revolves primarily around revitalisation of rural economies, exploiting synergies arising from consumption patterns at low-income levels, and from the potential for widespread application of renewable energy technologies in rural areas to reduce costs and incentivise technological improvements.
7. While there is some potential for movement in this direction, major progress would require changes in the global economy; and securing such changes would require much more inclusive, democratic and accountable global decision-making processes.
Implications of Climate Change for the Economic Environment for Development
8. Climate change represents a fundamental change in the global context in which development must take place in the coming decades. As detailed in the Annex, meeting emissions targets now requires a very considerable reduction in global carbon emissions, at a rate approximately double that necessary if reduction had started in 1990; and even if emissions targets are achieved, global warming will almost certainly exceed the 2°C target. 9. The current assumption is that climate change can be effectively controlled through the application of new technologies for the reduction and/or sequestration of carbon emissions, limiting the effect on the global economy. However, even on the most favourable assumptions, it is at best highly questionable whether this can be achieved by means of known and anticipated technologies.1 Moreover, there are serious doubts about many of these technologies in terms of their potential scope (eg carbon sequestration), net effects on carbon emissions and other environmental impacts (eg biofuels, nuclear energy), sustainability if widely applied (eg available reserves of uranium for nuclear energy), and potential effects on development (eg impacts of substantial biofuel production on basic food prices).
10. We therefore cannot simply assume that carbon emission reduction targets will be achieved through technological changes, much less that this can be achieved without serious adverse effects on economic and human development. In light of the scale of the reduction in emissions required, it must therefore be considered at best highly unlikely that emissions targets can be reached (and still less that global warming can be limited to 2°C) if global economic growth continues at anything close to recent (pre-crisis) rates.
11. In view of the questionable validity of the “technological optimism” view, and the consequent tension between a recovery of global economic growth and the attainment of emissions reduction targets, the coming decades are likely to be characterised by a combination of (a) consequences of failing to meet global carbon emission targets (more frequent and severe extreme weather events); (b) consequences of slower global economic growth (particularly weaker demand for exports, resulting in lower export volumes, prices and revenues); (c) consequences of efforts (successful or otherwise) to achieve emissions targets (eg reduced demand for exports, higher energy and transportation costs, higher food prices due to greater biofuel use, greatly reduced long-haul tourism, etc); (d) financial and other costs of climate change adaptation in the South; and (e) consequences of responses to climate change itself, and to its knock-on effects, in the North (eg reduced aid budgets due to revenue losses and diversion of public spending towards domestic adaptation; and more restrictive immigration policies, resulting in reduced remittances to countries of origin).
12. For most, if not all, low-income and least developed countries, and many middle- income countries, the implications of such changes are unambiguously negative, and in many cases may be extremely severe.
13. The potential implications for development of (b) and (c) may be gauged by comparing the adjustment now required with the effects of the oil price crises of 1973 and 1979, the only precedent for a major shift towards emissions reduction in post- colonial history. As detailed in the Annex to this submission, the adjustment now required is approximately double that achieved in response to the ten-fold increase in oil prices in the 1970s. It also needs to be immediate, and to be sustained for 40 years, while the adjustment of the 1970s and 1980s took 11 years and half of the gain was reversed almost immediately.
14. The fuel crises of the 1970s had a major adverse impact on the global economy, with devastating economic and human consequences for the developing world, especially Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, for more than 20 years, both directly and through the longer-term effects of the debt crisis and associated structural adjustment programmes. In Sub-Saharan Africa, GDP per capita slumped, poverty increased substantially, and health improvement slowed dramatically, for a period of some 15 years, taking some 25 years to return to pre-crisis levels. (See Annex, Figures A6- A10.)
15. The negative effects of the scenario outlined in para 11 will also undermine adaptive capacity in developing countries, thus greatly magnifying the economic and social effects of climate change itself. There is a real risk that a large proportion of the developing world, including much of Sub-Saharan Africa, will be locked into a downward spiral of economic failure, reversal of human development, declining public sector effectiveness and impaired adaptive capacity, culminating in eventual social and economic collapse.
16. A further economic crisis of an order of magnitude at least similar to that of the 1970s and 1980s, coming at a time when Latin America has barely recovered, and Sub- Saharan Africa is in the relatively early stages of recovery from that crisis, and combined with potentially serious impacts and adaptation needs as a result of climate change itself, would be a severe blow to development. In Sub-Saharan Africa particularly, the human cost could be very considerable.
17. Given the overwhelming responsibility of Northern countries for historical emissions, of greenhouse gases2 (and hence atmospheric concentrations, and by extension climate change itself), one should also anticipate an extremely powerful political backlash. Such a backlash would be further compounded if the North were to continue promoting broadly the same economic policies which failed to restore economic growth, and are widely seen as having undermined development, in the 1980s and 1990s.
Implications for the Economic Model of Development
18. The implications of the above scenario are not adequately reflected in the discourse on development, which continues to be premised on a level of technological optimism which does not appear to be adequately supported by evidence or analysis. Coupled with serious and long-standing doubts about the effectiveness of the currently predominant market-oriented economic model in economic, social and environmental terms (which have been intensified by the latest financial crisis, and by the now inevitable failure of many countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals), this indicates a clear need for a fundamental reconsideration of our approach to development.
19. This issue cannot be considered solely at the national level. While there are wide variations in (and equal uncertainties around) likely manifestations of climate change in different localities, they are the product of global rather than local emissions and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Equally, the evolution of the global economy over the last 25-30 years, through the process of commercial globalisation, has made national economies increasingly dependent on the global economy – and thus seriously curtailed the policy space available to any national government, through both institutional constraints and market pressures.
Basic Principles for an Alternative Approach3
20. The obvious starting point for a reconsideration of the economic model of development is the basic purpose of development itself, and of the economy more broadly. At the most basic level, this might be considered to comprise: (a) fulfilling basic needs (poverty eradication, broadly defined); (b) increasing quality of life (well-being); and (c) sustaining these achievements over the long term (sustainability).
21. Combined with the much tighter limits on global production and consumption imposed by carbon constraints, this suggests a shift away from economic growth as the primary criterion of success or failure of economic policy. Economic growth is not intrinsically good or bad. Rather, it is good to the extent that it promotes the fulfilment of basic needs and/or increases quality of life; and bad to the extent that it undermines them in the long term, for example through adverse environmental effects. These more fundamental objectives, and not growth as such, should be considered as the criterion of economic success or failure.
22. Clearly, an alternative economic model of development would require further consideration, research and analysis. (The attached papers provide some preliminary efforts in this direction.) The following discussion should thus be viewed only as proposing a possible starting point for such consideration.
23. The association of carbon emissions in developing countries with urbanisation suggests an increased focus on reinvigorating rural economies as a driver of development. Rural-led development would help to slow rural-urban migration, reducing the strain on urban infrastructure, and would be more effective in reducing income poverty, which is generally recognised to be greatest in rural areas.
24. However, the focus of the current model on agriculture, and particularly export agriculture, as the basis of rural development, has had limited benefits – partly because of the weakness of many tropical agricultural prices over the last 30 years. (While prices have increased considerably in the last three years, due largely to a major increase in speculative investment, the benefits to producers are likely to have been limited and it is far from clear that higher prices will be sustained.) This is further reinforced by the extreme vulnerability of agriculture to climate change, and the shift towards local purchasing of food products in major Northern markets which is already occurring as a result of growing concern about climate change. As the recent food crisis has demonstrated, increasing use of biofuels in the North also has the potential to increase poverty and threaten food security in the developing world through major increases in the world prices of basic foods. This suggests a need for rural development to be based primarily on the diversification of rural economies away from agriculture; and for agriculture itself to be oriented primarily towards local needs rather than exports.
25. An important constraint to the development and diversification of rural areas in many low-income countries has been the limited availability of energy.4 A major reason for this is that scarcity of population, together with limited public resources and private purchasing power, makes conventional centralised electricity generation financially unviable.
26. This gives rise to a potentially important synergy between climate change mitigation and rural development, as the potential for renewable electricity generation (solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and in some cases wave and tidal power) is often considerable. Renewable generation technologies are also better suited to sparsely populated areas, in that they are more conducive to decentralised generation systems, producing electricity on a small scale at the community or household level. The widespread application of micro-renewable energy technologies in rural areas could have a transformative effect even greater than that of mobile telephony in the field of communications, stimulating the regeneration of rural economies, while limiting carbon emissions (and slowing deforestation by reducing reliance on fuelwood).
27. The two key obstacles at present are the relatively high cost of such technologies (given limited resources); and their lack of adaptation to the circumstances of rural areas of low-income countries, both technically and in terms of the limited availability of technical skills for installation and maintenance. These constraints, in turn, are a product of the market for such technologies, which is of limited scale, and dominated by demand in the North. By creating a large-scale market in the South, it would be possible simultaneously to incentivise technological development more suited to conditions in rural areas in the developing world, and to drive costs down considerably through economies of scale and learning effects. (Micro-renewable technologies remain at a very early stage in the product cycle, suggesting the potential for the major cost-reductions which have characterised the evolution of other technologies, from VCRs and DVDs to mobile telephones and computers.)
28. Such a market transformation could in principle be achieved through the establishment of a global fund, financed from aid (or other resources directed to climate change mitigation), to finance the general application of appropriate micro-renewable technologies in rural areas in all low-income countries. (Appropriate phasing of such a programme would be important, however, in order to avoid bottle-necks in the production process increasing costs.)
29. Consideration should also be given to the carbon content of the increase in consumption resulting from (or required for) development. Industrialisation processes, both under the current model of development and in the “import- substituting industrialisation” model prevalent in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s, have generally relied on growing consumption of goods with considerable energy content, either for the domestic market or for export. In the latter case, energy content is further increased by the need for transportation to distant (primarily Northern) markets. Reliance on long-distance tourism (which has been promoted particularly in many small island economies) similarly embodies a very high carbon content. Global carbon constraints suggest that the growth of demand for such goods will need to be at best limited, and quite possibly negative, over the coming decades.
30. If meeting basic needs is a primary objective of policy, and global growth is constrained, this indicates a clear need to focus increases in consumption on those whose basic needs are not met – that is, the poorest. An extra dollar of income to someone at the bottom of the global distribution (eg below the “$1-a-day” poverty line) clearly increases his or her well-being much more than an extra dollar for someone near the top of the distribution (eg someone earning £30,000 a year in the UK).
31. While there is a need for further empirical research, a strong prima facie case can be made that the objectives of poverty reduction and of limiting the carbon content of additional consumption coincide – that is, that the energy content of the additional consumption of poor households (in global terms) as their income increases is lower than that of better-off households. Purchases by poor households, particularly in rural areas, are typically of goods which are (or can be) locally produced using relatively limited energy inputs (eg higher-value foods, clothing, basic household goods, livestock, etc). This suggests a strong case for focusing on measures aimed directly at increasing the incomes of poor households rather than on increasing economic growth and relying on the benefits “trickling down” to the poor.
32. Such consumption patterns also have the potential to create a virtuous circle of poverty reduction – although this is again a hypothesis which requires further investigation. Casual observation suggests that the poorest households spend additional income primarily on products produced and sold by other poor households, while the better-off spend a much smaller proportion of their income increases on goods produced by the poorest. By increasing demand for such goods, an initial reduction in poverty thus has the potential to generate further reductions in poverty, through multiplier effects operating within poor communities.
33. These synergies can be maximised by coordinating the increases in demand and supply associated with poverty reduction. This would entail focusing poverty reduction measures such as micro-grants, vocational training, microenterprise support, agricultural extension, etc specifically on increasing the supply of goods whose demand will be increased as poverty is reduced (based on estimates of changes in consumption patterns based on household expenditure surveys). The boost to demand necessary to initiate the process could be provided by a programme of labour-intensive public works oriented towards the needs of the new economic model, coupled with a shift towards local procurement from small-scale producers.
34. Accelerating poverty reduction is also essential to increase adaptive capacity to climate change and other environmental and economic shocks. The lack of resources available to households is a key obstacle to the (often relatively small) investments required for adaptation. Particularly in rural areas, faster poverty reduction can also provide additional environmental benefits by reducing pressures for unsustainable production methods to maintain or increase short-term incomes for immediate consumption needs.
35. The impact of poverty on adaptive capacity is compounded by its effects in worsening health (eg through under-nutrition, unhealthy living and working environments and limited access to health services) and limiting access to education, two other key determinants of adaptive capacity at the household level. Progress in these areas could be further accelerated by substantial increases in public resources for education (particularly, but not only, at the primary level, to match increases in demand), and for comprehensive primary health care.
Implications for the Global Economic System
36. While some progress could be made in the direction indicated above within the existing global economic framework, the effectiveness of such an approach would be critically dependent on substantial changes in international economic arrangements. These include measures to increase the public resources available in developing countries, notably through measures to control tax competition and transfer price manipulation by transnational companies, possibly supplemented by international taxes (eg on carbon emissions and/or currency transactions); financial support through aid budgets, particularly for the proposed global fund for micro- renewable energy; an end to the active promotion of neoliberal approaches to development by international players such as the IMF and the World Bank, and the removal of aid and other conditionalities which would otherwise obstruct implementation of the proposed measures; and increased flexibility within multilateral and bilateral trade agreements for the appropriate use of trade measures such as import tariffs in support of development.
37. Current discussions on international economic arrangements following the financial crisis provide a potentially valuable opportunity for such changes. However, this requires a much broader agenda than at present, extending beyond the immediate needs of the financial system to encompass societal objectives such as poverty eradication, health and education for all, the control of climate change and other aspects of environmental sustainability. It also requires a much broader participation in discussions, including low-income and least-developed countries (which are wholly excluded from the G20), on a full and equal basis.
Conclusion
38. The adjustments to the global economy required to bring climate change under control are much more drastic than is generally recognised – and the current political inertia, partly driven by the complacency associated with the prevailing “technological optimism” is further increasing the adjustment required. The precedent of the oil price crises of the 1970s suggests that the implications for development will be extremely serious, indicating a need for a fundamental reconsideration of the current economic model of development
39. This submission has presented some starting points for an alternative model of development, oriented towards the eradication of poverty and fulfilment of basic needs in the context of a carbon-constrained world. These ideas are developed in the attached papers. It should, however, be emphasised that the approach to development presented here is not intended as a blueprint, and that it requires further consideration and research. Rather, the intention is to demonstrate: (a) that it is possible to envisage alternatives to the mainstream model of economic development; (b) that a prima facie case can be made that such alternatives may be more conducive than the mainstream model to the objective of poverty eradication in a carbon-constrained global economy subject to accelerating climatic change; and (c) that there is therefore a strong case for active investigation of such alternatives.
Biographical note
David Woodward is an independent researcher and writer on development issues. From 1982 until 1989, he was an economic adviser in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and technical assistant to the UK Executive Director to the IMF and the World Bank (1986-8), specialising on debt, structural adjustment and Latin America. He has since worked as development economist in the Strategy Unit of the World Health Organisation, economic policy adviser to Save the Children (UK) and head of the New Global Economy programme at nef (the new economics foundation), and as a freelance consultant. He is the author of Debt, Adjustment and Poverty in Developing Countries (Pinter Publishers, 1992), The Next Crisis? Direct and Equity Investment in Developing Countries (Zed Books, 2001); co-editor of Global Public Goods for Health (OUP, 2005). He has published articles in The Review of International Political Economy, Development, Political Quarterly, Health Policy and Planning, The Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, The Lancet, Africa Analysis, The Parliamentary Monitor and New Internationalist; and has had working/discussion papers published by UNCTAD, UNDP, UN Department of Social Affairs, the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health and the G24, as well as nef (the new economics foundation), Oxfam, Save the Children, Third World Network and other NGOs and NGO networks.
19 August 2011
1 Andrew Simms, Victoria Johnson and Peter Chowla (2010) Growth Isn’t Possible: Why we need a new economic direction. nef (the new economics foundation), London, January. 2 Raupach, M., G. Marland, P. Ciais, C. le Que, J. Canadell, G. Klepper and C. Field (2007) “Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(24): 10288–93. 3 The ideas presented in this Section are developed further in attachment 2. 4 UNCTAD (2006) Least Developed Countries Report, 2006. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Written evidence submitted by Practical Action
Summary
The UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012 should:
• Affirm that the primary purpose of science and technology is to serve the interests of all people and the environment. • Reaffirm Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration of 1992, placing the precautionary principle at the centre of decision-making about technological innovation. • Establish a multilateral mechanism to facilitate the assessment and governance of new and emerging technologies. • Support ecological agriculture in the frame of food sovereignty, prioritising the environment and the interests of small-scale farmers, herders and fishers. • Support increased public expenditure for agriculture, particularly for public research, extension services and local infrastructure which enable small-scale farmers to increase productivity in sustainable agricultural systems. • Ensure decision making within a reformed UN environmental system reflects and supports the decisions of the UN Committee on World Food Security. • Endorse the UN goal of universal access to modern energy services by 2030. • Translate the goal of universal access into a tangible process which delivers the necessary increased quantity and quality of finance for access to modern energy services. • Ensure the full participation of all stakeholders in setting policies, strategies and targets on energy access.
Introduction
Practical Action welcomes the inquiry of the Environmental Audit Committee on the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, announced on 7 July 2011. Practical Action is an international non-governmental organisation which works with women and men in poor communities, enabling them to use technology to challenge poverty, building their capabilities, improving their access to technical options and knowledge, and working with them to influence social, economic and institutional systems. Sustainable development lies at the heart of Practical Action’s work, and for this reason we contributed to debate at the Rio Earth Summit twenty years ago and at WSSD ten years ago, and shall be doing so again at Rio +20.
In responding to the Environmental Audit Committee’s call for the submission of evidence, we shall concentrate on the issues which should be addressed at Rio in 2012 and what in our opinion would be the ideal outcomes of the Conference. As at WSSD, Practical Action’s focus in debates leading up to and at Rio +20 will be on issues concerned with technology, with food and agriculture, and with energy for all.
Technology
The technologies needed to feed the world and ensure everyone has access to the basic services necessary for a reasonable quality of life already largely exist. It is how those technologies, or the rights to access them, are distributed that needs to change so that
everyone does have a reasonable quality of life. Efforts to innovate and to expand the use of technologies should be focused on providing wellbeing for everyone, not just demand in the developed world, and not just for those living today but also for future generations. The development of new technologies needs to move away from meeting the wants of wealthier consumers, to meeting the basic needs of those billions of women and men living at or below the poverty line, while respecting the environmental limits of our planet.
How we govern ourselves determines which technologies are developed and who benefits from them. Governments should develop science and technology policies, and support scientific and technological research, that takes into account the needs of people living in poverty and the environment, not just narrow commercial or national economic interests. Global markets for the products of science and technology and the effects of their use on the global environment make the regulation of science and technology a global question as well as a national one. However, many governments of low-income countries do not have adequate financial or human resources to ensure science and technology serves the public good. Nor is there an international or multilateral body that addresses the governance and regulation of new technologies which can impact globally.
• Rio +20 should affirm that the primary purpose of science and technology is to serve the interests of all people and the environment. • Rio+20 should reaffirm Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration in 1992 and applied in other international agreements, placing the precautionary principle at the centre of decisions about technological innovation. • Rio + 20 should agree the establishment of a multilateral mechanism for information sharing, assessment and governance of new and emerging technologies based on the principles of full consideration of social, economic and environmental impacts, transparent processes that include full civil society participation, and equitable representation and participation of developing countries, as well as the precautionary principle.
Food and agriculture
Food production is at a time of crisis, with consumers and producers exposed to rapid price fluctuations, restricted access to productive resources, and neglect of the Right to Adequate Food. The focus of international policy is on food as a globally tradable commodity, in which actors with an undiluted focus on economic efficiency and profitability receive the biggest financial rewards, but simultaneously undermine biodiversity and productive resources, contribute to climate change, and create similar, simplified production systems the world over. Global rules enable the private control of natural and other productive resources to be increasingly concentrated and channel financial resources into the research and marketing of technologies and practices that support unsustainable production. As a consequence, local knowledge, innovation, skills, livelihoods, resources and decision making power are being eroded, making people increasingly dependent on external actors, resources and knowledge and subject to food scarcity and price shocks. Yet, small-scale food producers currently feed more than 70% of world’s population and could provide more if supported and protected.
• Rio+20 should support ecological agriculture in the frame of food sovereignty, prioritising the environment and the interests of small-scale farmers, herders and fishers, and rejecting the increasing commodification of natural resources. • Rio + 20 should promote an institutional shift in agriculture, trade and research policy which supports a considerable increase of public expenditure for agriculture, with a particular emphasis on public research, extension education and services and the
• Rio + 20 should ensure decision making within a reformed UN environmental system reflects and supports the decisions of the UN Committee on World Food Security as the appropriate authoritative governance body on food and agriculture.
Energy
Modern energy is a prerequisite for ending global poverty. This was recognised at the Earth Summit in Rio two decades ago and again at Johannesburg in 2002. Despite this, the international community has not yet agreed any goals or targets on access to energy. Under-prioritized for decades, an international consensus is now emerging which accepts the importance of sustainable energy access for the well-being of the world’s people, the future of the global economy, and the preservation of our planet.
Energy poverty remains pervasive – there is unacceptable inequality in access to energy services, within and between countries. Globally, one fifth of the world’s women and men do not have access to electricity and 2.5 billion people depend on traditional biomass for cooking. According to ‘business as usual’ projections, by 2030 the same number of people will be living in energy poverty as today.
Universal energy access is attainable – by re-channelling just 3% of the projected global investment in the energy sector over the next two decades. But this energy must be delivered in a way that maximises its benefit to poor women and men: access must be seen from the perspective of the services people need and in the context of an ecosystem of energy service providers and consumers, rather than the conventional supply-side perspective. Further, there is a need for internationally agreed minimum service standards which define what universal energy access means in practice and enable us to measure progress towards it.
• Rio +20 should officially endorse the UN goal of universal access to modern energy services by 2030. • Rio +20 should translate the goal of universal access into a tangible process which determines the path for raising and administering the necessary increased quantity and quality of finance for access to modern energy services. • Rio +20 should ensure the full spectrum of stakeholders, including civil society and private sector, are invited to participate in the setting of policies, strategies and targets on energy access, nationally and internationally.
Sustainable development governance
Rio+20 should consider how civil society organisations can be supported to better engage with and be prioritised in future international decision making about sustainable development.
• Rio + 20 should ensure that any changes to the UN environmental governance system should include processes that give fair representation and participation to those at the front line of environmental change through their civil society organisations and movements. • Rio + 20 should consider the procedural model adopted by the FAO’s Committee on World Food Security as an example of best practice in institutionalising participation of civil society into decision making.
25 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development
A. Introduction and Summary
A.1 The Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development is a charity which works to find ways to equip democracy to deliver sustainable development.
A.2 Section B of this submission is an overall stock‐take structured according to two of the three objectives of the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (‘Rio + 20’) and its two themes. In Section C we address the Committee’s six questions in turn. We draw the following key points to the Committee’s attention by way of summary.
A.2.1 A crisis of political short‐termism is among the emerging challenges that threaten progress on sustainable development. This is linked to lack of proper regard for the needs of future generations in the context of sustainable development. Both can and must be tackled through the Rio + 20 process.
A.2.2 Rapidly evolving recognition of the fundamental constraints, and the urgency, of tackling planetary boundaries and their associated tipping points must be reflected in the political outcomes of Rio + 20, in particular through the adoption of a Declaration on Planetary Boundaries.
A.2.3 Given gradual erosion in the currency of ‘sustainable development’ at national and global levels, the UK must ensure that renewed political commitment to sustainable development reflects a progressive vision of sustainable development.
A.2.4 The UK must play a full part in ensuring that ‘the green economy’ is positioned as ‘the green and fair economy’; not ‘green growth’.
A.2.5 People, not businesses, must be at the centre of commitments to a green and fair economy. Policy measures to secure a green and fair economy cannot rely only on technological innovation and the power of competition. Social and political change is also required to deliver the necessary political will.
A.2.6 Rio + 20 should mark the creation of a new institution or office for future generations within the UN; for example a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations.
A.2.7 Commitments on institutional frameworks for sustainable development must address national, regional and subnational levels of sustainable development governance where innovative practice flourishes. The UK Government should actively provide space for local authorities and devolved administrations to participate in preparations for Rio + 20 within both the EU and the UN, alongside a commitment to actively enabling and promoting participation by NGOs and community based organisation.
B. Taking Stock
Renewed political commitment to sustainable development B.1 There are signs of erosion in the overall global political commitment to sustainable development. One weakness of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development was its inadequate regard for the social dimension of sustainable development. This had partly been overcome by the time of the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). However, the imperative to reduce and ultimately eradicate poverty, a centre‐piece of WSSD, led to over‐ emphasis on the economy and economic growth in the sustainable development equation. As new policy areas such as labour rights were added to the overall negotiating mix there was a worrying loss of clarity and precision in the concept of sustainable development. Even more concerning, the importance of the idea of integration across the three pillars of sustainable development (environment, economy, society) diminished. In Rio +20, we see a risk that the centrality of intergenerational and intragenerational equity to sustainable development could be further eroded.
B.2 Today, the term ‘sustainability’ is often used in preference to ‘sustainable development’ in order to distinguish between the process and the end goal of ‘sustainable development’. We are concerned that the ex post introduction of a distinction between sustainable development and sustainability carries with it the risk of watering down the significance of the words ‘sustainable development’ in earlier UN instruments by relegating them to commitments related to the process of sustainable development (rather than its goal: sustainability). In the remainder of our evidence, references to sustainable development are to both the process of sustainable development and its goal.
B.3 The failure of the UN Commission for Sustainable Development’s 19th session to reach agreement earlier this year1 augurs badly for Rio + 20. One cause may have been a tendency to trade negotiating issues arising in other settings, bringing them into the sustainable development arena. The UK must show leadership by example by not allowing foreign policy priorities arising outside the Rio + 20 process to determine its substantive position on the Conference objectives and themes.
New and emerging challenges B.4 Weakness in global governance is itself among the rapidly evolving (if not emerging) challenges of sustainable development. The intergovernmental global governance system has failed to demonstrate sufficient adaptive capacity effectively to rise to contemporary governance challenges including economic globalisation (most particularly in the failure to develop adequate global frameworks, such as a convention, for corporate accountability) and climate change. It is clear, equally, that reliance on multi‐stakeholder partnerships (which was in vogue at the time of WSSD) is inadequate to fill the gaps.
B.5 To any obvious list of new and emerging challenges such as the impacts of rapid economic growth in so‐called ‘emerging economies’; high food prices; and resource scarcity; we would add another: a crisis of short‐termism in political decision‐making, including within UN processes, and
1 See { HYPERLINK "http://www.iisd.ca/csd/csd19/" } the challenge of developing the institutional architecture needed to engage openly and transparently in the balancing acts that are needed for political decision‐making to deliver regard for the needs of future generations in ways that serve sustainable development.
B.6 Here in the UK, the government frequently appeals to the needs of future generations or the long term when justifying controversial policy decisions, including spending cuts, increases in tuition fees, and controversial aspects of proposed planning reforms. This is the ‘horizon shift’ to which the Coalition government is committed.2 However, without an institutional space in which to evaluate the competing needs of future generations; let alone a time horizon for determining which future generation(s) or which needs, the result is simply political advocacy of unpopular policy choices without engagement of the wider population and, consequently, a missed opportunity to build real support or a culture of participation and deliberation.
The green economy B.7 Much of the negotiating time and political energy in preparations for Rio + 20 thus far have been devoted to the green economy. Already, the potential for international commitments to generate transformational change has been eroded by lack of clarity over the substantive meaning of the term ‘green’ (and in particular whether this incorporates a commitment to the social dimension of sustainable development); and polarised discussion over issues such as technology transfer and financial assistance.
B.8 There is a real risk that Rio + 20’s green economy theme will deliver little more than ‘slightly greened business as usual’, particularly given the difficult economic circumstances in which many nations find themselves. The UK government must play a full part in ensuring that ‘the green economy’ is positioned as ‘the green and fair economy’; and not ‘green growth’ or even ‘green and fair growth’.
Institutional frameworks for sustainable development B.9 There is a marked contrast between the ‘international institutional’ topics that have been dominant in discussions to date and the reality that local, regional and national institutions are critically important in the pursuit of sustainable development.
B.10 Reform of international institutions alone will not deliver changes in institutional frameworks at the national and subnational levels, nor at the regional level. Much more attention needs to be given to these levels of sustainable development governance as preparations for Rio + 20 gather pace.
C. The Committee’s Questions
1. Issues that should be urgently addressed, and any that should be avoided C.1 Issues that should be urgently addressed include:
• the reality of planetary boundaries and their associated tipping points • the problem of political short‐termism as a barrier to sustainable development
2 See http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Nick_Clegg_speech%3A_Horizon_shift&pPK=f8f7b543‐ d586‐40e2‐b4c9‐e7be68970bf3 • creation of institutional frameworks to ensure that the needs of future generations are brought into the heart of decision‐making from the local to the global levels in ways that serve the overall goal of sustainable development
C.2 Three things in particular should be avoided:
• placing business (or the private sector), not people, at the centre of efforts to pursue and achieve sustainable development • any outcome in which only international, rather than national regional and local, frameworks for sustainable development are addressed in the political declaration and actions emerging from Rio + 20 • further weakening the concept of the sustainable development through a renewed political commitment that is in reality a retrograde step, for example through any express mention of commitment to continued economic growth
2. The extent to which greening the economy can help eradicate poverty, including the tensions between growth and prosperity in the context of sustainable development C.3 The tensions between growth and prosperity in the context of sustainable development are well described in Professor Tim Jackson’s 2010 book and associated report, Prosperity Without Growth.3 We add that it will not be possible to deliver ‘prosperity without growth’ unless political systems are themselves capable of delivering the policy frameworks needed to support it.
C.4 One approach is simply to understand ‘greening’ of the economy as a call to unleash the power of business and social enterprise to do good; in particular through social and technological innovation in support of sustainable development. However, implementing policy measures to achieve this end does nothing to ensure that those parts of the economy that are ‘unfair’ or not ‘green’ wither.
C.5 Policy measures to secure ‘greening of the economy’ cannot rely only on technological innovation and the power of competition. Social and political change is also required to deliver the necessary political will. Rio + 20 needs to deliver express political recognition of this fact.
C.6 Political systems must be equipped to overcome the short‐termism of electoral cycles; to have regard to the needs of future generations, and to engage people on important issues in styles that are far more participatory and deliberative than is the norm. Rio + 20 can play an important role in setting the right tone, including through a commitment not only to the ‘environmental democracy’4 reflected in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration,5 but to a genuine ‘sustainable development democracy’.
C.7 In liberal democracies such as that of the UK, the challenges are compounded. Only when elected representatives feel free to prioritise policy priorities that do not actively support economic growth is it likely that we will be able consistently to deliver consistent policy for sustainable development. That is unlikely to happen without a) consistent and charismatic political leadership of the kind that can inspire commitment of hearts and minds, or b) cultural transformation so that people actively consent to, and pursue, prioritisation of policies that allow collective needs and
3 http://www.sd‐commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/prosperity_without_growth_report.pdf 4 The term is used in the Chisinau Declaration of the Conference of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention: ECE/MP.PP/2011/CRP.4/rev.1, 1st July 2011 5 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 wellbeing to be met in support of sustainable development, rather than pursuit of selfish self‐ interest.
C.8 If the current threats of severe climate change and resource scarcity were to come to fruition, societal innovation and resilience could prove a far more useful commodity than business‐centred policies for growth, whether green or not. A people‐centred, socially transformative route to a green and fair economy offers a far better ‘win‐win’ prospect for change than a business and technology‐centred approach that further erodes cultures of democratic decision‐making.
C.9 The Brundtland Commission’s 1987 report stated that ‘overriding priority’ should be given to the essential needs of the world’s poor people.6 This has been interpreted as justification for a continued emphasis on economic growth, including in the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
C.10 It is alarming that the terms ‘green economy’ and ‘green growth’ appear increasingly to be used interchangeably in the UK policy context. It is important that they do not come to be seen to be synonymous. There is considerable wishful thinking in the idea that global economic growth can continue and at the same time a bolt‐on ‘green economy’ (even if it is a fair one) will deliver massive dematerialisation of consumption and production (i.e. reduction in reliance on natural resources) on the scale needed to deliver sustainable development.
C.11 The wishful thinking is exemplified in the statement of the European Commission’s Communication on Rio + 20 that responses to the challenges of meeting demands for better lives and addressing environmental pressures will not come from ‘slowing growth’.7 Planetary boundaries must circumscribe any commitment to the green economy as a necessary condition precedent for sustainable development (see further the Annex below).
3. The institutional frameworks (at international, regional, national and local levels) required to deliver a ‘green economy’ and a more sustainable future for all, now and into the future C.12 Institutional frameworks for sustainable development need to be addressed in relation to the overall challenge of achieving sustainable development, not only the ‘green economy’. One particular risk of associating institutional frameworks for sustainable development with the green economy is that it may give rise to a tendency to see business, rather than people, as a centrepiece of ‘institutional frameworks for sustainable development’.
C.13 As resource scarcity and climate change make political choices related to sustainable development more difficult at national and international levels, much of the innovation and good practice that is needed will be found at local levels. We are concerned that there has not thus far been much effort to explore what commitments might be possible at Rio + 20 in relation to the regional, national and subnational levels.
C.14 Regional, national and subnational governments and institutions should use Rio + 20 as an opportunity to share ideas on how best to integrate sustainable development – including regard for the needs of future generations ‐ into regional and domestic policy decisions. Examples include the idea of guardians, commissioners or ombudspersons for future generations, building on the institutional trailblazing of Hungary’s Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations; and legal and policy mechanisms to deliver respect for planetary boundaries.
6 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our common future, Oxford University Press, 1987, page 8 7 European Commission Communication, Rio + 20: towards the green economy and better governance (COM(2011) 363 final, 20th June 2011) C.15 We have two suggestions on institutional innovations in global governance frameworks for sustainable development. a) we support emerging efforts to bring the needs of future generations into the overall global governance framework, for example in proposals for the creation of a new office of a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations, b) we propose that political recognition of the concept of planetary boundaries as a precondition for sustainable development be linked with the adoption at Rio + 20 of a Declaration on Planetary Boundaries as a precursor to a global Convention on Planetary Boundaries (as to which see further the Annex prepared by Barrister Peter Roderick below).
4. The objectives and roles the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run‐up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU preparations and negotiations; C.16 The UK’s ability to engage meaningfully in preparations for the Conference is not assisted by the fact that the government has chosen not to develop a publicly available sustainable development strategy, and has recently abolished some key planks in the overall institutional framework for sustainable development (including the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the independent Sustainable Development Commission). Furthermore, recent indications are that the government fails effectively to recognise the concept of sustainable development as providing guidance for domestic policy. This is exemplified in the proposed approach to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ (defined in effect as a presumption in favour of development) within the proposed National Planning Policy Framework.
C.17 In light of the imperative to recognise that respect for planetary boundaries is a necessary precondition for sustainable development, and drawing on the potential international leadership role of the Climate Change Act, the UK should adopt a leading role in championing the need for recognition of environmental limits, more specifically in the form of planetary boundaries.
C.18 Recognising that much of the innovation for sustainable development must in future come from subnational levels, including devolved administrations and local authorities, the UK Government should actively provide space for local authorities and the devolved administrations to participate in preparations for Rio + 20 within both the EU and the UN; showcasing those areas where their approaches offer potentially transferrable insights. The Welsh Government’s commitment to develop a Sustainable Development Bill is particularly noteworthy in this regard, as is the appointment of a Commissioner for Sustainable Futures.
5. The ideal outcomes from Rio+20, and how any agreements should be subsequently monitored C.19 Ideal outcomes from Rio + 20 would include the following elements:
C.19.1 Political recognition of respect for planetary boundaries as a prerequisite for sustainable development. This should be linked to a commitment to development of a political and institutional architecture capable of supporting that recognition. In an ideal outcome, we would want to see a Declaration on Planetary Boundaries adopted at Rio + 20 as a precursor to a UN Convention on Planetary Boundaries (as to which, see further the Annex below).
C.19.2 Renewed political commitment to sustainable development in a form which a) repositions full integration of economic development, environmental protection and social development at the heart of sustainable development, AND b) explicitly restates the political commitment to securing intergenerational and intragenerational equity.
C.19.3 Political commitment to place people, not businesses, at the heart of efforts to secure a green and fair economy and deliver sustainable development. This would in an ideal outcome be complemented by adoption of a global convention on corporate accountability to provide redress to those affected by the worst excesses of transnational corporate irresponsibility.
C.19.4 Renewed commitment to guaranteeing wide rights of public participation, access to information and access to justice for people around the world, whoever and wherever they might be, in line with the principles and spirit of the Aarhus Convention and in accordance with the July 2011 Chisinau Declaration of the meeting of the parties to the Convention (ECE/MP.PP/2011/CRP.4/rev.1). Rio + 20, in an ideal outcome, would be a milestone in global commitment to guaranteed access to justice, public participation and access to information across the pillars of sustainable development (economy, environment and society).
C.19.5 Political recognition that political short‐termism is a significant barrier to sustainable development. This should be linked to a clear commitment to development of institutional frameworks, from the local to the global, that are capable a) of delivering actions in support of sustainable development informed by long‐termism and regard for the needs of future generations, and b) doing so in ways that respect the need for intragenerational equity.
C.19.6 Support for the creation of a new UN institution or office with a mandate to integrate the needs of future generations within the overall institutional framework for sustainable development at the global level.
C.19.7 Broad‐based and wide‐ranging engagement by civil society and subnational governments in both the formal governmental and less formal non‐governmental processes associated with Rio + 20, with a view to sharing good practice and catalysing the next generation of practical activism and social innovation for sustainable development.
6. The potential risks to the ideal outcomes being achieved, and any lessons that should be learnt from previous conferences. C.20 We wish to identify three potential risks:
C.20.1 Lack of political will or ambition for either Rio + 20 or, more generally, for the concept of sustainable development, as its realisation is made increasingly politically difficult by rapid economic and population growth and their side‐effects. Effective mobilisation of civil society is part of the key to countering this risk and to ensuring more generally, by helping to foster new civil society alliances, that intergovernmental outcomes are not the only outcome of the process. We trust and hope that the UK will take seriously not only the substantive analytical and advocacy capacities within UK civil society (including non‐governmental organisations and community based organisations), but also our comparative advantage as among the global hubs of sustainable development expertise.
C.20.2 That a political commitment to economic growth within national governments will taint both the substance of the political commitment to sustainable development, and specific commitments on the green economy, and lead to a weak focus on the importance of ‘sustainable development democracy’ in delivering sustainable development.
C.20.3 That the need to transform the internal incentives within political and other public policy decision‐making systems in favour of sustainable development (and, conversely, away from short‐termism or prioritisation of economic growth) will not be recognised at Rio + 20, even though it has a critically important role to play in determining the quality of development on the ground.
Annex: Rio + 20 and Planetary Boundaries
The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 is an example of environmental limits legislation, which the Sustainable Development Commission described as a “robust and world‐leading approach [which] needs to be extended as a matter of urgency to other environmental limits”1
An innovative approach to this question, which offers a new approach to sustainable development, is the planetary boundaries concept. Launched by 29 scientists in 2009, it posits that there are nine non‐negotiable Earth‐system processes and associated thresholds that we need to respect and keep within, in order to protect against the risk of deleterious or even catastrophic environmental change at continental to global scales. This would create a safe operating space for humanity, and within this space economy and society would play out. According to the concept’s authors, three of the nine suggested thresholds have already been crossed (for climate change, biodiversity and the nitrogen cycle).2
What is new about the concept is that rather than understanding environment, economy and society as three pillars of sustainable development, it focuses on the initial importance of biophysical realities as necessary pre‐conditions for sustainable development. Environment, economy and society would remain the pillars of sustainable development, but in future they would do so against a non‐negotiable backdrop of biophysical reality.
The idea has been taken up by the Secretary‐General’s High‐Level Panel on Global Sustainability: the overall goal for its report later this year and input into Rio+20 is “To eradicate poverty and reduce inequality, make growth inclusive, and production and consumption more sustainable while combating climate change and respecting the range of other planetary boundaries.” The UK’s Institution of Civil Engineers has said that “the concept is clear and sufficiently intuitive that we can begin to explore ways in which society can stay within such boundaries.”3
We need to recognize, respect and be responsible for not transgressing planetary boundaries – internationally, regionally, nationally and locally. Recognition would imply that States and the UN System acknowledge that planetary boundaries exist; research their nature, parameters, variables, thresholds and inter‐actions; gather, collate and present data and information by reference to planetary boundaries; identify the human activities that affect them; implement in law a scientific, transparent and participative process for establishing and reviewing them, and their parameters, variables, thresholds and inter‐actions, and for advising on them; and give the concept an over‐ arching institutional home which cooperates with current institutions with responsibilities across the range of human activities that affect planetary boundaries.
In time, such an institution could become, under a UN Convention on Planetary Boundaries, an over‐ arching Planetary Boundaries Commission.
Respect for planetary boundaries implies, for example, ensuring they are not transgressed; accepting the advice provided through a scientific, transparent and participative process, unless there are clear, imperative, stated and legally‐challengeable reasons for not doing so; designing public and private sector institutions, as well as policies, laws and strategies, to minimise the risk of transgressing any of them or, where one or more have already been transgressed, to pull back; making decisions to minimise that risk or to pull back; and integrating recognition of planetary boundaries into international, regional and national decision‐making processes across the range of human activities that affect them.
Being responsible for not crossing the boundaries implies, for example, over‐arching legal objectives and obligations to recognise and respect them across the range of human activities that affect them; rights to information about them; rights to participate in decisions which affect them; and rights to go to court to ensure they are respected.
Rio +20 is an obvious opportunity to adopt the innovative approach to sustainable development offered by the planetary boundaries concept, which could be significantly developed over the coming years. In this way, the biophysical pre‐conditions for achieving the Millennium Development Goals – and for other associated commitments that could be adopted at Rio, such as Sustainable Development Goals and/or Millennium Consumption Goals – would be acknowledged.
25 August 2011
1 NEWP Discussion Document, An Invitation to Shape the Nature of England, SDC Consultation Response, December 2010, page 4, available online at: { HYPERLINK "http://webmail.fdsd.org/parse.php?redirect=http://www.sd‐ commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC%2520Response%2520to%2520NEWP_Discussion%2520pape r.pdf" \t "_blank" } 2 Rockström, J et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society [online] 14, 32 (2009). Available online at {HYPERLINK "http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32"}. 3 Engineering to live within planetary boundaries: Civil engineering research needs, Institution of Civil Engineers, October 2010, available here: { HYPERLINK "http://webmail.fdsd.org/parse.php?redirect=http://www.ice.org.uk/Information‐ resources/Document‐Library/Engineering‐to‐live‐within‐planetary‐boundaries" \t "_blank" } Written evidence submitted by Marine Conservation Society, ZSL Living Conservation, PEW Environment Group, Greenpeace UK, and Greenpeace UK
The biodiversity and productivity of the world’s oceans are diminishing at an increasing rate. Globally some 90% of large fish species, like sharks, tuna and swordfish, have disappeared in the last few decades1. There are 22 species of mammals and fish considered to be threatened in UK seas alone2. Once abundant species such as Atlantic cod and the common skate are now considered globally threatened and only eight of the 47 main fish stocks found around the British Isles remain in a healthy state3. Many marine habitats, ranging from the species-rich rocky reefs of Europe and coral reefs of the tropics, to the fragile creatures and ecosystems found in the deep sea, have already been fundamentally altered by destructive fishing techniques and other anthropogenic activities.
Despite international commitments from 168 countries4 to safeguard our marine life in protected areas, there has been limited implementation or ambition by the world’s governments. Only 1.42% of the world’s oceans are nominally protected as ‘Marine Protected Areas, and less than 0.5% are fully protected Marine Reserves5.
The need for Marine Reserves Marine Reserves (i.e., fully-protected areas, closed to all potentially damaging activities) are a scientifically-proven, simple tool that protects vulnerable species and habitats, as well as building resilience in our oceans against significant emerging threats such as climate change (6,7,8,9). Done right, Marine Reserves benefit both people and the environment by helping to rebuild depleted fish stocks that millions of people worldwide depend on as a source of income and protein9.
If the marine environment is to recover from decades of over-exploitation and habitat destruction from a range of ocean uses, then an extensive and coherent network of Marine Reserves is needed as an essential element of a range of measures to ensure our oceans are managed sustainably. In UK national waters there are currently only three sites protected by law in this way, measuring less than 0.005% of UK seas9.
International scientific consensus suggests that between 10 and 50% of our oceans should be fully protected as Marine Reserves10,11. The United Nations recommend 30%12. We agree.
Restoring our oceans will take time, but we need to act now!
We call on the UK Government to commit to setting up representative networks of Marine Reserves throughout its territories that:
1. are fully protected No extractive or potentially damaging activities are allowed in Marine Reserves (i.e., no fishing or dredging).
2. cover 30% of seas under British jurisdiction To enable the recovery of marine biodiversity and fish stocks, as required under EU legislation and international obligations, it is imperative that the British Government commit to manage at least 30% of its waters as marine reserves by 2020 with a clear timetable and means to achieve this.
3. are managed effectively Marine reserves must be properly managed for the long-term to ensure marine species and habitats are fully protected within them, with sufficient technical and logistical capacity available at the national and regional levels
Furthermore, we call upon the British Government to encourage other nations to adopt similar targets with respect to their own waters, and to show leadership in the initiation of marine reserves on the high seas, i.e., in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
References
1Myers, R., Worm, B., (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280–283. 2IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. <{HYPERLINK "http://www.iucnredlist.org"}>. [Cited 10th May 2011]. 3Defra (2008). Marine Fisheries Science Yearbook 2007/2008. Defra, UK. 56pp. 4Convention on Biodiversity (2011). { HYPERLINK "http://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml" } [Cited 10th May 2011]. 5J. Nelson, Pew Environment Group, USA, pers. comm. 11th May 2011. 6Halpern, B. S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications 13:S117–S137. 7Lester S.E. and Halpern B.S. (2008), Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially protected areas MEPS 367: 49-56. 8Gaines, S.D., White, C., Carr, M.H., Palumbi, S.R. 2010. Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. PNAS Early Edition, ww.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906473107. 9Mascia, M.B., Claus, A.C., Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on fishing communities. Conservation Biology, Volume 24, No. 5, 1424–1429. 10Marine Conservation Society. (2008). Silent Seas. MCS, UK, { HYPERLINK "http://www.mcsuk.org/information/About%20MCS/About%20MCS/Silent%20seas%20report" } [cited 16th May 2011]. 11Gell F.R. and Roberts C.M. (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 18(9) 448-455. 12Wood, L.J., Fish, L., Laughren, J., Pauly, D., 2008. Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Oryx 42, 340–351. 13IUCN (2003). Recommendations of the Vth World Parks Congress, in Durban, South Africa (8- 17 September 2003). { HYPERLINK "http://www.uicnmed.org/web2007/CDMURCIA/pdf/durban/recommendations_en.pdf" } [Cited 10th May 2011].
25 August 2011 Written evidence submitted by the Commission for Global Road Safety
Summary:
• Road traffic crashes kill an estimated 1.3 million people a year and injure between 20-50 million more. More than ninety per cent of casualties occur in middle-income and low-income countries;
• The United Nations has launched the ‘Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020’, describing road injury as "major public health problem with a broad range of social and economic consequences which, if unaddressed, may affect the sustainable development of countries and hinder progress towards the Millennium Development Goals";
• There is growing recognition that improving road safety can also contribute to achieving the MDGs, particularly in relation to child mortality, access to healthcare (on safe roads), and universal access to education (a million children are killed or seriously injured each year in road crashes, the majority as pedestrians). Unicef has urged that action to prevent injuries in the second decade of a child’s life should become “a major international health objective”;
• Addressing road safety will also help to achieve environmental objectives, including action on climate change, particularly through providing a safer road system for users of non-motorised transport, such as pedestrians and cyclists, the most vulnerable road users. Providing safe facilities for non-motorised transport, and encouraging affordable and safe public transport, can reduce demand for modal shift to the car. According to the UN Environment Programme, such policies can make “a large, lasting impact…on fuel use, congestion, air quality and CO2 emissions… It is also one of the most cost-effective actions for saving hundreds of thousands of lives”;
• Many developing country governments, and large institutions like the World Bank, are beginning to recognise the need to prioritise road safety in the context of a sustainable transport system. But progress is slow. The gap between the an institution acknowledging of the issue and achieving sustained action can be bridged if road safety is included within the framework of a major international sustainability conference;
• The priorities agreed at international fora like Rio+20 set the global agenda and issues that are absent from the agenda are subsequently neglected and under- funded. This is why it is so important that action to improve road safety and promote sustainable modes of transport is included in the agenda and outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference.
Submission:
1. The Commission for Global Road Safety is an independent body under the Chairmanship of Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and patronage of HRH Prince Michael of Kent. It was established in 2006 by the FIA Foundation (a UK registered charity) to promote action to reverse the rising tide of road traffic injury and fatality in developing countries. Its ‘Make Roads Safe’ reports published in 2006 and 2009 called for the first ever global Ministerial Conference, which was subsequently held in Moscow in November 2009, and proposed that the UN mandate a Decade of Action for Road Safety, a proposal which was subsequently approved by the UN General Assembly in March 2010. Amongst the recommendations in the Commission’s third ‘Make Roads Safe’ report, published in 2011, we call on the international community to recognise road traffic injuries as a sustainability challenge in the context of the Rio+20 Conference and discussions on a post-Millennium Development Goals framework.
2. The Commission is very grateful for the opportunity to submit evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into preparations for the Rio+20 Conference. We welcome Rio+20 as an important opportunity to identify the major sustainability challenges facing the world and to contribute to the design of a post- MDG framework that will meet the needs of developing nations in the second and third decades of the 21st Century. We encourage the Committee to support our view that global road traffic death and injury, and the wider but related issue of safe and sustainable transportation policy, must be recognised as sustainability challenges at the Rio+20 Conference, and that the UK Government should promote and encourage other member nations and participants to include reference to safe and sustainable road mobility in the ‘Outcomes Document’ of the Conference.
3. Road safety is perhaps not one of the more obvious subjects for consideration at Rio. Yet the absence of road safety from the agenda of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, and the consequent neglect of the issue in international development fora, has arguably contributed to the growing toll of death and disability on the world’s roads. According to the World Health Organization road crashes kill an estimated 1,300,000 people each year and injure between 20 - 50 million more. The vast majority – more than ninety per cent - of these casualties are occurring in middle-income and low-income countries where road safety awareness and the capacity to tackle the problem is low, and where both traffic levels and road casualties are rising rapidly (Global Status Report on Road Safety, WHO, 2009).
4. Despite the absence of road safety from the mainstream sustainable development agenda there is now a global mandate for action to reduce global road traffic injuries. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/64/255 has established the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020 with a goal to ‘stabilise and reduce’ road deaths by 2020. The UK was one of the 100 countries which co-sponsored the resolution. Our Commission estimates that if this ambitious goal can be achieved up to 5 million lives and 50 million serious injuries could be prevented over the course of the Decade (‘Make Roads Safe: A Decade of Action for Road Safety’, Commission for Global Road Safety, 2009). Participating in the launch of the Decade of Action, in May 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron described the Decade of Action as “a vital opportunity to implement the policies that can make road traffic safer and more sustainable and protect future generations”.
5. In its Resolution proclaiming the Decade of Action for Road Safety, the United Nations General Assembly described road traffic injuries as a "major public health problem with a broad range of social and economic consequences which, if unaddressed, may affect the sustainable development of countries and hinder progress towards the Millennium Development Goals". According to leading development experts and international agencies, the impacts of failure to address road safety can go beyond the immediate toll of death and disability to undermine policies on poverty alleviation, child survival and development, and climate change.
6. For example, the Special Adviser to the United Nations on the Millennium Development Goals, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, has recently described road crashes as “a crucial part of the overall effort” to improve the environment and quality of life in developing countries. In an interview conducted for our Make Roads Safe campaign, Prof. Sachs explained that, in his view, “the Millennium Development Goals are a broad framework and road safety has to be part of that. When there is so much death, when there is so much injury, when there is so much of a burden on poor communities, alleviating that is part of the overall strategy of fighting poverty, fighting the deaths of children, helping communities to be safe. And so this is part of the Millennium Development Goal effort” (www.makeroadssafe.org). 7. In a report for our Commission, Dr Kevin Watkins, a former development adviser to Oxfam, the UN Development Programme and UNESCO, estimates that, based on a simple calculation of the relationship between GDP growth and poverty reduction, the economic costs associated with road traffic crashes (at least US$100 billion a year in for developing countries) are keeping between 12 – 72 million people in poverty. Dr Watkins describes road crashes as ‘holding back progress towards the international development targets on a global scale’, citing the impact of road injuries on children – 260,000 of whom are killed and at least 1 million seriously injured each year - and the burden on health services of dealing with road traffic injuries as having a serious impact on delivery of MDG goals 2, for universal primary education, and 4, 5 & , covering child and maternal mortality and public health (The Missing Link: Road Traffic Injuries & the Millennium Development Goals, Watkins, K; 2010).
8. Dr. Watkins’ analysis is echoed in the 2011 ‘State of the World’s Children’ report from the UN Children’s Fund. In the report, which focuses on adolescence, Unicef argues that older children have been neglected as a health priority. “Lasting change in the lives of children and young people…can only be achieved and sustained by complementing investment in the first decade of life with greater attention and resources applied in the second”, the report concludes. Injury, and in particular road injury, is identified as an area that needs to be addressed. “Injuries are a growing concern in public health in relation to younger children and adolescents alike. They are the leading cause of death among adolescents aged 10-19…many of these deaths are related to road traffic accidents”, the authors acknowledge. “Fatalities from injuries among adolescents are highest among the poor…(B)ecause the rate of urbanisation is most rapid in the poorest regions of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia – which are also the areas with the greatest share of adolescents in the population – averting injuries in the second decade of life must become a major international health objective” (State of the World’s Children Report 2011, Unicef).
9. Importantly, in the context of Rio+20, there is growing evidence and recognition that addressing road safety will also help to achieve environmental objectives. In urban areas managing vehicle speed to provide safe and accessible streets for non- motorised transport users, combined with road design measures that protect and encourage walking and cycling (such as pavements, safe crossing points and bicycle lanes), will both reduce casualties amongst ‘vulnerable road users’ and support greener modes of transport, reducing modal shift to motorised vehicles. Dr Watkins, the author of a major 2008 ‘Human Development Report’ on climate change for the UNDP, also highlights that transport policy “can play a central role in combating climate change not just by creating fuel-efficiency incentives and supporting the development of low carbon fuels, but also by supporting the development of safe public transport and creating the conditions for safe non-motorised transport. When safe sidewalks and cycle lanes are available, people are far more likely to undertake trips by walking or cycling”, (The Missing Link: Road Traffic Injuries & the Millennium Development Goals, Watkins, K; 2010).
10. The UN Environment Programme is also urging a change in emphasis in transport planning in developing nations to support and protect non-motorised mobility and to encourage safe and affordable public transport (low income families in developing countries can currently spend up to 25% of their income on public transport), citing the benefits for a range of environmental objectives. UNEP points out that “cities with a better modal mix between cars, public transport, walking and cycling have lower energy use per capita. By incorporating non-motorised transport facilities in the transport grid, a large, lasting impact can be made on fuel use, congestion, air quality and CO2 emissions”. Furthermore, UNEP argues that “designating road space for pedestrians and cyclists in proportion to the demand for non-motorised transport is crucial. It is also one of the most cost-effective actions for saving hundreds of thousands of lives. For example, the top two countermeasures for improving safety in Nairobi, Kenya, recommended by the International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) are pedestrian crossings and sidewalks”, (‘Share the Road: Invest in Walking & Cycling’, UN Environment Programme and FIA Foundation, 2011).
11. Despite the projections of significant increases in car use – with global vehicle ownership doubling in the next ten years, entirely in developing countries - the majority of people in low-income countries or in the significant low-income segments of the population in middle-income countries are unlikely to ever own a car. Yet it is these people who are overwhelmingly affected by road traffic crashes and other consequences of road traffic, including poor air quality (which is estimated to contribute to 800,000 deaths a year). Designing safe transportation, urban planning and land use policies that meet the commuting, social and healthcare needs of this ‘green majority’ is a pre-requisite for building the ‘green economy’ of the future and for achieving social justice.
12. This is also increasingly recognised by the World Bank, the largest development agency making transportation loans to developing countries. In its current transport strategy (Safe, Clean, Affordable…transport for development, World Bank, 2008) the Bank highlights the importance of transport policy for achieving many of the Millennium Development Goals, and warns that in “a world with rising levels of greenhouse gases, poor road safety, and the all too frequent spread of communicable diseases along international routes, transport must be looked at anew”. In particular, the World Bank warns that neglect of road safety must end, urging that “safety can be made integral to the design and management of the road transport system, just as it is in the management of other transport modes, aviation in particular. However, this concept is not yet accepted in many countries, despite the high economic and human costs of road crashes”.
13. Yet it is a concept that is only now beginning to be adopted in the World Bank’s own country programmes, and the loans of other multilateral development banks (MDBs). Road projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars are still being approved and implemented with totally inadequate safeguard policies relating to injury prevention. Road safety measures are often presented to client countries as an additional project cost, overlooking the long term benefits and financial returns on investment that will flow from reduced levels of road injury. By treating road safety as a ‘luxury upgrade’ rather than a core ingredient, client countries are discouraged from opting for safe road design.
14. In our 2006 report our Commission highlighted these failings and called on the World Bank to establish a joint taskforce to mainstream road safety assessment into their road infrastructure investments. In response the World Bank’s Global Road Safety Facility did establish such a working group and together with the other MDBs agreed a Joint Statement on ‘A Shared Approach to Managing Road Safety’ just prior to the First Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety, hosted by the Russian Federation in Moscow in 2009. The Joint Statement commits the MDBs to “ensure that safety is integrated in all phases of planning, design, construction, appraisal, operation and maintenance of road infrastructure…particularly to improve safe access and protection for vulnerable road users who represent a significant proportion of the people served by the projects we finance”. Launching the MDB’s Road Safety Initiative, in April 2011, World Bank President Robert Zoellick warned that “unless well-targeted measures are taken, there will be an escalating death toll on the roads in poor countries, which would be a terrible tragedy”.
15. The Rio+20 Conference can play a critical role in encouraging such action. As we have shown above, there is now a wide recognition that road traffic injuries are a public health and sustainable development challenge that needs to be addressed, and that doing so will benefit the wider agendas of tackling climate change and working towards the Millennium Development Goals. Yet, despite this growing consensus, road safety and wider issues of sustainable mobility remain on the margins of public policy, lacking vocal advocates within government aid agencies – including the Department for International Development – and major institutions and consequently denied the resources needed to assist developing nations to improve their institutional capacity, skills and policies. Indeed, DFID recently marked the launch of the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety (despite the vocal support for the launch from the Prime Minister) by failing to honour a £1.5 million pledge to support the World Bank’s road safety initiative, made at the First Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety.
16. It is our view that this gap between the growing acknowledgement of the issue and achieving sustained action can be bridged if, for the first time, road safety is included within the framework of a major international sustainability conference. Identifying road traffic injury as a new challenge at the Rio+20 Conference will be invaluable in raising the profile of the issue and helping to institutionalise road safety programmes within middle-income and low-income governments and organisations like the World Bank. As we have seen in the powerful response to climate change and environmental protection following the first Rio summit in 1992, and in the united focus on achieving the Millennium Development Goals that was the major outcome of the Johannesburg Summit in 2002, the priorities agreed at these international fora do set the global agenda and issues that are absent from the agenda are subsequently neglected and under-funded.
17. Until road safety can be integrated into the mainstream of sustainability policy, millions of people will be condemned to unnecessary and preventable violent, painful deaths, or lives blighted by severe disability. This is why it is so important that action to improve road safety and promote sustainable modes of transport is included in the agenda and outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference.
25 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by the UK Environment Law Association
Executive Summary The UK Environmental Law Association propose that the Rio Conference addresses the following regulatory issues, for the reasons given in this submission:
I. Achieving consistency in language and terminology related to sustainable development. II. Developing a flexible international definition of Sustainable Development to apply universally. However an overly prescription or limited definition of Sustainable Development will hamper the development of law though other channels. III. Considering the role of guidance to be used as a mechanism to give effect to duties. IV. Considering the extent that regulations should be made consistent to ensure that reporting obligations are published, monitored and reviewed and to ensure consistency in the process, content and quality of information. V. Developing mechanisms to ensure that information provided in voluntary and mandatory reports are meaningful. This could probably be addressed through increased auditing requirements and developing the role of regulators in both guidance and enforcement capacities. VI. Developing regulation to ensure reporting obligations on local government are publicised, monitored and reviewed. VII. Scrutinising the interaction between the role of law and the development of international standards more closely. VIII. Giving consideration to an international court for the environment.
The UK Environmental Law Association
1. The UK Environmental Law Association aims to make the law work for a better environment and to improve understanding and awareness of environmental law. UKELA’s members are involved in the practice, study or formulation of Environmental Law in the UK and the European Union. It attracts both lawyers and non‐lawyers and has a broad membership from the private and public sectors.
2. UKELA’s current priorities include:
• Informing and actively influencing the broad law and policy debate on climate change including the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and manage their impacts at the international, EU and domestic level • Helping deliver more effective and efficient environmental regulation including enforcement at the EU and UK level, not lower standards nor less regulation unless the same or better outcomes will be achieved
3. UKELA works on a UK basis and seeks to ensure that best legislation and practice are achieved across the devolved jurisdictions.
Issues
1.1 Terminology
Proposed outcome: that the Rio Conference achieves consistency in language and terminology relating to sustainable development.
Reasons 4. The term ‘Sustainable development’ was conceived to reconcile tension between environmental and developmental concerns. The term is used globally in policies, strategies and treaties such as UNFCCC. It is often also used interchangeably with the term ‘sustainability’ although the terms denote different things. ‘Sustainability‘ is used to describe an aspiration for finding a better way for humans to live within our support system. ‘Sustainable Development’ is the policy manifestation of society’s attempt to achieve that goal.
5. The inconsistent and vague use of language is a fundamental issue that needs addressing to provide an agreed outcome on how the goal of sustainable development should be reflected in legal systems. For example, research, standards and policy documents often refer to ‘the principle of sustainable development’ or ‘principles of sustainable development’ or the objective of ‘sustainable development’. The lack of consistency and precision is probably a
reflection of the diverse stakeholders interested in the development of sustainable development.
6. In legal terms a ‘principle’ is a rule or standard that: • is undisputed in legal doctrine • does not need to be proved • provides a foundation for the development of other laws and regulations.
7. There are generally accepted principles associated with environmental law and policy, such as the precautionary principle and the preventative principle, that are used to underpin environmental laws at all levels. Sustainable development is often cited as one of these. These principles are general guides to action rather than detailed rules. The status of these principles can alter because of changes in policy. For example, as a result of changes in waste policy the proximity principle is no longer a central principle of EC waste management law. Other principles are so well established that there is discussion on their status as binding norms of international law.
1.2 Definitions and the law
Proposed outcome: that the Rio Conference: • achieves consensus on the development of a flexible international definition of Sustainable Development to apply universally. However an overly prescription or limited definition of Sustainable Development will hamper the development of law though other channels. • considers the role of guidance to be used as a mechanism to give effect to duties
Reasons 8. The most commonly referred definition of Sustainable Development is ‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.1
9. No definition of Sustainable Development is found in primary International, European or UK law. The European Union has used the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive as means to give effect to the objective of Sustainable Development.
10. Whether ‘the law’ has played a secondary role in the development of the definition as a global term is an issue that has been raised on many levels. The ‘law’ can operate on different jurisdictional levels but it is also a term that encompasses:
‐ the law expressed as a statutory duty/right
‐ the law embodied in Contract
‐ the law of Tort
Duties and rights 11. Whilst the term ‘sustainable development’ is used in some UK and Scottish statutes, there is no definition within the statutes.
12. Where Sustainable Development is expressed as a duty in legislation, the statute requires that a particular body or group of public bodies should act in a certain way. Some of the duties are mandatory but vary in their clarity, strength and the extent they are qualified by other provisions. The discretions that are introduced can be formulated in a broad way, or be limited to ensure that the authority acts in a way that constrains or structures the discretion.
13. Conferring rights on parties in the context of Sustainable Development may require a shift in legal boundaries: for example, it might create new causes of action such as a right to challenge development based on the global allocation of
1 Our Common Future (Brundtland Report ) 1987.
natural resources; or confer standing (locus standi) on currently unrecognised claimants (e.g. NGOs standing as advocates for future generations). This is not impossible, taking into account intergenerational principles and the growing application of wild law.
Contra ct 14. The use of contract as a body of law governing relations between legal persons is another area where the law concerning the application of the goal of sustainable development may lead to legal development, notwithstanding the lack of a precise definition. Whilst the use of express contract provisions, memorandum of understandings and side letters are means employed to ensure that the economic, environmental and social objectives of sustainable development are incorporated into a contract, enforcement for breach of these terms will depend on how the courts interpret the express terms of the contract. Although the UK courts have not had to provide a judgment on whether sustainable development is an implied term in a contract (necessary for ‘business efficacy’), it is not impossible that a court in the future could be asked to provide a judgement on the issue, particularly where the trend is towards business and government developing the objectives of sustainable development and sustainability reporting. For example, it may be an implied term of a contract for the design and build of a new commercial building with a projected lifespan of 30 – 70 years (depending on location) that it is both resilient to the reasonably foreseeable impacts of climate change and ‘sustainable’.
Tort 15. The question of whether a party has a ‘duty of care’ owed in relation to sustainable development principles will depend on the nature of the transactions between the parties. Where sustainability is key to a contract (for example in public procurement) there may be room to argue for damages or restitution for unjust enrichment where one party has failed to carry out its services in accordance with what is required.
Highlighting the issues 16. One of the reasons that legislation has played a secondary role in the development of the meaning of the term ‘sustainable development’ is that the law expressed as a statutory duty, had not been a major driver to ensure the achievement of sustainable development. Arguably, the efficient drivers are energy efficiency costs and savings/resource shortages/business reputation.
17. One problem with an imprecise definition is that it is more difficult for the courts to interpret and enforce in a way that is consistent with the legislature’s intentions. Where duties are imposed by legislation on an agency including the terms ‘sustainability’, without an exact definition, this can give rise to issues. For example, Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 required Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) to ‘have regard to the desirability of securing that anything done whether by SNH or any other person, in relation to the natural heritage of Scotland is undertaken in a manner that is sustainable. The Act provided no definition of ‘sustainable’ and consequently SNH had to define the term for its own purposes. Given the need for integrated solutions as a matter of public policy it is not useful for every agency to develop its own definition and approach to sustainable development.
18. On the other hand, the imprecise nature of the term may allow for it to be less static and the provision of ministerial guidance in exercising the ‘sustainable development’ objective or duty can be a beneficial approach.
19. There is also the issue of enforcement. None of the statutes create criminal or administrative offences in relation to sustainable development.
20. Sections 1.3 – 1.5 give further legal background on the current issues concerning the application of ‘sustainable development ’.
1.3 Principles incorporated into Sustainable Development
21. There are generally accepted principles associated with environmental law and policy, such as the precautionary principle and the preventative principle, that
are used to underpin environmental laws at all levels. Sustainable development is often cited as one of these. These principles are general guides to action rather than detailed rules.
22. The concept of sustainable development incorporates the principles of intergenerational equity, the sustainable use of natural resources, equitable use of resources and the principle of integration. Sustainable Development was initially reflected in EU law through the ‘integration principle’. The integration principle is set out in Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as ‘Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Community policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development’.
23. Intergenerational equity is the principle of administering and preserving resources and assets (such as quality and diversity of environment), which do not belong to any generation but are to be administered and preserved in trust for all future generations.
24. Intergenerational equity is argued to be a key principle underpinning sustainable development, as inequities are a cause of environmental degradation. Poverty deprives people of their ability to exercise choices in an environmentally sound manner.
1.4 The approach of the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice
25. In international law, sustainable development as a legal concept has tended to be found in mostly ‘soft law' documents such as Agenda 21.
26. In Gabcikovo‐Nagyamaros Project (judgement 25 September 1997, para 140) the International Court of Justice referred to Sustainable Development as a concept which necessitates the reconciliation of economic imperatives with environmental protection, thus enhancing its understanding in international law. There is academic opinion that by invoking the concept of sustainable
development, the ICJ indicates that the term has a legal function and both a procedural/temporal aspect. In a separate opinion, Vice President Weeramanty discussed the role of sustainable development in international law in the context of legal instruments and the historical background, concluding that: ‘the principle of sustainable development is ... a part of modern international law by reason not only of its inescapable logical necessity, but also by reason of its wide and general acceptance by the global community’.
27. Before the Lisbon Treaty the 1992 Treaty of the European Union set an objective to ‘promote economic and social progress which is balanced and sustainable’. The Lisbon Treaty changed the wording by committing to sustainable development as a concept in its own right (Article 3(3) of the revised version of the Treaty on European Union).
28. There are very few references to Sustainable Development in EU case law. The following cases have dealt with the principles indirectly: Greece v Council Case 62/88 and the Court of the First Instances judgment in Artegodan v Commission, Case T‐74/00) where it referred to ‘the protection of public health, safety and environment is to take precedence over economic reform’. These two examples are by no means exhaustive.
29. In the last decade, there have been increasing developments in the reasoning of the European courts in relation to sustainable development as a concept, and the environmental principles that are said to comprise it (the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle in particular). These legal developments have given a higher profile to these principles in EU law but do not yet form a coherent body of case law, nor do they compel sustainability‐focused policy outcomes. Increasingly academic work is being done to analyse and appraise the complex legal changes being brought about by environmental principles in this particular legal jurisdiction (as well as in others), and the analysis is far from straight forward.2
2 E Scotford, Environmental Principles and the Evolution of Environmental Law (Hart Publishing, forthcoming 2012).
1.5 The approach of the UK courts and legislation
30. In the UK ‘sustainable development’ is appearing more often in UK and Scottish legislation in a variety of legal forms such as duties, objectives and procedural requirements. There is no standard form of a duty. The provisions vary greatly.3
31. The English courts have acknowledged ‘sustainability’ as a material consideration in local planning decisions. A material consideration is capable of being a main issue in planning law decisions and may deserve significant weight.4 It is often the case that compliance with sustainability provisions occurs after a successful judicial review process. This is a reactive process and does not ensure compliance with provisions at an early stage. It is also a time consuming and costly process.5
32. The coalition government’s proposed text for a presumption in favour of sustainable development included in the Draft National Planning Policy Framework(DCLG, 24 July 2011) includes an extended definition of the ‘Bruntdland Definition’. The presumption states: ‘There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the planning system, which should be central to the approach taken to both plan making and decision making’. The issue is what this presumption means. Framed that way the presumption appears to promise an easier ride for developers. If there were to be a focus on the global allocation of natural resources to give effect to the concept of ‘inter‐generational equity’ derived from the ‘Brundtland defintion’ then it might impact on development, by limiting developments to give effect to ‘sustainability’ in a global context,
1.6 The question of mandatory reporting
Propos ed outcomes: 33. It is proposed that the Rio Conference achieves consensus on:
3 See for example the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Environment Act 1995, the Water Industry Act 1991 as amended by the Water Act 2003. 4 See R (Ludlam) v the First Secretary of State, Derbyshire DC [2004] EWHC 99. 5 Horsham DC v First Secretary of State, Devine Homes plc [2004] EWHC 769.
• the extent that regulations should be made consistent to ensure that reporting obligations are published, monitored and reviewed and to ensure consistency in the process, content and quality of information • developing mechanisms to ensure that information provided in voluntary and mandatory reports is meaningful. This could probably be addressed through increased auditing requirements and developing the role of regulators in both guidance and enforcement capacities • developing regulation to ensure reporting obligations on local government are publicised, monitored and reviewed
Reasons 34. Companies are using voluntary reporting or are required to produce mandatory reports to demonstrate how they are managing the environmental and social impacts of their operations. In the UK, listed companies are required under the Companies Act 2006, to set out in their business review (using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)) environmental, employee, social, community and supply chain issues. Although this is a legal requirement there is no statutory reporting standard and no requirement that the information in the enhanced business review is audited. In many cases, research by various companies including government agencies has shown that although voluntary and mandatory reporting has increased there is a lack of meaningful data.
35. Legislation can also be used to ensure reporting obligations on local government are publicised, monitored and reviewed. For example statutes may require Ministers or public bodies to produce a strategy, scheme, plan or report on sustainable development. Although these provisions can be easily complied with the question is how this is monitored and enforced. Judicial review can be used but the process is slow, costly and not the most effective means of enforcement.
1.7 The use of International Standards
Propos ed outcomes 36. It is proposed that the Rio Conference addresses the need for closer scrutiny of the interaction between the role of law and the development of international standards.
Reasons 37. Increasingly international standards are being developed to help organisations address issues like life cycle of products, environmental impact, and social impact (such as ISO 26000), health and safety and employment issues and implementing sustainability management systems. The International Standards board has recognized the need to produce a guide for all standard writers with guidelines for addressing sustainability issues. As definitions such as ‘sustainability ‘ are being developed, the lack of an international agreement on the term will impact on the application of the principle in all standards that refer to the guide.
1.8 The issue of international resolution of disputes
Propos ed outcome 38. It is proposed that the Rio Conference considers the case for an international court for the environment.
Reasons 39. Environmental disputes at a domestic and international level are becoming more frequent. This includes actions on misrepresentations by companies in their CSR policies. Resolving disputes at international level is problematic. Often routes such as arbitration are preferred and very little resort is had to the International Court of Justice. The use of different procedures to determine resolutions also leads to inconsistencies. The appellate division of the World Trade Organization also hears environmental cases. However there is also the issue of a lack of enforcement action.
40. For a further discussion on the international dispute resolution see the submission to the Environmental Audit Committee of the ICE Coalition, by Stephen Hockman QC of August 2011.
26 August 2011
{ IF "{ DOCPROPERTY "Office" }" = "GFTN" "" "Written{ evidence submitted by WWF-UK IF "{ DOCPROPERTY "Office"Key Points }" = "5 0th" ""
1. 20 years on from the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and most of the threats to global environmental sustainability have deepened. Rio+20 provides an important opportunity to address environmental challenges that are already undermining our economy as well as our future security. Progress both on “green economy” and governance arrangements for sustainable development are therefore vital outcomes for the Rio+20 conference. 2. WWF-UK urges the UK Government to show leadership in the preparations for Rio+20 and at the conference itself, including a strong input to the EU position on Rio+20. The UK Government should also build on the progress of the UK Climate Change Act, to lead on establishing a Green Economy and on championing the recognition of environmental limits. 3. A green economy needs to deliver three main outcomes: ensuring mankind’s ecological footprint is sustainable; maintaining and enhancing natural capital, biodiversity and ecosystem services; and improving human wellbeing and social equity. We urge the international community to adopt a credible set of indicators to measure progress towards each outcome at both national and global levels. 4. International governance for sustainable development needs to be reformed if we are to make progress on international targets for biodiversity, climate change and sustainable development.
A. INTRODUCTION
5. WWF-UK welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee on ‘Preparations for Rio+20’. WWF has extensive experience around climate change, management of natural resources and making the environment work for the poor. WWF-UK is the UK arm of the global WWF Network, one of the largest environmental organisations in the world, with over 5,000 staff active in over 100 countries. We work in partnership with local communities, civil society organisations, governments, multinational agencies and the private sector on the issues of freshwater, biodiversity, climate change, forests, marine, sustainable consumption, food, energy and minerals. 2011 is our 50th anniversary, when WWF is celebrating its achievements since 1961 and looking forward to future challenges. 6. WWF has contributed to the EU consultation on Rio+20 and the High Level Panel on Sustainability.1 We have also provided a response to the EU Communication on Rio+20 for the UK Government (see Annex 1). We see Rio+20 as a unique opportunity to secure both political and public commitments for sustainable development. Rio+20 should promote equitable and sustainable development which can bring about long-term poverty reduction and a decent quality of life for all without undermining the natural resource base on which we all depend. 7. For Rio+20 WWF is planning to emphasise sustainable food, water and energy security. Long-term food, water and energy security are entirely contingent on the sustainable management of the world's natural capital. Rio+20 needs, therefore, to deliver a significant improvement in the management of natural capital at global, national and local levels in order to address crises linked to food, water and energy insecurity.
B. ISSUES TO ADDRESS AT RIO+20
1 For WWF’s input to the EU consultation see { HYPERLINK "http://www.wwf.eu/?200390/WWFCosultationEUPOsitionRio20" } and for WWF-UK’s contribution to the Global
{ AUTOTEXTSustainability "zzf{ DOCPROPERTY Panel "Office" see }"{ } HYPERLINK "http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=agsp&id_article=3317" }
8. It is 20 years since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and 40 years since the UN Environment Conference in Stockholm in 1972. A great deal has been achieved as a result of those conferences and the agreements and processes they established. The danger to the ozone layer and the problem of acid rain have both been effectively dealt with, and issues of climate change and water resources are now high on political and corporate agendas. Yet over this period most of the threats to global environmental sustainability have deepened. Global average temperature and greenhouse gas emissions have increased, while biodiversity and ecosystem decline has continued. Climate change is leading to the Arctic and other areas becoming more accessible to mining and natural resource exploitation; we recommend Rio+20 as an appropriate forum to consider how to safeguard the Arctic in this context. Ocean governance is a further area where Rio+20 could play a role. 9. The decision to hold the conference in 2012 in Rio de Janeiro was made by United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/64/236. The UN Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012 provides an important opportunity for discussion and progress both on “green economy” and governance arrangements for sustainable development, as set out in the UN Resolution. WWF-UK regards both of these areas as important and in need of urgent action.
C. GREEN ECONOMY AND LINKS TO POVERTY
10. A green economy should deliver three main outcomes: ensuring mankind’s ecological footprint is sustainable; maintaining and enhancing natural capital, biodiversity and ecosystem services; and improving human wellbeing and social equity. We urge the international community to adopt a credible set of indicators to measure progress towards each outcome at both national and global levels. 11. Economic stability and growth is fundamentally dependent on the availability of natural resources and ecosystem services. If economic activity undermines natural capital, and depletes natural resources at unsustainable rates, growth may increase over the short term, but medium and long-term growth prospects will be jeopardised. For more detailed recommendations on the Green Economy see WWF-UK Evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry into the Green Economy (26th August 2011). 12. A Green Economy is one that protects natural capital. At WWF we recognise that it should also be an economy that brings prosperity for the poor and delivers human development gains. The fair governance and management of natural assets are key to ensuring a green economy delivers for the poor. 13. WWF’s Living Planet Report 20102 indicates that we are currently using 50% more natural resources than the earth can sustain. The highest biodiversity loss is in the poorest countries, in part driven by demands from richer nations. 20% of the world’s population consume 80% of ecological resources; if everyone lived as we do in the UK, we would require almost 3 planet’s worth of resources. People in high income countries on average use three times the quantity of natural resources compared with those in middle-income countries, and five times those in low-income countries. By mapping the human development index against the ecological footprint of different countries, the report demonstrates that, except in poorest countries, development does not have to be dependent on increasing consumption. This argument is echoed in the 2010 UNDP Human Development Report: “perhaps the greatest challenge to maintaining progress in human development comes from the unsustainability of production and consumption patterns. For human development to become truly sustainable, the close link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions needs to be severed.”3 Development now needs to be decoupled from a pattern of growth fuelled by high resource consumption, with a new development model that allows a good standard of living for all within the limits of one planet.
2 WWF (2010) Living Planet Report { HYPERLINK "http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_lpr2010_lr_1_.pdf" } 3 Human Development Report (2010) The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development { HYPERLINK "http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/" }
14. WWF understands that effective green economies need to address poverty reduction and ensure development is sustainable. We identify the following key features of a Green Economy: • Protection of the natural world. The ongoing provision of ecosystem services, resources and stable environmental conditions underpin the economy. Investing in natural systems, setting up sustainable management and extraction, and moving away from overly polluting or excessively resource-dependent economic activities are therefore essential components of a Green Economy; • Explicitly pursue wellbeing for all. An economy that leaves 1.4 billion people in poverty is not acceptable. We want a fair and inclusive economy, with new measures of societal wellbeing to drive decisions. For example, the Millennium Development Goals, and their replacements post-2015, should provide new measures of social progress; • Support developing economies. We need globally just arrangements to limit the carbon emissions of countries which have already contributed more than their fair share of global carbon. We also need arrangements to ensure that countries pay for the benefits they derive from ecosystems in poorer countries. Both rich and poor countries need development pathways and models which can be sustained into the future, without the rapid depletion of natural resources, for example by shifting to renewable energy sources and tackling excessive consumption; and • Integrated Green Economy Planning. To promote implementation and accountability, plans for developing a green economy need to be owned across government and not confined to one government department. Plans such as poverty reduction strategies, national strategies for sustainable development, biodiversity action plans, and low carbon development plans, need to be integrated into Green Economy planning.
D. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS
15. International governance for sustainable development needs to be reformed if we are to make progress on international targets for biodiversity, climate change and sustainable development. There are opportunities for the EU to lead by example in this regard, for instance by establishing an inter-institutional body for sustainable development where EU policies are monitored and evaluated against their contributions to broader sustainable development goals. 16. The UK government and other EU Member States, through their roles in the World Bank and IMF, should press for strong operational principles for sustainable development in the work of these multilateral financial institutions. The European Investment Bank, as an EU institution, should set the example of good governance for sustainable development. Governance and finance are inseparable - we need improved governance of the World Bank and other finance bodies in order to help secure the finance necessary for transition to a green economy. The greening of the world economy will be impossible without the World Bank, IMF, and WTO playing their part. We propose that UNEP or its successor body should have a place on the governing bodies of each of these institutions. 17. Stakeholder involvement in sustainable development and environmental governance needs to be strengthened, as recognised in Rio Principle 10. Access to information and justice along with participation in decision making are key elements of governance which are addressed through the Aarhus Convention at the UNECE level. The development of a similar Convention at the global level or through appropriate regional bodies would be a significant contribution to strengthening the role of civil society and citizens in decisions on the management of natural resources.
E. UK LEADERSHIP
18. We urge the UK Government to show leadership on the issues being raised at Rio+20: leadership in the development of policy and putting a green economy into practice, and leadership in ensuring the success of the Rio conference. This is a unique opportunity for the Coalition Government, and provides them with a platform to show they are the ‘greenest government ever’. We therefore urge the Government to take an active part in the Rio 2012 conference, and to show leadership on the Green Economy.
19. The UN General Assembly has included the “green economy” on the Rio agenda. The conference should not be regarded simply as a matter for ministries of environment, energy, and agriculture. Ministries of economics, finance, and business should be fully engaged in this process. WWF-UK would want to see effective cross- Whitehall co-operation in the dialogues leading to Rio 2012. In particular we would expect both the Treasury and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills to contribute. 20. WWF-UK strongly welcomes the determination of the European Commission to help make Rio+20 a success. Section 1 of the EU communication rightly states a high level of ambition for the Conference. WWF urges the UK Government to take an equally progressive and ambitious view of Rio+20, and to be a leader in further shaping EU positions and preparations on Rio+20. 21. In response to the EU communication on Rio+20 WWF-UK recommends that the UK Government: • Pushes the EU to strengthen the social aspects of sustainable development within their Rio+20 position; • Ensures the EU position promotes Rio as an opportunity to discuss a post MDG/2015 development framework that is underpinned by sustainable development; and • Strongly endorses the EU view on economic progress and unsustainable consumption, and ensures these positions are retained in the final EU position for Rio+20. The UK Government needs to champion these ideas within the EU and with other countries both in the preparatory processes and during the Conference itself. (See Annex 1 for the WWF-UK response to the EU Communication). 22. Environmental sustainability is a long-term issue, with many immediate and short-term implications. In recognition of the long-term nature of many environmental problems, WWF- UK recommends the establishment of a UK Commissioner for Future Generations, with the responsibility of representing the interests of future generations in the processes of government.4 Such a Commissioner would play a vital advisory role in ensuring a long-term perspective is applied to government decision-making. The Hungarian model, with a ‘Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations’ is one the UK Government may want to consider. WWF-UK also recommends that there is a ministerial portfolio with specific responsibilities in relation to sustainability and protecting the interests of future generations. 23. WWF-UK asks the UK Government to support the inclusion of wider voices in the Rio process. For instance low-income developing countries may need financial assistance in order to participate, while both the international scientific community, and civil society within the UK and elsewhere need to be involved. We recommend that the Government quickly establishes a strategy for engaging civil society across the UK, and that schools are encouraged to organise classroom activities focused on Rio. For instance supporting a consultation process through the Stakeholder Forum might be effective. For the 2002 Summit in Johannesburg, the UK Government involved civil society and the public and we would like to see this repeated. 24. Drawing on the Climate Change Act, the UK should adopt a leading role championing the need for recognition of environmental limits, by adopting the concept of ‘Planetary Boundaries’. Whilst climate change has become a major focus for the international community, it is only one of the environmental limits that are being breached. A 2009 paper on ‘Planetary boundaries’5 suggests that human pressures on the planet have reached dangerous levels. The authors propose nine planetary boundaries within which humanity
4 See WWF oral and written evidence to the EAC inquiry on Embedding sustainable development across Government (2011) WWF written evidence is from P Ev-46 { HYPERLINK "http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvaud/504/504.pdf" } 5 Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F. S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin, T. M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C. A. De Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P. K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R. W. Corell, V. J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. Foley. (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. [online] URL: { HYPERLINK "http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/" }
needs to operate safely: Climate change; Ocean acidification; Stratospheric ozone depletion; Atmospheric aerosol loading; Biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus); Global freshwater use; Land-system change; Rate of biodiversity loss; and Chemical pollution. The authors suggest that three boundaries have already been transgressed (climate change, the rate of biodiversity loss, and the rate of interference with the nitrogen cycle). We ask the UK Government to show leadership on these issues at Rio+20, and we strongly encourage the Government to examine further the concept of planetary boundaries. 25. The UK Government should use the opportunity of Rio+20 to showcase some of its thinking on Valuing Ecosystem Services, as outlined in the recent UK National Ecosystem Assessment. This work makes it clear to audiences other than those traditionally concerned with environmental issues that the assets of the natural environment underpin economic activity and therefore have an economic value. 26. WWF remains concerned that, following the abolition of the Sustainable Development Commission, the Sustainable Development Programme Board no longer meets.6 At present there appears to be no effective co-ordination mechanism driving sustainable development initiatives across Whitehall. We would like to hear from the Government how it intends to address this problem to ensure it is not a barrier to effective follow up to Rio+20. 27. Specifically in relation to the Green Economy WWF-UK’s recommendations for the UK Government include:7 • Mainstream green economy policy by putting an ambitious green growth strategy at the centre of plans to foster a sustainable economic recovery, e.g. through the second phase of the Growth Review; • Prioritise government action for those sectors of the economy that can support both the growth and sustainability of the UK economy, e.g. the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors; • Adopt a credible set of green economy indicators and targets to guide policy making, as part of a much more transparent and coherent national framework for assessing government performance; • Commit to reducing the impact of UK consumption on overseas ecosystems, adopting a strategic approach to this question; • Shift to a greater proportion of green taxation (e.g. from the current 8% to 10% by 2015, and 14% by 2020), with measures to protect low income groups; and • Provide leadership within the EU, G20 and the Rio 2012 processes to promote ambitious multilateral targets and commitments for the transition to a global green economy.
F. OUTCOMES FROM RIO+20
Green economy
28. WWF-UK is keen to see a focus at Rio+20 on how to ‘Green’ high-impact sectors such as transport, agriculture, water, energy and housing. Outcomes at the conference could include: • A declaration by governments to assist in the creation of “green jobs”, i.e. jobs which clearly contribute to the transition to more sustainable economies; • A shared commitment by governments to draw up and report on multi-stakeholder plans for the greening of sectors including: energy, water, food, housing, transport, and the design of cities, in each country. Plans should include how the sector will respond to challenges of greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and waste; and
6 See WWF oral and written evidence to the EAC inquiry on Embedding sustainable development across Government (2011) WWF written evidence is from P Ev-46 { HYPERLINK "http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenvaud/504/504.pdf" } 7 For more details on these recommendations see WWF-UK Evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into green economy submitted 26th August 2011
• An agreement to co-operate on the development and transfer of technologies designed to facilitate or provide greater energy efficiency, resource efficiency, and low carbon economic development, including especially providing people in rural areas with greater access to renewable energy. 29. Transitioning to a global low carbon ‘green’ economy requires finance, for example investment in renewable energy and in protecting and restoring ecosystem services. This is challenging at a time of reductions in public expenditure in many parts of the world. Financing options that could be discussed and agreed at Rio include: • How governments should work with the private sector to support and bring about the necessary shift in financial flows; • The introduction of a Financial Transactions Tax; • The raising of revenue through levies on the use of global assets such as satellite orbits and economic activity in the oceans; • Agreement to end the Chicago Agreement not to tax aircraft fuel for international flights, with revenue being used to fund implementation of agreements reached at Rio; • Agreement to use government procurement power to support the development of greener economies; and • Agreement to phase out environmental harmful subsidies, such as subsidies for fossil fuel production and use, and inappropriate agricultural subsidies. 30. Tax reform can also be used as a source of finance for the transition to a green economy, as well as a means of reducing externalities. Governments should be asked to agree to develop programmes for increasing green taxation as a proportion of their total tax take, taxing resource use inefficiency, and penalising the unsustainable sourcing of key commodities, such as timber, palm oil, and soy. The institutional framework for sustainable development 31. Rio+20 is an ideal staging post for a post-2015 development framework. The MDGs are unlikely to be met by 2015 and there needs to be a robust and ambitious framework in place for eliminating poverty that comes into force from 2015. Rio+20 is a key opportunity for ensuring that the links between poverty, environment and climate change are sufficiently captured in a post-2015 framework, ensuring that future development goals are based on sustainable development. A future framework for poverty reduction will have to deal effectively with climate change, energy, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. All of these issues are undermining efforts to reduce poverty and meet the MDGs, and are not effectively dealt with within the current framework. A post-2015 framework should integrate poverty reduction objectives with other key UN processes, particularly the UNFCCC and CBD.8 32. WWF-UK advocates a strengthened role for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) within the UN system. UNEP should provide the secretariat for the agreements reached at Rio+20, and an annual review of progress during the course of the UN General Assembly. 33. WWF is concerned that a transition to a green economy will be very difficult when the major global economic institutions are outside the UN system and do not take into consideration the issues of governance and sustainability which are on the agenda for Rio+20. We recommend that governments at the Rio+20 Conference agree to use their power and influence in the structures of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organisation to ensure greater sustainability. We also recommend representation for UNEP on the governing bodies of those institutions. Legal instruments 34. We suggest examining the proposal for a Declaration on Planetary Boundaries, as a pre- cursor to a UN Convention on Planetary Boundaries. At the very least, the Planetary
8 See the WWF-UK submission to the GSP for more details on what a Post 2015 development framework should include { HYPERLINK "http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=agsp&id_article=3317#nb2" }
Boundaries concept should be recognised within the political declaration of Rio+20 (see above for further details on ‘Planetary Boundaries’). 35. We recommend that an agreement is developed to support the application of environmental access rights as embodied in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration (1992) and the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention). WWF-UK calls upon governments to support the recently agreed Chisinau Declaration adopted during the Fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention in Moldova in June and July 2011, with a view to promoting the aspirations and contents therein.9
G. RISKS AND LESSONS
36. A major threat to the success of the Rio conference is the attitude that the concerns on its agenda should not be addressed until the current economic problems facing the world are solved. However, the sustainability issues facing the world affect and influence economic wellbeing; indeed our economy is rooted in and relies on the natural world. The Stern Report on the economics of climate change showed that environmental deterioration is damaging to economies, and also that it is possible to provide a financial estimate for that damage.10 Similarly, the TEEB (“The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity”) reports highlighted the economic costs of ecosystem and biodiversity decline.11 It is therefore clear that the “green economy” concept is vital to our future economic stability.
ANNEX:
WWF has contributed to the EU consultation on Rio+20 and the High Level Panel on Sustainability. We see Rio+20 as a unique opportunity to secure political and public commitment for sustainable development. Rio+20 should promote equitable and sustainable development which can bring about long-term poverty reduction and a decent quality of life for all without undermining the natural resource base we all depend on. For Rio+20 WWF will be emphasising food, water and energy security for all. Long-term food, water and energy security are entirely contingent on the sustainable management of the world's natural capital, and Rio+20 needs to deliver a significant improvement in the management of natural capital in order to avoid continued crises linked to food water and energy insecurity.
1. WWF-UK strongly agrees that Rio+20 is an opportunity the world cannot afford to miss • WWF-UK strongly welcomes the determination of the European Commission to help make Rio+20 a success. Section 1 of the EU communication rightly states a high level of ambition for the conference/summit. • We urge the UK government to take an equally progressive and ambitious view of Rio+20.
2. Where is the social dimension of sustainable development? • The EU’s current approach to Rio+20 is weak on the social dimension of sustainable development. A Green Economy is not automatically an economy that brings prosperity for the poor and delivers human development gains. The fair governance and management of natural assets are key to ensuring a green economy delivers for the poor. • Inter-generational equity also has to be addressed and we must ensure that our current use of natural resources does not curtail the development options of future generations. • WWF’s Living Planet Report shows we are already using fifty per cent more natural resources than the earth can sustain, and the EU and other high income regions are
9 See { HYPERLINK "http://www.unece.org/env//pp/mop4.htm" } 10 { HYPERLINK "http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm" } 11 EC (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB): Interim Report { HYPERLINK "http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf" }
using five times the amount of natural resources than those of the lowest income countries. For Green Economies to be ‘fair’ economies we need to tackle challenging issues concerning the distribution of and access to natural resources. • The Rio principles provide an internationally agreed set of principles towards sustainable development and these should not be forgotten. Principle 3 states “the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”. • The EU also adopted a set of guiding principles for sustainable development in 2005 which reflect many of the Rio principles. These should also inform the EU position for Rio+20. • We encourage the UK government to push the EU to strengthen the social aspects of sustainable development within their Rio+20 position.
3. Beyond 2015: what next after the MDGs? • We are pleased to see the EU Communication making clear links between the MDGs and the Rio+20 agenda (page 3). However it does not make reference to the Beyond 2015 agenda. With less than four years to go to the 2015 deadline for achieving the MDGs, no effort should be spared to achieve the MDGs. At the same time, the imminent deadline underlines the urgency of launching inter-governmental discussions on a post- 2015 global framework. • We recommend that the adoption of an ambitious vision to address the drivers of poverty and environmental degradation should be one of the EU’s asks for Rio+20. A post 2015 development framework needs to have sustainable development at its core and fully integrate climate change and the underpinning role of the environment while promoting equity and good governance. The framework must tackle the causes of poverty rather than just focusing on the symptoms – which is one of the criticisms of the current MDG framework.
• The UK government should ensure the EU position on Rio+20 promotes Rio as an opportunity to discuss a post -2015 development framework that is underpinned by sustainable development.
4. The EU championing a new model of development • WWF-UK agrees with the Commission’s assertion that there is a need for a fundamental rethink of the conventional model of economic progress and that “simply working at the margins of an economic system that promotes inefficient use of natural capital and resources will not be sufficient to bring about change” (page 5). • The Communication acknowledges that current consumption models are unsustainable and yet demands for natural resources and raw materials are increasing. It calls for investment in the sustainable management of key resources and natural capital and a globally agreed system for environmental and social accounting to supplement current economic accounting (page 5). • WWF has long been calling for measures of human progress which go beyond GDP and take into proper account the value of natural capital and social capital. The financial and economic crisis offers a real opportunity to rethink the current economic measures of development and we strongly endorse the EU call on page 9 to develop and agree sustainable development indicators and environmental accounting. • We would ask how far the EU’s flagship initiatives “EU 2020” and the “resource efficiency road map” measure up to these objectives? And how is the EU going to champion these ideas at Rio+20? • The UK government should strongly endorse the EU view on economic progress and unsustainable consumption and ensure these positions are not ‘watered down’ in the final EU document for Rio+20. The UK Government should also work within the EU to think about how they will champion these ideas with other countries both during Rio+20 and in the preparatory processes.
5. Strong Governance as the linchpin • International governance for sustainable development needs to be reformed if we are to make progress on international targets for biodiversity, climate change and sustainable
development. To lead by example the EU could also consider how to improve sustainable development architecture at the EU level. An inter-institutional body for sustainable development where EU policies are regularly monitored and evaluated against their contributions to broader sustainable development goals would be a step towards cross-sectoral integration. • EU Member States, through their roles in the World Bank and IMF, should press for strong operational principles for sustainable development to be implemented in the work of these multilateral financial institutions. Governance and finance are inseparable – we need better governance of the World Bank and other finance bodies in order to help secure the finance necessary for transition to a green economy. The greening of the world economy will be impossible without the World Bank, IMF, and WTO playing their part. We propose that UNEP or its successor body should have a place on the governing bodies of each of these institutions. The European Investment Bank, as an EU institution, should set the example. • The strengthening of stakeholder involvement in sustainable development and environmental governance should also be addressed as recognised in Rio principle 10. Access to information and justice and participation in decision making are key elements of governance which are addressed through the Aarhus Convention. The development of a similar Convention at the global level or through appropriate regional bodies would be a significant contribution to strengthening the role of civil society and citizens in decisions on the management of natural resources.
6. WWF vision for Green Economies The EU suggests that a ‘Green Economy Roadmap’ should be part of the Rio+20 process (page 10). We recommend that this ‘roadmap’ include the following features: • Looks after the natural world. The ongoing provision of ecosystem services, resources and stable environmental conditions underpin the economy. Investing in natural systems, setting up sustainable management and extraction and moving away from overly polluting or excessively resource- dependent economic activities are therefore essential components of Green Economies. • Explicitly pursues wellbeing for all. An economy that leaves 1.4 billion people in poverty is not efficient or acceptable. We want a fair and inclusive economy, with new measures of societal wellbeing to drive its decisions. For example, the Millennium Development Goals, and their replacements post 2015, should be core to new measures of social progress. • Supports developing economies. We need globally just arrangements to limit the carbon emissions of countries which have already emitted far more than their fair share of global carbon. We also need arrangements to ensure that rich countries pay poorer countries for the benefits they derive from ecosystems in the poorer countries. Both rich and poor countries need development pathways and models which can be sustained into the future, and don’t depend on the rapid depletion of natural resources. • National ownership. To promote implementation and full accountability, plans for developing green economies at a national level need to be owned across government and not confined to one government department. National plans such as poverty reduction strategies, national strategies for sustainable development, biodiversity action plans, and low carbon development plans, need to be integrated into Green Economy planning.
26 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by Article 19
Summary of issues 1. The rights of access to information, public participation, and access to justice are essential to sustainable development. The 1992 Rio Declaration provided for these rights in Principle 10. Now renewed commitment is needed for the full implementation of the rights in all countries. The Rio 2012 Summit provides an opportunity for governments to transform Principle 10 from aspirational goals into actionable rights. In particular, the UK Government should ensure that the Outcome Document includes provisions urging nations to improve their legal structures on national environmental governance, develop international instruments giving legal force to Principle 10 based on the Aarhus Convention, and ensure that the principles are incorporated into international bodies’ decision-making processes.
The Interest of Article 19 2. ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression and information. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of information. 3. ARTICLE 19 has worked on numerous environment and development-related human rights projects around the world, managed through our offices in London, Mexico, Brazil, Senegal, Kenya, and Bangladesh. In 2010, ARTICLE 19 brought together civil society groups, government officials and experts to develop the London Declaration for Transparency, Free Flow of Information and Development, which sets a clear agenda for transparency in the promotion of development. For the upcoming Rio 2012 Summit, ARTICLE 19 is working closely with other civil society groups around the world, including development and environmental groups, and has recently released a report with the World Resources Institute’s Access Initiative on the progress since Rio 1992 and needed outcomes to make Rio 2012 worthwhile. This submission will focus on the issues relating to access to information.
The Importance of Access to Information and Rio 1992 4. We believe that one of the largest problems standing in the way of sustainable development and a clean environment is the lack at both the national and international level of operational rights of access to information, public participation and access to justice. These access rights facilitate more transparent, inclusive, and accountable decision-making in matters affecting environment and development. Access to information empowers and motivates people to participate in an informed and meaningful manner. Participatory decision-making enhances the ability of governments to respond to public concerns and demands, to build consensus, and to improve acceptance of and compliance with environmental decisions because citizens feel ownership over these decisions. Access to justice encourages the public’s ability to enforce their right to participate, to be informed, and to hold regulators and polluters accountable for environmental harm. 5. Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration recognised the problem as a serious one and proposed that access to information, public participation and access to justice be adopted into law in all nations: It states: 6. Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided. 7. We believe that the outcome of the Rio 2012 Summit must include an affirmation of these fundamental access rights and that substantial efforts must be made to establish them and make them enforceable in all countries. At a minimum national governments must commit to the full implementation of access rights into national law, ensure intergovernmental organisations and institutions incorporate these rights into their own regulation and practices, and examine international and regional mechanisms to ensure support across regions for tracking and monitoring of implementation. We believe that new international instruments are necessary to ensure that these access rights are truly available to everyone. 8. So far there has been very little discussion of the further needed steps to achieve the 1992 goals in the 2012 Summit. Transparency is little discussed in UN or regional submissions. Within the discussion of the green economy and the reforming the institutional framework for sustainable development, a discussion of how to ensure meaningful access and participation are largely absent. The European Commission communication “Rio+20: towards the green economy and better governance”(COM(2011) 363 final) from June 2011 has no mention of transparency except in the context of measuring progress. This gap needs to be bridged.
Progress Since 1992 9. Since the farsighted recognition by the world’s leaders in 1992, there has been a inadequate level of implementation of Principle 10. While the access rights have been recognized and partially implemented by many nations across the world, there is much needed to be done to ensure that these rights are truly available to empower societies and citizens. This is especially true at the level of the international institutions. 10. The international bodies of the UN, including UNEP and UNDP, do not have adequate mechanism for access to information that obligate them to provide information and have working mechanisms for appeals of denials for access. There has been somewhat more progress with the global financial institutions. The World Bank’s recent revision of their Policy on Access to Information is a significant improvement over the previous one but it remains to be seen it if fully provide information that communities need. The other regional development banks are also revising their public information policies but so far, the revisions have been unsatisfactory. The newly revised Public Information Policy of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development mentions confidentiality more than transparency. Thus any discussion of institutional reform should firmly establish that the international bodies are accountable and transparent also. 11. The role of the international bodies in promoting Principle 10 has also been mostly disappointing. In 2010, nearly 20 years after Rio 1992, the UNEP Governing Council finally adopted the UNEP Guidelines for the Development of National Legislation on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (“the Bali Guidelines”) on how governments should develop national laws in relation to Principle 10. The guidelines are intended to assist national governments by “promoting the effective implementation of their commitments to Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development within the framework of their national legislation and processes.” The Guidelines are also limited in that they are only voluntary, are largely unknown, and while there are commitments by UNEP and other bodies to provide assistance and training, the efforts appear currently to be on a very small scale. 12. One bright spot has been the role of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice (The Aarhus Convention) has been a notable success as the first legally binding international treaty on access rights. The Convention places ratifying nations under a series of important obligations including the collection of information held by private bodies and requiring public bodies to affirmatively make information available to the public, respond to requests, and provide strong rights of appeal. It also established rules for public participation, appeals, and access to justice measures. It has now been ratified by 44 countries from Iceland to Turkmenistan. The 2003 EU Directive which firmly implements the Convention into EU law should also be noted. Unfortunately, this model has not been widely adopted elsewhere. No other UN regional body has adopted a similar instrument.
National Progress 13. More progress has been made at the national level. There have been substantial changes in national legal frameworks, particularly in areas of access to information and environmental impact assessments, in many countries around the world. A substantial number of countries have adopted new legal frameworks on access rights, especially relating to access to information. 14. However, the adoption of laws has not been uniform. Few African countries have adopted legal frameworks and significant gaps remain in the Asia Pacific region and in Latin America and the Caribbean. 15. This is particularly noticeable in the area of access to information. Over 90 countries have now adopted framework laws or regulations for access to information similar to the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000, including in the past few years China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Chile and Mongolia. Many countries including Brazil have adopted specific environmental information access statutes or provisions in general environmental protection laws. Access laws now cover over five billion people. The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 played an important role in the adoption of these laws. Another positive trend with respect to access to information is the increased adoption of Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs), which require governments to collect information on pollution releases and make that information publicly available through databases. PRTRs have been shown to be one of the most effective means of getting pollutant related information out to the public while simultaneously reducing pollution 16. However, there are significant disparities between regions. While most of the nations of Europe, the Americas and a significant portion of Asia have the laws in place, individuals in most Middle Eastern, African, Pacific and Caribbean countries do not yet have this right incorporated into national law. Furthermore, practice lags behind laws in the majority of these countries. Causes for this gap vary, including lack of detailed administrative rules and operational policies, inadequate public capacity to use the laws, and insufficient official capacity to implement laws. Research by ARTICLE 19 and other human rights and environmental organisations across the world demonstrates that populations are still being denied access to essential information about climate change and the environment. Denial of access to information stems largely from the absence of freedom of information legislation and the institutional secrecy of numerous state authorities, coupled with legislation in place preventing access to information, including state secret laws, national security laws, and anti-terrorism legislation. There are also problems with governments failing to proactively release environmental information, including basic information on air quality and drinking water quality. Emergencies also raise problems. As the recent disaster in Japan revealed, the public is often not informed of serious hazards. 17. Thus, much work remains to ensure that the citizens of the other 100 nations without adequate legal rights are empowered to ensure that they are informed so they may participate and ensure development and a clean environmental is enjoyed by all in an equitable and fair manner.
Recommendations
18. We believe that there needs to be a significant effort to ensure that Principle 10 is reaffirmed and extended in the Rio 2012 progress. We believe that any solution should focus on three major areas that need to be included in any Outcome Document. • All nations should be strongly encouraged into adopting Principle 10 into national law. This includes laws on access to information, public participation, and mechanisms to ensure that access to justice to enforce these rights are implemented. Additional assistance should be provided by UNEP and other parties to assist nations into fully implementing the UNEP guidelines into national law. • The other UN regional bodies should be encourage to adopt regional mechanisms for access to information following the model of the Aarhus Convention. The members of the Convention should also be encouraged to open up the Convention to members outside of the UNECE, as has been done with the Espoo Convention on Transborder Environmental Impact Assessments. • The current debate on modifying the existing environment and development bodies at the international level should also ensure that the Principle 10 rights are incorporated into their structures. This includes all UN and regional bodies.
26 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by Frances Aldson
Summary:
• The international community’s commitment to sustainable development, made at the original Rio summit in 1992, has failed to be translated into the necessary action to achieve a sustainable future.
• Instead of a ‘three equal pillar’ model, sustainable development must be correctly conceived as embodying a dependency of our economy and society on the health of the natural environment and ecological systems. This means that the ecological element of sustainable development is of fundamental and paramount importance.
• Sustainable development must be accorded a universal definition which reflects this dependency, and which thus conceives sustainable development as the means to achieve a good quality of life for present and future generations, within the parameters of our ecological support system.
• Understanding the capacity and limits of our ecological support system is integral to the realisation of sustainable development. A global sustainability organisation is needed at the top of the international political order to develop the evidence-base on this, and thus to guide policy- and decision making for a sustainable future.
• A legal sustainable development principle, an international treaty and effective enforcement mechanisms are other essential components of a political package that will move us towards the sustainable future we desire.
Resolving the economic growth – ecological sustainability tension
1. There is a strong tension between the objective of continuing economic growth and the long-term sustainability of the earth. This is because economic growth that continues ad infinitum depends on there being an ever greater global population who are consuming ever more goods and services. This is incompatible with an earth composed of finite resources and essential, but exhaustible, ecological systems. ‘Green growth’ may slow the rate at which humans overwhelm the capacity of the earth to support life, but it will not stop it.
2. This is not to say there can be no growth – rather to say that continuous, high-level growth in each of the world’s economies is simply not viable in ecological terms.
3. It is, however, possible to alleviate the tension between economic prosperity and ecological sustainability. But this requires economic development (and ‘growth’ where it is required) to be placed within an overarching framework of sustainable development. In short, this means:
(i) sustainable development has to be the guiding paradigm for all governments that are part of Rio+20. Many governments talk of ‘mainstreaming sustainable development’ and having it as ‘a central objective/principle’. But this is insufficient. Sustainable development, if it is to perform its function of safeguarding the future of the earth for generations to come and meeting the needs of the present, must be the prism through which all policies and activities are developed, and through which call decisions are taken – in all spheres (economic, social and ecological). Sustainable development must be what governments do, all day every day – with all other policy and decision making flowing from, and being in accordance with, this central objective.
(ii) economic policies must thus be determined with reference to the carrying capacity and limits of our planet. Such data already exists1 and it should be a political priority to support and deepen this research so that we have the best possible evidence-base on which to base our economic, social and environmental policies.
(iii) Reference should be had to the excellent report written by Professor Tim Jackson entitled ‘Prosperity Without Growth’ (2009, Sustainable Development Commission) which outlines the means to achieve a high standard of living that does not endanger ecological sustainability.
Defining sustainable development
4. To assist this process, sustainable development must be clearly defined by governments at Rio+20. The endless debate over the ‘exact meaning’ of sustainable development is a major barrier to its realisation. The meaning is, in fact, obvious. At its core, it signifies a model of human and economic progress that is also ecologically sustainable. Rather than the ‘three equal pillars’ model embraced at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, there is a fundamental interdependence of our economy and society on ecological sustainability. In short, ecological systems, resources and planet earth in its physical form can exist without economic activity and human societies – indeed, they so existed for millennia. However, if we destroy or overwhelm the earth’s ecological systems and resources, our economy and society will collapse. There is no economy or society without ecological sustainability. This truth, uncomfortable as it is, must be accepted if sustainable development is to be achieved. The meaning of sustainable development that flows from this is of an integration of environmental, economic and social dimensions as far as possible, but that the ecological dimension is of fundamental importance, and so must be safeguarded at all costs. It can be envisioned thus – rather than three equal pillars, sustainable development consists of economic and social pillars resting, and dependent on, the ecological base.
Institutional governance
5. Achieving sustainable development at the national and international levels requires the following:
1 WWF, Living Planet Report 2010, { HYPERLINK "http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/2010_lpr/" }. (i) A legal system that has a legal principle of sustainable development at its heart. The inter- and intra-generational equity components of sustainable development are a core requirement of justice. Legal systems are necessarily concerned with justice. It follows that sustainable development – defined as above – must be a core legal principle. This applies as much at the international level (in terms of the ICJ and other international courts and arbitrations) as it does at the domestic level.
6. The integration of international environmental bodies (such as UNEP) into a single body charged with conducting research into and defining policies for the achievement of sustainable development. A coordinated approach to high-level research and decision-making is currently a huge gap in governance for sustainable development. This body (a global sustainability body) would produce the data and evidence-base to guide the international community towards an equitable, prosperous and sustainable future.
7. This body would be one of the most important in the international arena. Its work would therefore need to be integrated with the other major players on the international stage – particularly the WTO. Indeed, all international institutions, legal and political – must have the sustainable development principle at the heart of their operations and for it to guide and inform everything that they do. This includes the World Bank, IMF, International Court of Justice, and all organs of the UN.
8. An international treaty on sustainable development would help to cement the commitment to this new paradigm. It would need to have effective enforcement mechanisms, ideally based on the model of the WTO’s Appellate Body. This enforcement could be an international environmental court, and consideration should be given to this. The reason why international trade law is so effective is because states have willingly submitted jurisdiction to the WTO and the Appellate Body in its areas of competence, undoubtedly because they perceive it is in their national interest to do so. Similarly, states need to understand that developing in an ecologically sustainable way is essential for their own long-term interests, and submit to the jurisdiction of international organs designed to facilitate this.
Priorities for the Rio+20 summit
9. Renewing and enhancing the commitment to sustainable development at the international level and recognising that this is the primary objective of the international community.
10. Agreeing on a common understanding of sustainable development – which includes an acceptance that there is a dependency of our economy and society on the continued health and viability of ecological systems. This means that the ecological element of sustainable development is of fundamental importance. Sustainable development is therefore about finding ways to secure human and societal well being (which goes far beyond GDP and financial wealth) whilst upholding the integrity of the earth, her resources and the systems she provides.
11. Drawing up a plan of action for how to achieve sustainable development, based on this common understanding. This would ideally include an international treaty, an agreement on a global sustainability body to coordinate research and policy-making, and to bring together existing international environmental, social and economic bodies – thus increasing coherence and the effectiveness of international action. There must be agreement on a timeline to progress this plan of action so that momentum is maintained.
12. Agreeing on a new set of indicators to monitor progress towards global sustainability. This must include a shift away from using GDP as the primary benchmark of ‘progress’ and well being. Coordinating monitoring and reporting on sustainability would necessarily be the role of the new global sustainability body.
These recommendations will undoubtedly be perceived to be at the more ‘radical’ end of the spectrum, requiring as they do a marked shift away from conventional paradigms. It is, however, simply about the international community taking the actions to match the verbal commitments it has made to a sustainable commitment for the past two decades. It is an imperative next step given that twenty years after the international community made its first high-level commitment to sustainable development at the original Rio summit, global sustainability remains as remote as ever. Indeed, whilst technological progress has been made, and some environmental improvements have occurred, the headline data on the health of the planet is even more worrying than it was in 1992 – greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise significantly, water resources are ever more scarce and biodiversity loss is continuing apace. There cannot be a sustainable future – or long-term economic and social well being – unless this headline data is reversed to put the planet on a stronger footing. We need to put the long-term ecological considerations first, and short-term profitability and GDP growth second. This requires an almost impossible transformation in human thinking. But one thing that humans have demonstrated throughout history is the ability to do the seemingly impossible.
26 August 2011 Written evidence submitted by Wild Law UK
Introduction Wild Law UK1submits the following evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, setting out our views on the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20 Summit). This submission aims to contribute to the EAC’s inquiry to examine the preparedness of the UK Government for Rio+20, along with the actions it should be taking to help make the Conference a success.
The common belief of those who are part of Wild Law UK is that governance systems, including law, must be rapidly reoriented so that they support, rather than undermine, the long term health and integrity of the Earth. This approach is known as Earth-centred governance, which recognises that humans are one of the many species making up the amazingly diverse Earth community and seeks to rebalance our relationship with the Earth 2 system. Wild Law UK aims to secure rights of nature in law.
Wild Law UK consists of more than 100 UK-based legal professionals from the private, public and voluntary sectors and non-lawyers from all walks of life, including students, environmental campaigners, academics, scientists and economists.
Summary
Rio +20 should urgently:
1. Address the need for Earth-centred governance, and recognise the rights of nature to support, rather than undermine, the long-term health and integrity of the Earth. 2. Re-define sustainable development to embody Earth-centred principles. 3. Adopt and promote the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth3and secure political commitment to implement this at the national and local levels.
In Section A, Wild Law UK sets out our general views on the objectives of Rio+20, and in Section B on the specific questions from the Committee.
Section A: Objectives of Rio+20
A.1. To secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development A.1.2. The Stockholm Declaration in 1972 recognised 3 elements to sustainable development: environment, society and economy. The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future in 1987 defined sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. However, over the years sustainable development has
1 See www.wildlawuk.org 2 For seminal reading on Earth-centred governance see Berry, T., The Great Work, Bell Tower, 1999 and Cullinan, C., Wild Law, (Green Books, 2011) 2nd ed, and Stone, C., Should Trees Have Standing (OUP, 2010), 3rd ed. 3 See website of Global Alliance for Rights of Nature for text: {HYPERLINK "http://therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/"}
become conflated with unlimited economic growth. Current approaches to sustainable development fail to recognise that the economy is dependant on Earth and should support the whole community of life on Earth. Further that Earth (our life support system) and social justice are non-negotiable/tradable elements of sustainability. As a result, sustainable development is not ensuring protection of the environmentnor social justice.
A.1.3 A different approach to sustainable development is needed. As Einstein once said: ‘we cannot solve a problem with the same thinking we used when we created [it]’. Wild Law UK believes that for development to be truly sustainable it needs to be founded on Earth-centred principles which promote the long-term health and integrity of the Earth, recognising that Earth has limits within which humans must live, and respecting the inherent rights of all life on Earth of present and future generations.
A.1.4 Earth-centred principles include:
a) Earth-centred governance • Recognises the intrinsic value of nature – as a life support system rather than as a"resource" for the sole benefit of humanity. • Respects the Earth’s limits/boundaries and reflects scientific understanding of how ecosystems operate. For example we should adopt a precautionary approach and prevent human activities from causing species extinction, the destruction of ecosystems or the disruption of ecological cycles, including through phenomena such as climate change.4 • Respects rights of nature to exist, to habitat and fulfil their role in the community of life, and to restoration from damage. • Recognises humans are one of many species in the amazingly diverse Earth community.
b) Mutually enhancing relationship with nature • Rebalances the human relationship with the Earth system, from which human wellbeing derives, so that it contributes to the wellbeing of the whole Earth community now and in the future.
c) Community ecological governance • Respects the rights of all species of the Earth community to participate in governance decision-making which affects their life and future.
A.1.5 Rio +20 needs to renew political commitment to redefine sustainable development to embody Earth-centred principles. The Rio Summit in 1992 was known as the ‘Earth Summit’. Rio+20 should re-position Earth as the centre of sustainability.
A.2. Assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development
A.2.1 Progress is lacking. While it is commendable that previous summits on sustainable development have led to international environmental agreements, for example the Rio Summit 1992 led to the Convention on Biological Diversity and UN Framework on Climate
4 Article 3(h) Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth.
Change, environmental degradation continues to increase. Numerous assessments confirm that present and future generations are facing unprecedented, multiple and connected ecological, social and economic crises. There are threats of mass extinction of biodiversity (many in the scientific community believe that we have already entered the sixth mass extinction caused by human activity), mass deforestation and loss of habitats, climate change, 5 peak oil and increased food insecurity, increased poverty and breakdown of communities.
A.2.2 Our current relationship with nature is one-sided, but this cannot be sustained. If we continue on this human centred trajectory/unlimited economic growth, the Earth will reach a tipping point beyond which ecosystems and Earth’s life support systems will collapse. Without the natural world we cannot survive. Without recognising the intrinsic value and rights of the Earth and all life, we are in severe danger of irreparably damaging our life support system.
A.2.3 A critical gap in implementing outcomes of the major summits is a lack of recognition of Earth-centred principles.
A.3. Address new and emerging challenges A.3.1 Rio +20 should address the alarming reality that we have exceeded the safe operating space (boundaries) for three of nine planetary systems (climate change, biodiversity loss and excess nitrogen and phosphorus production).6Such human activities are damaging Earth – our life support system – and undermining the conditions of life for present and future generations. Wild Law UK believes Governments and society need to address this urgent challenge if we are to pass on a viable and flourishing future to the generations to come.
A.3.2 Rio +20 should also address the growing challenge of human-centred governance, and lack of recognition of the rights of nature. Current governance is failing to prevent the cumulative degradation of the natural world. The root cause is disconnection from the Earth and human-centred thinking embedded in laws and sustainable development policies, which even in their most protective environmental form, treat nature as a "resource" for the sole benefit of humanity. A recent example of this is the UK’s Natural Environment White Paper which values nature purely for ‘environmental services’ for the benefit of humans
Laws and policies recognise the rights of fictitious corporations but not the inherent rights of nature, which is alive. As such, protection of nature is often subsumed to the perceived greater “[human] public interest” in economic growth. Such anthropocentrism is out of step with science, and leads to a dangerously unbalanced relationship between humans and the rest of the community of life on Earth.
Section B: The issues which should be urgently addressed at Rio, and any that it should avoid
5 See for example, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 Text available at http://gbo3.cbd.int/ and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; text available at http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
6 Rockström, J et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society [online] 14, 32 (2009). {HYPERLINK "http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32"}
B.1. Rio +20 should redefine sustainable development to embody Earth-centred principles.
B.1.1 These principles are set out in detail in A.1.4 above.
B.2. Rio +20 should adopt the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth7and encourage implementation mechanisms at national and local levels.
B.2.1 Following the failure of Copenhagen Summit, the Bolivian Government organised an alternative conference for communities, NGOs, lawyers, academics, scientists and governments from around the world, in Cochabamba, Bolivia, coinciding with Mother Earth Day on April 22nd 2010. Around 35,000 people participated from 140 countries and they adopted a Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth which recognizes Earth as a living being with rights to life, to continue her vital cycles and processes (free from human disruptions), and to restoration from destructive human activities.
B.2.2 Wild Law UK believes that the time has come to recognise the rights of nature in law.
B.3. Rio +20 should avoid: • renewing political commitment to a human-centred definition of sustainable development which prioritises unlimited economic growth and short-term individual gain, over interests of the whole community of life on Earth, of present and future generations. • focussing on the green economy, rather than on overarching governance systems, of which the economy is one element. Growing the economy must not be seen as an end in itself. The purpose of governance should be to promote the wellbeing of the whole community of life on Earth. • defining a ‘green economy’ as unlimited economic growth, without regard to Earth- centred principles, particularly the Earth’s limits and planetary boundaries.
B.4. The extent to which greening the economy can help eradicate poverty, including the tensions between growth and prosperity in the context of sustainable development
B.4.1 There is a lack of clarity on the definition of green economy. Wild Law UK believes a green economy should be based on Earth-centred principles, as explained above, for the benefit of the whole community of life on Earth. B.4.2 As Article 7 Declaration for Rights of Mother Earth states: ‘The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings and any conflict between their rights must be resolved in a way that maintains the integrity, balance and health of Mother Earth.’
Further States should promote economic systems that are in harmony with Mother Earth and consistent with the rights of nature.8Earth-centred governance seeks to rebalance our relationship with the Earth system from destructive to mutually enhancing for the benefit of the whole Earth community.
B.5. The institutional frameworks (at international, regional, national and local levels)
7 See {HYPERLINK "http://therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/"} 8 See Article 3(2)(l) Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth. required to deliver a “green economy” and a more sustainable future for all, now and into the future
B.5.1 Sustainable development is more than a green economy. Institutional frameworks are necessary at all levels to deliver Earth-centred governance, not just a green economy, for the benefit of present and future generations of all species (not just humans). Any institutional framework should be guided and aligned with the Earth-centred principles explained above, and promote a significant shift in personal and societal values and behaviour towards nature. Earth-centred governance must underpin all our decisions.
B.5.2 Inspiration for institutional frameworks can be drawn from the proposed Ombudsman 9 for Mother Earth in Bolivia. Also the Green Ombudsman for future generations in Hungary, appointed in 2007 to uphold the peoples' Constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Commissioner is entrusted with broad powers to investigate complaints including environmental issues, advocate on sustainability issues and also widen the knowledge base 10 through research projects.
B.5.3 People also have a role to play in implementing sustainable development. Rio established Agenda 21 as a blueprint for sustainable development and this set out the importance of local actions. At the local level, ‘every human being is responsible for respecting, protecting and living in harmony with Mother Earth’.11Public participation and leadership in decision-making is critical to ensure a more sustainable future for all. Wild Law UK acknowledges that in order to secure such a radical change we need to transform hearts and minds, creating a shift in personal and cultural world views, values and ethics. Some examples of best practice for local governance includes the Transition Town movement (which aims to build the resilience of local communities to cope with the twin challenges of peak oil and climate change),12local guardians for future generations (proposed by the Alliance for Future Generations), Community Ecological Governance13and the Council of Elders in many indigenous communities.
B.5.4 A transition from human to Earth-centred governance is urgently needed. Inspiring legal precedents include the Ecuadorian Constitution – which was the first Constitution in the world to recognise the legally enforceable rights of nature.
In a recent case in Ecuador, the Provincial court of Loja granted an injunction against the Provincial Government of Loja to stop dumping excavation material into the Vilcabamba river, because it violated the constitutional rights of the river to exist and maintain its vital
9 The Guardian 10 April 2011, see: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-enshrines-natural- worldsrights. 10 See In 2007 Hungary appointed a Parliamentary Commissioner for future generations to uphold the peoples' Constitutional right to a healthy environment. The Commissioner is entrusted with broad powers to investigate complaints including environmental issues, advocate on sustainability issues and also widen the knowledge base through research projects, http://www.fdsd.org/2010/02/hungarys_green_ombudsman/
11 Article 3(1) Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth.
12 {HYPERLINK "http://www.transitionnetwork.org/"} 13 For more information please visit {HYPERLINK "http://www.gaiafoundation.org/content/community- ecological-governance"}
14 cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes. There are also dozens of local ordinances (laws) in the United States which acknowledge the legal rights of natural communities and ecosystems to ‘exist and flourish’, which recognise self-governance of communities and which deny the personhood of corporations if they engage in ecologically and socially destructive activities.15
B.6. The objectives and roles the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run-up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU preparations and negotiations
• support and implement the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth • raise awareness of the need for Earth-centred governance • promote a shift in personal and societal values and behaviour to recognise the rights of nature • promote economic systems which comply with Earth-centred principles and define green economy within Earth’s limits for the benefit of present and future generations • facilitate public participation in Rio +20 • show leadership in the EU by implementing Earth-centred governance.
B.7. The ideal outcomes from Rio+20, and how any agreements should be subsequently monitored
B.7.1 Re-framing of sustainable development to embody Earth-centred governance principles.
B.7.2 Adoption of the Universal Declaration for Rights of Mother Earth16by the United Nations and implemented at the national level.
B.7.2.1 This Declaration could be monitored by: • civil society through awareness raising and petitioning (e.g. Wild Law UK and Global Alliance for Rights of Nature) • including the rights of nature in any future national Bill of Rights and recognising the rights of individuals and civil society groups to enforce the rights of nature where these are being breached through human agency, and recognising the right to healthy environment • creating institutional mechanisms, e.g. an ombudsman for the Earth • a Commission for Nature’s Rights – similar to the Equality and Human Right’s Commission- to promote, and advocate the rights of nature. • adoption of domestic laws following the example of the Bolivian Law of Mother Earth.
B.7.3 Re-orientation of Agenda 21 to incorporate Earth Centred Governance Principles – as an ‘Agenda for the Earth Community’.
14 {HYPERLINK "http://therightsofnature.org/first-ron-case-ecuador/"}
15 {HYPERLINK "http://www.celdf.org/section.php?id=39"}
16 See website of Global Alliance for Rights of Nature for text: {HYPERLINK "http://therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/"}
B.7.4 Adoption of an international agreement on the Crime of Ecocide17, with Ecocide to mean ‘the extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.’ This could be enforced by an international court.
B.8 Support the social movement for Earth-centred governance. There is a growing movement of communities, organisations, lawyers, policy makers and academics advocating for the rights of nature and living in harmony with nature. There are strong advocates in the UK, U.S., Australia Africa, South America and Asia, including Wild Law UK, Gaia Foundation18, Global Alliance for Rights of Nature19, African Biodiversity Network20, Centre for Earth Jurisprudence21and many more. Connections with other like-minded advocates should be supported. For real change to occur, an holistic approach and practice of Earth-centred governance and respect of rights of nature is necessary by other stakeholders including the wider public, Government, and business.
B.9 The potential risks to the ideal outcomes being achieved, and any lessons that should be learnt from previous conferences
B.9.1 Potential risks include: • a persistent presumption of the status quo for unlimited economic growth over Earth- centred governance • lack of support from member States, particularly in implementation and enforcement • lack of financial support to promote Earth-centred governance.
B.9.2 These obstacles can be overcome if there is political commitment to addressing the root causes of continued environmental degradation.
25 August 2011
17 An initiative proposed by UK barrister Polly Higgins. For more information visit: www.thisisecocide.com
18 See {HYPERLINK "http://www.gaiafoundation.org"}
19 See {HYPERLINK "http://therightsofnature.org"}
20 See {HYPERLINK "http://www.africanbiodiversity.org"}
21 See {HYPERLINK "http://www.earthjuris.org"}
Written evidence submitted by the Earth System Governance Project
About the Earth System Governance Project
The Earth System Governance Project is a ten-year research initiative under the auspices of the Interna- tional Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, which is sponsored by the Inter- national Council for Science (ICSU), the International Social Science Council (ISSC), and the United Nations University (UNU). The project has evolved into the largest social science network in its field, involving nearly 1700 researchers along with a core network of twelve institutions in the Global Alliance of Earth System Governance Research Centres. ({ HYPERLINK "http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org" })
This memo is based on the comprehensive policy assessment Towards a Strengthened Institutional Frame- work for Global Sustainability. Key Insights from Social Science Research. The assessment has been con- ducted by more than 30 members of the lead faculty, scientific steering committee, and other affiliates of the Earth System Governance Project and has been mandated by the four global change research pro- grammes ({ HYPERLINK "http://www.essp.org" }). The assessment will soon be published as policy brief and as fully referenced and peer-reviewed scientific article (see also { HYPERLINK "http://www.ieg.earthsystemgovernance.org" }).
Summary of recommendations
• Strengthen international environmental treaties: Governments must engage in structural reforms in how international environmental negotiations are conducted and treaties designed. Present and future treaties must rely more on systems of qualified majority voting.
• Manage conflicts among multilateral agreements: International economic institutions must advance transitions to a sustainable economy, including by multilaterally harmonised systems that allow for discriminating between products on the basis of production processes.
• Upgrade UNEP: Governments need to engage in negotiations for the upgrading of UNEP to a special- ised UN agency, along the lines of the World Health Organization or the International Labour Organisa- tion.
• Better integrate sustainable development policies within the UN system: Governments need to support overall integrative mechanisms within the UN system that better align the social, economic and envi- ronmental pillars of sustainable development.
• Strengthen national governance: New policy instruments are a promising complement to regulation if carefully designed. But they are not panaceas.
• Streamline and strengthen public–private governance networks and partnerships: Despite the growing role of non-state actors, there is still a strong need for effective and decisive governmental action. Stronger mandates and better methodologies for the verification and monitoring of partnerships are needed.
• Strengthen accountability and legitimacy: Novel accountability mechanisms are needed, including mandatory disclosure of accessible, comprehensible and comparable data about sustainability per- formance, and stronger consultative rights for civil society representatives in intergovernmental insti- tutions.
• Address equity concerns within and among countries: Equity concerns must be at the heart of the in- stitutional framework for sustainable development. High consumption levels in industrialized countries and in some parts of the emerging economies require special and urgent action. Financial transfers from richer to poorer countries are inevitable.
• Prepare global governance for a warmer world: Global adaptation programmes need to become a core concern of the UN system and governments.
Introduction
Global environmental protection has featured high on the international political agenda since the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. The upcoming 2012 United Nations Confer- ence on Sustainable Development (Rio+20 Conference) will be the fifth environmental mega-conference organised by the United Nations since then.
These mega-conferences seek to provide a venue for holistic and longer term considerations on the co- evolution of human and natural systems. Environmental mega-conferences are established elements of international environmental governance, and do have an important part to play in steering effective inter- national environmental governance. These mega-conferences are high-profile events attracting world leaders, global media interest, and thousands of representatives from civil society. However, the confer- ences have a mixed balance and each conference reflected the political and institutional landscape and priorities at the time.
Despite these global conferences and more than 900 environmental treaties coming into force over the past 40 years, human-induced environmental degradation is reaching unprecedented levels. To achieve more sustainable development, a reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions and governance mechanisms is crucial. Incrementalism will not suffice to bring about societal change at the level needed. Structural change in global governance is needed.
Therefore, the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development must become a major stepping stone to- wards introducing a stronger institutional framework for sustainable development. Decision makers should seize this opportunity to develop a clear and ambitious roadmap for institutional change and influence fundamental reform of current sustainability governance within the next decade.
This memo outlines the core areas needing most urgent action and deserving high-level attention at the Rio+20 conference.
Strengthen international environmental treaties
Recent research on factors that foster the creation and effectiveness of international environmental treaties has led to important insights on how to make the international governance system more effective. Interna- tional treaties are most effective when they:
• State precise goals, criteria and benchmarks for assessing progress;
• Are designed to be flexible and adaptable to changes in the problem and context;
• Have formal procedures to ensure new scientific information is taken up quickly; and • Systematically collect information about the effectiveness of the treaty and review this information regularly.
Governments can also speed up treaty negotiations by conducting them within existing institutions and by breaking problems down into smaller negotiation packages. Negotiators can sometimes sacrifice sub- stance and stringency to reach ‘shallow’ but inclusive agreements that can be built on later; for example, through framework-plus-protocol approaches, tacit-acceptance procedures for amendments, and formal- ized mechanisms that help develop soft law agreements into hard law.
Such measures will lead to an incremental improvement of the system of international environmental agreements. This is important but no longer sufficient. More transformative reform is needed. Introducing a stronger reliance on qualified majority voting would be a positive step, since political systems that rely on majority-based rule are quicker to arrive at far-reaching decisions. At the international level, experi- ences with qualified majority voting are rare and will need to be restricted to clearly specified areas to en- sure the support of all countries. One route is the double-weighted majority voting developed in the trea- ties on stratospheric ozone depletion, which accept majority decisions yet also grant veto power to North and South as groups of countries.
Manage conflicts among multilateral agreements
A major concern in the current institutional framework for sustainable development is conflict between different treaties both within sustainability policy and beyond. Governments must strengthen the capacity and mandate of environmental treaties (including their secretariats) to collect, disseminate and exchange information on links with other treaties. Treaties with similar objectives need formal mechanisms for joint negotiation and management. Furthermore, the requirement to respect and support the objectives of (other) multilateral environmental treaties should be accepted as a general principle.
It is particularly important to manage conflicts between economic and environmental treaties, with reforms of the institutional framework for sustainable development brought in line with the ideal of the ‘green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication’. Environmental goals must be mainstreamed into the activities of global economic institutions, while global trade and investment re- gimes need to be embedded in a normative context of social, developmental and environmental values. Discriminating in world trade law between products on the basis of production processes is critical, if in- vestments in cleaner products and services are to be encouraged. Such discrimination should be based on multilateral agreement to prevent protectionist impacts.
Fill regulatory gaps in international sustainability governance
In addition to strengthening existing treaties, there are numerous areas where new frameworks are needed. One such area is the development and deployment of emerging technologies, such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and geoengineering. Such emerging technologies promise significant benefits, but also pose major risks for sustainable development. An international institutional framework could support fore- casting, transparency and information-sharing on new technologies; further develop technical standards; clarify the applicability of existing treaties; promote public discussion and input; and engage multiple stakeholders in policy dialogues. Initially, multilateral action on emerging technologies could take the form of one or more framework conventions.
Additionally, some issue areas need substantial governance improvements: • Global water governance needs a stronger and more coherent multilateral framework, since it remains the remit of several UN agencies and civil society organizations.
• Global food governance must to be strengthened. Regulatory challenges include here international management of food safety and nutrition, the coordination of climate change adaptation in food sys- tems, controls on commodity speculation, and the role of private regulation such as certification and labelling schemes.
• Energy governance requires stronger oversight by global bodies whose activities are currently dis- persed and poorly coordinated.
Upgrade the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)
International environmental organisations play vital roles in governance for sustainable development, but need further strengthening. Many reform proposals have been submitted in recent decades. Some of the more radical proposals—such as an international agency that centralises and integrates existing intergov- ernmental organisations and regimes—are unlikely to be implemented and would yield uncertain gains. However, substantial benefits could come from upgrading UNEP to a specialised UN agency for environ- mental protection, along the lines of the World Health Organisation or the International Labour Organisa- tion.
At the same time, it is important to increase the integration of sustainable development policy within the UN system and beyond. The UN CSD was created to fulfil this role, but its political relevance has remained limited. Governments must take action to support mechanisms within the UN system that will improve in- tegration of the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainable development, for example by upgrading and strengthening CSD.
Strengthen national governance
The shortcomings of international institutions largely reflect those of domestic policies. An effective insti- tutional framework for sustainable development requires critical institutional innovations at national and regional (EU) levels. Without strong and effective national policies and institutional frameworks, in particu- lar within major states, the global institutional framework for sustainable development will remain below par.
New policy instruments – often involving non-state actors – have become popular as a means of overcom- ing problems in implementing regulations, since they are often seen as being more flexible. However, questions remain about their transparency and long-term effectiveness. When designed carefully, new pol- icy instruments are a promising complement to regulation, but they are not panaceas. Success lies in de- veloping packages of different instruments, and in evaluating the effectiveness of these in their own terms as well as in relation to alternative options.
Streamline and strengthen public–private governance networks and partnerships
The last decades have seen tremendous growth in new types of governance, such as public-private part- nerships, transnational labelling schemes, and market based mechanisms. Yet the effectiveness of these novel mechanisms remains uncertain. • Research indicates that the partnership approach has not met its expectations. Insufficient funding, ineffective organisational structures, lack of quantitative targets and weak accountability systems have also limited its effectiveness. To strengthen such partnerships, UNCSD and other agencies need a stronger mandate and better methodologies for the verification and monitoring of progress.
• Labelling and certification schemes can advance sustainable development by enabling markets to sup- port environmentally sound business practices. To be effective, these need multiple stakeholders, ap- propriate national regulatory frameworks, built-in accountability mechanisms and consumer demand. Governments play a crucial role through regulations that create incentives for certification, focussed procurement policies, legitimation of measures and involvement in monitoring sustainability effects. International organisations can also play a powerful role in catalyzing novel forms of private and pub- lic–private governance.
• Market-based mechanisms as Clean Development Mechanism or Reducing Emissions from Deforesta- tion and Forest Degradation (REDD) can contribute to sustainable development but have to be supple- mentary to, rather than a replacement for, governmental action. To ensure equitable distribution of benefits and to minimise the risks associated with them, international, national and local bodies must have strong institutional oversight. Governments must work towards improving institutional capacity, increasing representation of local stakeholders, changing the uneven monitoring of claimed benefits, and rebalancing global and local benefits.
New types of transnational cooperation among local public authorities, such as cities, are becoming im- portant and many such authorities have taken significant action towards addressing the causes and conse- quences of global environmental risks. Governments must provide a political mandate that recognizes their diverse contexts and guides practical action on the ground as well as supporting collaboration and devel- oping local capacity and financial resources.
Despite the growing role of non-state actors, there is still a need for effective and decisive governmental action, both at the national and intergovernmental level. Private governance can be a useful supplement but still requires governmental support.
Strengthen accountability and legitimacy
Both intergovernmental and novel non-state driven institutions face increasing pressures for improved accountability and access to decision making. There is no universal formula to increase accountability and legitimacy across all sustainable development institutions. In general, governance accountability can be strengthened when stakeholders gain better access to information and decision-making, for example through special rights enshrined in agreements, charters and codes, and stronger participation in councils that govern resources, or in commissions that hear complaints. International environmental, developmen- tal and economic institutions must adopt such novel accountability mechanisms more widely. Formal con- sultative rights by civil society representatives in intergovernmental institutions can be a major step for- ward. This requires appropriate mechanisms that account for imbalances between countries and for power differentials between different segments of civil society, and that ensure appropriate accountability mechanisms for civil society representatives vis-à-vis their constituencies.
While greater transparency and information disclosure can empower citizens and consumers to hold gov- ernments and private actors accountable, and provide incentives for better sustainability performance, transparency does not always deliver on its promises. Disclosed information is often inaccessible, incon- sistent or incomprehensible. Governments and private actors must ensure that disclosure obligations go beyond ‘business as usual’ to stimulate a change in existing unsustainable practices.
Address equity concerns within and among countries
The institutional framework for sustainable development must address questions of justice, fairness and equity.
• Regarding equity within countries, there may be a trade-off between effectiveness and efficiency, and equity. However, this presents a false dichotomy in most complex environmental problems, which are inherently political in nature. Legitimate and transparent democratic processes are needed to allow so- cieties and communities to choose policies they see as being equitable and effective.
• At the international level, equity and fairness need to be at the heart of strong and durable interna- tional regimes. Equitable progress towards globally sustainable development requires greater action by the richer nations. In particular, governments and societies in industrialized countries need to accept that global environmental change has fundamentally increased global interdependence.
• Within countries and internationally, poor and marginalized communities are most vulnerable to global environmental change but seldom have a voice in policymaking. Relevant processes should therefore promote participation of the poor in policy preparation, implementation, monitoring and adaptation.
Financial transfers from richer to poorer countries at unprecedended levels are inevitable, either through direct support payments for mitigation and adaptation programmes based on international agreement or through such mechanisms as global emissions markets or transnational air transportation levies for sus- tainability purposes.
The organisation of global funding for sustainable development lacks consistency and inclusiveness, with most funding agencies having different interests, rules and general policies. Policy coherence is often weak. Governments and funding agencies need to revisit existing funding mechanisms to increase policy coherence and strengthen the voice of the recipient countries.
Prepare global governance for a warmer world
Complete mitigation of global environmental change is already out of reach. Hence, the institutional framework for sustainable development must include governance for adaptation. Research indicates that the adaptability of local governance is stronger when the governance system itself is adaptive.{ ADDIN EN.CITE
At the global level, the institutional framework seems ill prepared to cope with the consequences of mas- sive global change that will affect such major systems as food, water, health and migration. While massive changes, for example in sea level, may not be imminent, future dangers can be minimized if institutional reform is planned and negotiated today. Global adaptation programmes thus need to become a core con- cern of the UN system and national governments.
Conclusion
In sum, there are substantial shortcomings in the functioning of the institutional framework for sustainable development. Yet there are also major opportunities to improve global, national and local governance, in- stitutions and practices. Incrementalism will not suffice to enable societal change at the level needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic global environmental change. Instead, transformative structural change in global governance is needed.
The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development must make an important start. The 2012 Rio Conference offers both an opportunity and a crucial test of whether these conferences can serve a use- ful purpose in bringing about substantial and urgently needed change in the current institutional frame- work for sustainable development. National governments, especially those of major countries, have a cru- cial role and responsibility in making this conference a major stepping stone towards sustainable devel- opment.
26 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by the UK Food Group
1. The UK Food Group (UKFG)1 is making this submission to inform the Environment Audit Committee’s enquiry about UK government preparations for Rio+20.
A. Summary
2. Many UK Food Group members work closely with small‐scale food producing communities in the global South. We are submitting this contribution to inform you especially about the first of your request: “the issues which should be urgently addressed at Rio, and any that it should avoid;” and also with reference to “institutional frameworks” that will deliver necessary global governance. 3. We urge the Committee to propose that the UK government should use the Rio+20 process to: 4. 1) Promote ecological and biodiverse models of food and agriculture which enable communities to control their localised food systems, secure livelihoods and realise food sovereignty in environmentally sustainable ways that eliminate hunger, improve equity and restore the environment; 5. 2) Improve global governance of food and agriculture by ensuring that the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) has primary responsibility in the global architecture for food, agriculture and related policies. The CFS should explicitly be given a mandate to implement both the decisions of the original Rio Summit relating to agriculture, namely Chapter 14 of Agenda 21,2 and the findings of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Its work should be enhanced by changes in laws that control intellectual property rights (IPRs) and use‐restriction technologies, and be backed by a system for UN‐sanctioned assessments of new technologies that could damage people or the environment, respecting the Precautionary Principle, hard won in Rio in 1992.
1. 1 The UK Food Group is the principal civil society network in the UK on global food and farming issues and is the UK focal point for many European and international networks. It represents BOND (British Overseas NGOs in Development) on these issues especially in CONCORD's European Food Security Group. Members of the UK Food Group include both large and smaller NGOs that work on development and environment issues related to food and farming, as well as farmer‐centred and consumer NGOs. For more, see {HYPERLINK "http://www.ukfg.org.uk"} 2 UNCED (1992), “Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture & rural development.” Agenda 21. {HYPERLINK "http://daccess‐ ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/CONF.151/26&Lang=E"}(Vol II). New York: UNCSD, {HYPERLINK "http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_14.shtml"}
B. Rio+20: What are the options?
B1. Governance model 6. When “Business as usual” is not an option… 7. …Governance as usual is also not an option. 8. Major reports from UNEP,3 WESS,4 and IAASTD5 have repeated the mantra “Business, as usual, is not an option.” Consequently we believe that ‘Governance as usual, is not an option.’ Rio+20 could signal changes that will promote a new model of international governance of food and agriculture that has been spearheaded by the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS); a model that includes civil society in its deliberations.
B2. Sustainable agriculture6 and food production systems 9. Agriculture is a challenging problem … 10. Industrial food systems and other unsustainable practices are causing dramatic environmental damage, including reducing biodiversity and soil fertility, overusing and polluting water, damaging the wellbeing of farm animals7 and substantially contributing to climate change. Industrial food production systems undermine the possibilities for producing enough, healthy food for future generations. At the same time they impoverish millions of small‐scale food providers,8 contributing to poverty, hunger and migration, and are causing health problems on a large scale, such as cardiovascular diseases, some forms of cancer, Type II diabetes and a range of problems associated with obesity.
11. … while being a significant solution 12. Viable food systems exist that will secure future food in ways that will eradicate hunger, improve equity and restore the environment9. They have co‐evolved with people and have adapted over millennia in traditional forms of agriculture and other forms of food provision and are now more relevant than ever. Small scale agroecological and other forms of sustainable agriculture and food production, developed in the framework of food sovereignty, can: 13. y eliminate most hunger and poverty, 14. y drastically mitigate both the level and impact of climate change, 15. y restore agricultural biodiversity, soil fertility and water resources, 16. y improve livelihoods & provide rewarding employment for 100s of millions of people, 17. y produce enough, high quality, diverse and nutritious food for 9 billion people or more
1. 3 UNEP (2011), Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication ‐ a synthesis for policy makers. Nairobi: UNEP, {HYPERLINK "http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf"} 4 UN DESA (2011), World Economic and Social Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation. New York: UN, p.v {HYPERLINK "http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf"} 5 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology (2008), Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report. Johannesburg: IAASTD, p4. {HYPERLINK "http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Executive%20Summary%20of%20the%2 0Synthesis%20Report%20(English).pdf"} 6 In this document ‘agriculture’ is used in a broad sense to refer to a wide range of food production systems including cropping, livestock husbandry, pastoralism, fisheries, forestry and other uses of agricultural biodiversity and natural resources for food production, gathering and harvesting in rural and urban areas. 7 A World Bank report stresses that industrial livestock production presents “a significant danger that the poor are being crowded out, the environment eroded and global food security and safety compromised.” World Bank, (2001) Livestock development ‐ implications for rural poverty, the environment and global food security. New York: World Bank, p.vii, {HYPERLINK "http://go.worldbank.org/G35P51ORT0"} 8 In this document, ‘small‐scale food providers’ refer to the women and men working as small‐scale peasant and family farmers, pastoralists, fishers, forest dwellers, Indigenous Peoples, agricultural labourers and others who provide food through production, harvesting, gathering, on‐farm processing, local markets and so on. This term was adopted in the reports of Nyéléni 2007: Forum for food sovereignty. For more, see {HYPERLINK "http://www.nyeleni.org"} 9 See UK Food Group (2010) Securing Future Food: towards ecological food provision. {HYPERLINK "http://www.ukfg.org.uk/pdfs/Securing_future_food.pdf"} 18. y keep farm animals in ways that respect their natural behaviour.
B3. Proposals for Rio+20 19. Given the clear advantages of agroecological approaches and other forms of sustainable and humane agriculture and food production, the UK Food Group urges the Committee to propose that the UK government should use the Rio+20 process to: 20. 1) Promote a sustainable, ecological and equitable model of food production in the framework of food sovereignty 21. In order to achieve this, Rio+20 should adopt policies to: 22. y Ensure that agriculture, in all its multifunctional10 aspects, is a core issue in global policy and practice. 23. Context: Agriculture is both the cause and a key component of any solution to the world’s environmental, climate and social problems. 24. y Give significant and increasing financial and other support to small‐scale, agroecological food production systems, currently practised by millions of small‐scale food providers. 25. Context: These systems are mainly sustainable, resilient, agroecological and biodiverse, and they already provide food for 70% of the world’s peoples,11 with scope to provide more if supported and protected. Policies to support these systems will increase availability of food, eliminate hunger, increase equity, create employment, reverse environmental degradation, maximise agricultural biodiversity, promote the wellbeing of farm animals and related ecosystem functions and conserve the soil and the quality of water. 26. y Reduce the damaging environmental and social effects of industrial food production. Encourage the transformation of industrial and other forms of unsustainable agriculture towards smaller‐scale agroecological and other forms of sustainable, ecological food production. 27. Context: See above. : 28. y Support public research that is under the control of the majority of small‐scale food providers. Improve research in ecological approaches to small‐scale agricultural and food production systems and on the policy frameworks needed to support these systems. 29. y Recognise the important role of women in agriculture and support their particular needs given the household responsibilities and conventional restrictions that societal norms continue to often place upon women. 30. Context: 12Women comprise about 43% of the agricultural labour force globally, and as high as 70% in some regions, but have a much higher proportion of unpaid household and family farming responsibilities. In commercial agricultural work women are over represented in low‐paid seasonal and part‐time work, and the evidence suggests that women are often paid less than men, for the same work. 31. y Support the conservation and integration of all agricultural biodiversity, including wild plant varieties closely related to crop plants, in order to strengthen the resilience of the food system in the context of climate change. Enable in situ conservation through international protection of centres of diversity and the habitats of wild relatives of crops.
1. 10 The multifunctional nature of agriculture is elaborated in the IAASTD report. An initial definition is given in IAASTD op cit p6 11 ETC Group (2009), Who will feed us? Questions for the food and climate crises. Ottawa: ETC Group, p4‐5 {HYPERLINK "http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_Who_Will_Feed_Us.pdf"} 12 FAO State of Food & Agriculture Team, (2011) The role of women in agriculture. {HYPERLINK "http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am307e/am307e00.pdf"} See also the FAO/World Bank/IFAD (2009) Gender in agriculture sourcebook. {HYPERLINK "http://worldbank.org/genderinag"} 32. Context: Although the importance of crop wild relatives is widely recognized, the industrial research system is only collecting 700 species. The peasant research system works with 50‐ 60,000 species of wild relatives through in situ conservation and community breeding activities.13 Habitats with rich biodiversity are living genebanks, every bit as valuable as ex situ genebanks and very vulnerable. 33. y Establish and support peasant plant breeders as the leaders in local and global efforts to adapt to changing conditions. This would include providing peasant networks with copies of plant genetic material stored in government and inter‐governmental ex situ genebanks, for the networks own use in plant breeding and inter‐farm exchange initiatives, and eliminating monopolistic regulations (including patents) that inhibit innovation. 34. Context: Over the last half‐century, industrial breeders have produced about 80,000 plant varieties of which, almost 60% have been ornamentals.14 Peasants have contributed close to 2.1 million food and feed varieties. Governments should move the $11bn they currently use to subsidise biofuels into support for research undertaken with and for small‐scale food providers. 35. y Promote resilient livestock breeds and species diversity, including through provision of funding and other support for conservation and breeding of these animals by small‐scale food providers. Promote grass‐fed production systems for meat and diary animals. Eliminate all non‐therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal production. Promote animal feed production on farm or locally. 36. Context: Industrial livestock farming has only five key animal species15 and about 100 breeds account for almost all commercial meat and dairy production. Breeding for extremely high levels of productivity has had adverse impacts on the health and welfare of farm animals in industrial systems. Peasants maintain 40 livestock species and around 7,600 breeds that contribute to biodiversity and resilience.16 37. y Recognise mobile pastoral systems as being the most effective and productive economic use of the non‐equilibrium ecology of arid and semi‐arid areas. Provide funding and other support for pastoral systems. 38. Context: Mobile pastoralism is a successful and viable production system when given scope to operate, however many development policies are grounded in a paradigm that sees pastoralism as backward and that assume the aim is to move people out of pastoralism. Recognition of the need for a change in approach is a first step in support.17 39. y Defend the global commons and public goods, including oceans, the atmosphere, solar & wind power, forests & rivers and work against the commodification and commercialization of nature. This includes opposing all forms of carbon trading that could include agriculture in the carbon market18 and lead to the commodification of soil carbon.
1. 13 Maxted & Kell (2009), Establishment of a global network for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs. Rome: FAO, {HYPERLINK "http://www.cwrsg.org/Publications/Reports/Global_in_situ_CWR_conservation_network.pdf"} 14 ETC Group, op cit p16‐17, {HYPERLINK "http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_Who_Will_Feed_Us.pdf"} 15 Cattle, chickens, pigs, sheep and goats. 16 FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2009) The roles of small‐scale livestock keepers in the development, use and conservation of livestock resources. Rome: FAO, {HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/017/ak525e.pdf"} and (2007), The state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome: FAO {HYPERLINK "ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1250e/a1250e.pdf"} 17 For more info: AU (2010) Pastoralist Policy Framework, {HYPERLINK "http://www.tnrf.org/files/policy%20framework%20for%20pastoralism%20final.pdf"} and IIED (2009) Modern and mobile. {HYPERLINK "http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12565IIED.pdf"}? 18 Such as the UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) 40. y Support food sovereignty as the overall framework for food and agricultural policies and encourage communities, peoples, states and international institutions to recognize and realise food sovereignty. 41. Context: Food sovereignty puts the right to sufficient, healthy and culturally appropriate food for all individuals, peoples and communities at the centre of food, agriculture and fisheries policies, rather than the demands of markets and corporations that prioritize internationally tradable commodities and edible components. It localises food systems and values the knowledge and skills of small‐scale food providers, and works in harmony with nature through using smaller‐scale, ecological forms of food provision. Food sovereignty, using the knowledge and skills of small‐scale food providers and their technologies, will give us the best chance of achieving a resilient food system and guaranteeing our future food.
42. 2) Improve global governance for food and agriculture and related policies 43. In order to achieve this, Rio+20 should adopt policies to: 44. y Welcome the reformed UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) as the principal governing body for food, agriculture and rural development policy and related financial issues, and as the interlocutor on these issues with the proposed new UN environmental network. 45. y Explicitly give the CFS the mandate to identify and tackle current deficiencies and shortcomings that are impeding the implementation of existing plans and proposals relating to agriculture and food systems. Also give the CFS a mandate to develop, with full participation of small‐scale food providers, a work plan to implement both the decisions of the original Rio Summit relating to agriculture, namely Chapter 14 of Agenda 21,19 and the findings of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).20 46. y Call for all countries to establish their own structures/mechanisms, with the full participation of small‐scale food providers and in line with the global strategic framework being developed by the CFS, for implementing the decisions of the original Rio summit, including Chapter 14 of Agenda 21,{ NOTEREF _Ref175636360 \h } and the findings of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).{ NOTEREF _Ref175636384 \h } 47. y Ensure that there is UN‐sanctioned international assessment of new agricultural and bioengineering technologies, acting in support of the CFS and in a manner that strengthens national sovereignty and respects the Precautionary Principle. As a first step, agree a legally‐ binding prohibition of all forms of unilateral (non‐UN sanctioned) geo‐engineering technologies, as agreed by the Convention on Biological Diversity. 48. y Open a clear intergovernmental process for examining intellectual property regimes and use restriction technologies affecting living materials and processes. As a first step, call for single and multi‐genome or so‐called “climate‐ready” patents or claims to be rejected; encourage governments to block or rescind such claims; and 49. y Emphasise the important role of self‐organised networks of small scale food providers in all considerations of global governance relating to agriculture and food systems. Consult these
1. 19 UNCED (1992), “Chapter 14: Promoting sustainable agriculture & rural development.” Agenda 21. {HYPERLINK "http://daccess‐ ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=A/CONF.151/26&Lang=E"}(Vol II). New York: UNCSD, {HYPERLINK "http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_14.shtml"} 20 IAASTD (2009), Agriculture at a crossroads. {HYPERLINK "http://www.globalagriculture.org"} organisations and networks on all relevant issues and give them a leading role in governance of, and in definition of policies and practices for, food and agriculture. 50. Context: Strong federations of local organisations and social movements are vital for making the changes in policies and practices which are needed, as well as for democratic and sustainable development of societies. It is therefore of essential to help strengthen the organizations of small scale food producers and food providers, particularly enhancing the participation and role of women and young people. The rights of small‐scale food providers are currently being debated in the UN Human Rights Council, and could be codified in an International Convention on the Rights of Peasants (ICRP).
51. Food production systems are an integral and vital component of sustainable development. We consider that the recommendations in this response to the Inquiry will contribute to the development of food production systems that will be essential for the survival of humankind, for the preservation of biodiversity, for mitigation of climate change and for socially fair and ecologically sustainable development and poverty eradication.
26 August 2011 Written evidence submitted by the World Coal Association
The World Coal Association is pleased to make this submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee inquiry “Preparations for Rio+20: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development”.
The World Coal Association was founded in 1985 and has been working on behalf of the global coal industry for the past 25 years. WCA’s members comprise the world’s major international coal producers and stakeholders. The WCA provides a voice for coal in international environment and energy forums. The World Coal Association has Category II Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council and Consultative Status with the UN Industrial Development Organisation. WCA is also an admitted observer organisation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Key points
Coal is expected to provide more than half of the grid‐based energy needed to provide electricity to the 1.4 billion globally who currently lack access to it.
Access to modern energy sources is key to sustainable economic and social development
As nations develop they seek secure, reliable and affordable sources of energy to strengthen and build their economies – coal is a logical choice in many of these countries because it is widely available, safe, reliable and relatively low cost.
The world faces a huge challenge in meeting the future energy needs of developed and developing countries. All available sources of energy will be needed to meet this challenge.
If the world is to meet global emissions reduction targets while meeting the ever‐growing demand for energy, then advanced coal technologies – such as high efficiency low emissions power generation and carbon capture and storage must be supported by governments and other international institutions.
In addition to its energy benefits, coal contributes to economies and communities through responsible mining and supporting industrial processes such as steel production and is therefore a key component of sustainable development.
The challenge of energy poverty
1. Discourse about sustainable development issues in recent years has been placed in the context of global action to address climate change. The Copenhagen Accord, adopted in 2009, states “that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low‐emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development.” Discussions in Cancun regularly referred to the joint priorities of climate change and sustainable development.
2. The Rio+20 summit will have two key themes – green economy and the institutional framework. The green economy theme will focus how sustainable economic growth will be achieved in coming decades and energy issues have already been identified as a key component of that discussion.
3. Earlier this year the UN Secretary‐General released a draft report detailing the themes and objectives for the Rio+20 conference in which the word ‘energy’ appeared 43 times. The report identifies that substantial energy resources needed to eradicate poverty, while at the same time, there is a need to reduce the emissions associated with the use of energy. The report therefore identifies the role of clean energy technology as being essential to sustainable development. (Usefully it does make reference to clean coal developments in China).
4. This sits alongside figures from the International Energy Agency that highlight there are currently 1.4 billion people worldwide who lack access to electricity (with approximately 85 percent of those in rural areas). The IEA also identifies that without additional dedicated policies to address energy poverty, by 2030 this number will only reduce to 1.2 billion. The IEA also states in its WEO2010 report that to achieve universal modern energy access by 2030 would require an average annual investment of $36 billion between 2010 and 2030.
5. Given all of this, achievement of the Millennium Development Goals is unlikely to be possible without addressing the significant challenges posed by the world’s energy poverty situation.
6. Yet an obvious absence from the Millennium Development Goals is any specific goal designed to address energy poverty.
Integrated priorities
7. The world faces significant challenges in facilitating sustainable development and poverty alleviation in the developing world. Energy plays a key role meeting these challenges.
8. However an effective response to the legitimate aims of energy security and economic development, including poverty alleviation, must also integrate with global action on climate and environmental concerns.
9. These issues are inextricably linked. The world’s least developed countries need access to low cost energy, but they are also the most vulnerable to the impacts of policies aimed at reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
10. As both developed and developing economies continue to grow, the demand for energy will only increase. Secure, affordable and sustainable sources of energy are key to addressing the challenge of energy security and poverty alleviation whilst also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Significantly reducing poverty in developing economies is a necessary first step to reducing greenhouse gases. Absent this first step, developing economies will not have the capacity to focus their attention on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
11. Ensuring secure, affordable and sustainable energy requires a diverse energy mix and coal is a key part of that mix. It is both an essential energy resource for electricity generation and a vital raw material for industrial production eg. steel, chemicals and cement. Coal is vital for long‐term sustainable development and can be used in a manner consistent with GHG reduction goals.
International action on energy and development
12. As economies develop and grow they look for reliable, affordable sources of electricity. Energy also plays a central role in sustainable economic and social development, yet the Millennium Development Goals fail to include energy access as a key target.
13. Many countries have access to indigenous coal resources and use those supplies to fuel their energy needs. These countries must be supported to use their natural resources consistent with global climate objectives. Coal is expected to provide more than half of the grid‐based energy needed to provide electricity to the 1.4 billion globally who currently lack access to it.
14. In order to meet joint sustainable development and greenhouse gas reduction goals, governments and the international community should support action that:
includes a target of universal access to modern energy by 2030 as part of the Millennium Development Goals to promote eradication of poverty through access to affordable, reliable sources of energy, including coal, which support provision of employment, health care and education. recognising that different countries will meet their energy needs from different sources, promote the deployment of the cleanest and most efficient coal technology available – including advanced high efficiency, low emission coal‐fired power generation and in suitable environments, alternative coal technologies such as underground coal gasification and coal bed methane utilisation. facilitates the development of CCS technology because according to all credible scenarios rapid and large‐scale deployment of CCS in both developed and developing countries is necessary to limit the global temperature rise to less than two degrees.
15. These priorities can be met by:
Financing CCS and advanced coal‐fired power generation through the Green Climate Fund and supporting these technology transfers through the technology mechanism, both of which were established in Cancun in December 2010. Finalising the inclusion of CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and continuing the inclusion of advanced coal‐fired power generation as eligible projects under the CDM. The various international development banks providing loans for the deployment of CCS and advanced coal‐fired power generation where coal is identified as an efficient means of electricity generation in developing countries. These institutions must also support development of power grids to deliver electricity where it is needed. Joint action by aid donors and recipients in recognising where energy needs are a key challenge to development and where supporting the deployment of CCS and advanced coal‐fired power generation can contribute to the achievement of development objectives.
Coal’s role in society
16. In addition to the important role it plays in meeting the world’s energy needs, the production and utilisation of coal makes a significant contribution to society.
Across the globe many communities benefit from being centres of coal mining. They benefit from the jobs, royalties, infrastructure and other improvements that mining brings; while responsible mining companies, such as those who form the World Coal Association, see mine safety as critical and strive to ensure zero‐harm as the key priority for their operations. Coal also forms a key component of many industrial processes and is a key part of almost 70 percent of the world’s steel production. Steel is a fundamental material for modern life. The manufacture of steels ultimately delivers the goods and services that growing economies demand – healthcare, telecommunications, improved agricultural practices, better transport networks, clean water and access to reliable and affordable energy. Steel is a vital building block for development – facilitating economic growth and poverty alleviation.
26 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by the Population and Sustainability Network (PSN)
Introduction
1. The Population and Sustainability Network (PSN) welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry and fully supports work to ensure that the important opportunities the Rio+20 summit offers to advance sustainable development are successful. We believe the UK government is extremely well placed to exercise the strong leadership necessary to ensure that the international community makes significant commitments towards addressing the many pressing global issues compromising sustainable development. We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to these initiatives in this way.
2. Acknowledging the complex interplay of environmental, social and economical factors which demands a holistic approach to promoting sustainable development, PSN is keen to bring to the Government’s attention the importance of integrating a focus upon population dynamics into sustainable development approaches and the Rio+20 priorities. While population size and other dynamics including density and migration are of great significance to sustainable development, these factors are commonly overlooked and to date have not commanded the focus required. Between now and the end of the century the world population is expected to increase from 7 billion in 2011 to beyond 10 billion.1 If sustainable development objectives are to be achieved it is critical that this key factor influencing use of the planet’s finites resources is taken into account and addressed in ways that respect and protect human rights.
3. With the aim of encouraging the UK government to address this critical factor and ensure that population dynamics receive the necessary consideration at the summit, the importance of integrating consideration of population dynamics into sustainable development approaches is the focus of this submission. This paper outlines the critical links between population and the pillars of sustainable development, and argues that advancing reproductive health and rights offers opportunities to reduce population growth while contributing to poverty alleviation and promoting sustainable development.
4. It is important to acknowledge the role that unsustainable and inequitable patterns of consumption by countries of the global North play as the primary drivers of global environmental problems, including climate change. For this reason and because population growth is for the most part concentrated in developing countries which have far lower per capita consumption rates, a focus on the relationship between population dynamics and environmental issues is complex and sensitive, and is sometimes wrongly interpreted as seeking to blame population growth in the global South for pressing environmental issues resulting primarily due to the actions of industrialized nations. We therefore wish to note that our focus on population dynamics in this submission seeks to increase awareness of the role that population dynamics play in undermining poverty alleviation and development progress in developing countries. This we argue can and must be addressed through increasing access to voluntary reproductive health programmes that protect and respect human rights. Achieving Millennium Development Goal target 5B – universal access to reproductive health by 2015, not only makes sense in human rights terms but also because there is no sustainable development challenge that won’t be easier to achieve if all women and men are able to plan and achieve the family size of their choice.2
5. Summary
- Between now and the end of the century the world population is expected to increase from 7 billion in 2011 to beyond 10 billion.1 Alongside unequal consumption patterns, population dynamics influence the use of the planet’s finite resources and undermine poverty alleviation and therefore must be taken into account if sustainable development is to be achieved.
- The way that population and society interact with the natural environment determines environmental sustainability. Population dynamics including growth, density and migration contribute to the depletion of natural resources and environmental problems including deforestation, land and water shortages and degradation, and loss of biodiversity due to habitat destruction.
- Population dynamics place pressure and constraints on economic development and poverty alleviation, with implications for governments’ capacities to make a successful transition to a green economy.
- Global population dynamics need to be addressed in ways that respect and protect human rights, placing women’s needs at the heart of all reproductive health policies.
- High rates of population growth are concentrated in developing countries and are correlated with low access to family planning services and high unmet need for contraception. There are an estimated 215 million in developing countries who say they are at risk of unwanted pregnancy and wish to control their fertility but are not using modern contraception, often due to lack of access to appropriate reproductive health services.3
- Addressing unmet need for contraception by increasing access to comprehensive, voluntary reproductive health programmes offers considerable scope to achieve stabilisation of the world’s population and contribute to poverty alleviation, gender equality, improved health, environmental sustainability and other important aspects for sustainable development.2
- The significant implications of population dynamics for sustainable development were recognised by the 1992 UNCSD yet have since been overlooked and require urgent attention at Rio+20. The UK government is well placed to provide the necessary strong leadership in this area and we call on the government to encourage the international community to commit to actions to promote an integrated approach to population and sustainable development, guided by agreement and outcomes based on the policy points set out in this submission.
Population and Sustainable Development: A crucial but overlooked link
6. The need to balance economic, environmental and social factors is central to the concept of sustainable development, as a process through which society can meet present needs and improve quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability therefore requires attention to the ways that population and society react. Population size, as a key determinant of use of the planet’s finite resources, is a critical component of sustainability. Addition demographic trends play a role in determining human impact on the environment. For example,
7. At the time of the first UNCSD in 1992 the world population was 5.5 billion. This year it will reach 7 billion and until the most recent UN population projections were published this year the world population was long expected to stabilize at just over 9 billion in the middle of this century. It is now expected to exceed 10 billion by the end of the century and keep growing.1 Ninety-seven per cent of the growth in the world’s population that is expected to take place before 2050 will be in developing nations, which are already struggling to meet their citizens’ basic needs.5
8. Agenda 21, the action plan from UNCSD in 1992, recognised that population dynamics have significant implications for the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development, meaning that initiatives to promote sustainability require attention to the ways that population and society interact.4 Yet while the original UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio on 1992 acknowledged the importance for sustainable development of integrated environment and development programmes taking into account demographic trends and factors, population dynamics have since received less attention by the international community and within the sphere of sustainable development.
9. The importance for sustainability of achieving population stabilization is recognised by a report published in May 2010 by the Preparatory Committee for Rio+20 reviewing progress and remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of sustainable development summits. The report notes that it “it is useful to think of sustainable development as three inter-twined “transitions”” referring to demographic transition, developmental transition and decoupling of resource use from consumption and production. On the issue of demographic transition it records that; “The ultimate goal is to stabilize the global population.”6 Yet despite this recognition and the rapid population growth projected this century, population dynamics do not appear to be on the Rio+20 agenda.
Population, environment and biodiversity
10. Population growth, density and migration can place extreme pressures upon the natural environment. Acting in tandem with climate change in some developing countries, rapid population growth increases demand for natural resources and results in intensified agriculture and use of land and water supplies. This in turn depletes the natural resource base and exacerbates environmental problems, including deforestation, land and water shortages and degradation, and loss of biodiversity due to habitat destruction.7
11. As a result of rapid population growth, overcrowding and increasingly climate change, poor communities can be forced to inhabit or migrate to the most ecologically fragile areas which are particularly vulnerable to degradation and depletion of the natural resource base. In particular, the drive to feed growing population is causing deforestation and intensive use of natural resources: depleting the natural resource base which sustainability and the health and wellbeing of populations is dependent upon. While food
insecurity is already a concern for many developing countries, population growth is likely to compound the issue in the future. In Africa, for example, the population is set to more than triple by the end of the century,1 at the same time as communities and governments will be struggling to cope with the effects of climate change upon agricultural output.
12. In recent years evidence has grown of the links between high rates of population growth and loss of biodiversity, due to environmental degradation and habitat loss. A study of population dynamics in 25 areas of the world identified as ‘biodiversity hotspots’, found that population growth rates in these areas are significantly higher than the population growth rate of the world as a whole, and above the average for developing countries. The study concludes therefore that; “substantial human-induced environmental changes are likely to continue in the hotspots and that demographic change remains an important factor in global biodiversity conservation.”8
Population dynamics and climate change
13. Climate change makes discussion of population and consumption difficult, because it is consumption and ways of living in the North that is driving climate change, while it is the countries of the South that are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Yet while the connection is complex and controversial, it is important. Simply from a mitigation perspective, adapting to the effects of climate change would be easier without population growth placing continued pressure on scarce natural resources. In terms of the sea level rises expected to result from climate change for example, one third of the world’s population lives within 60 miles of a coast, and 13 of the world’s 20 largest cities are on a coast. Migration in land is therefore going to be important, which will be a task far easier to achieve if women and men are able to exercise their right to choose whether and when to have children.9
14. Developing countries are themselves identifying the ways in which population dynamics in their countries are heightening vulnerability to climate change and undermining adaptation capacity. In the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) reports in which the forty least developed countries set out their most pressing climate change adaptation issues and priorities, ninety- three per cent of the countries identified population growth as one of the factors confounding their attempts to adapt to the effects of climate change. The most frequently mentioned climate change adaptation issues that are exacerbated by population growth are: soil degradation and erosion, fresh water scarcity, migration, deforestation and shortages of farm land. Additional vulnerabilities linked to population growth include loss of biodiversity and natural habitat, desertification and diminishing fish stocks.7
Population dynamics, poverty and the green economy
15. Sustainable development aims to achieve human well-being, requiring a focus on poverty alleviation which is of course linked to economic growth and the necessary transition to the green economy. Demographic factors are closely linked to these goals for the reasons outlined below, meaning that progress towards sustainable development will be greater by strategies that encompass population.10
16. Population dynamics are linked to key determinants of poverty including health, nutrition, education, gender, and significantly, economic development. Over the past few
decades, rapid population growth has been associated with high levels of poverty.1 Countries with rapid population growth tend to have the highest incidence of poverty and lowest levels of human development. In countries with low levels of economic development, high populations growth rates place increasing pressure on national resources and public services, reducing governments’ capacity to meet the basic needs of their citizens and undermining development.11,12
17. By the end of the century the population of the countries in the world with the highest fertility rates (concentrated in the poorest countries) is set to triple.1 While development prospects are dependent on governments’ capacities to increase access to health, education and other basic services, this rate of population growth is sure to outpace these investments, both exacerbating poverty and undermining the capacity of governments to undertake initiatives aimed at making a transition to a green economy. Investing in family planning as a means of slowing population growth by preventing unplanned pregnancies is an effective strategy for driving progress towards poverty alleviation. Easing population pressures allows greater per capita investment in public service delivery and other development interventions.13
18. While the role played by population growth in undermining poverty alleviation and other development goals is well documented, there can be a reluctance to focus on this link through development interventions. This is partly because of the sensitivities associated with family planning and because it is sometimes assumed that any interventions to do so would be intrinsically coercive in nature, necessitating restrictions on women’s and couples’ individual freedom to have the number of children they desire. While this concern is well-motivated and understandable given the history of coercive ‘population control’ programmes of the 60s and 70s, this need not and absolutely should not be the case, for the reasons explained in the section below.
Advancing sustainability through rights-based approaches to sexual and reproductive health
19. Worldwide there is a vast unmet need for contraception in developing countries, meaning that real opportunities do exist to reduce world population growth, by reducing unplanned pregnancies. This can be achieved by giving women access to voluntary, rights-based family planning services, which women want and need in order to plan and space their pregnancies as they choose. In the developing world an estimated 215 million have an unmet need for contraception, meaning that they say that they are at risk of an unwanted pregnancy but are not using contraception, often because they do not have access to reproductive health services. The role that this unmet need plays in driving high rates of population growth should not be underestimated. Women who have an unmet need for effective contraception account for 82% of all unintended pregnancies in developing countries.3
20. Meeting the unmet need for family planning in developing countries while simultaneously fulfilling unmet need for maternal and newborn services would require an estimated doubling of current global investments. This investment would deliver dramatic achievements for maternal and infant health: averting an estimated half of all newborn deaths and two-thirds of all maternal deaths in developing countries. Furthermore it would support considerable progress towards other development goals, by averting two-thirds of all unwanted pregnancies, thereby easing population
pressures.3 Cost-benefit analysis shows just how cost-effective investing in family planning is. For every dollar spent in family planning, between 2 and 6 U.S. dollars can be saved in interventions aimed at achieving other development goals, including education, maternal and child health, HIV/AIDs and environmental sustainability.13
21. In these ways a focus on population dynamics has the potential to drive considerable progress towards sustainable development in developing countries which are experiencing high rates of population growth as a result of low access to reproductive health programmes. To seize this opportunity governments and donors must be called on to embrace rights-based approaches to reproductive health as part of wider development priorities that are threatened by rapid population increase, including poverty alleviation, climate change and sustainable development. This offers a ‘win-win’ approach: achieving universal reproductive health by securing access to comprehensive reproductive health services and enabling women to control their own fertility as they wish, while reducing the cost and difficulties of achieving other development goals.
Conclusion
22. Amongst environmentalists and development groups there is sometimes a reluctance to discuss population dynamics, due to fears that focusing on population growth distracts from the very real and pressing environmental impacts of unsustainable and inequitable patterns of consumption by developed countries. While understanding the reasons for this concern, PSN rejects the oversimplification of these issues by arguments which set out that problems associated with the earth’s carrying capacity must be addressed by tackling either ‘consumption’ or ‘population’. The scale of the challenges the world faces in exceeding the planet’s environmental limits requires a bold response that holistically addresses the range of factors relevant to sustainable development, including both unsustainable and inequitable consumption of resources, and the role of population dynamics. Critically, global population dynamics can and must be addressed in ways that respect and protect human rights, placing women’s needs and the motivation to promote human health and well-being at the centre of all reproductive health policies.
23. Population size, as a key determinant of use of the planet’s finite resources, is a critical component of sustainability, and additional demographic trends, including population density, urbanisation and ageing influence are relevant as they influence consumption rates and have implications for economic growth, poverty reduction and governments’ capacities to both make the transition to a green economy and adapt to climate change. The success of sustainable development initiatives which fail to consider the consequences of demographic change for sustainability will therefore be considerably limited, and opportunities to achieve more sustainable development at the same time as advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights will be lost. We do not argue that population dynamics are the sole intervention required for sustainable development, but we do argue that their absence will significantly compromise the effectiveness of other interventions seeking to advance sustainable development objectives.
Policy points for an integrated approach to population and sustainable development
24. We believe the UK government is extremely well placed to play a key leadership role in promoting through the Rio+20 Summit the urgent consideration of the significance of population dynamics for sustainable development . Working in partnership with the UK Department for International Development which already has a strong remit and
reputation for advancing reproductive health and rights, we call on the UK government to promote an integrated approach to population, poverty and sustainable development, guided by agreement and outcomes relating to the following policy points:
- There must be greater recognition of the relationship between population dynamics and sustainability, and particularly of the potential for population stabilization to contribute to sustainable development through poverty reduction, alleviation of environmental pressures and improved quality of life (as recognised by the UN International Conference on Population and Development);
- Population dynamics should be taken into account in economic and development strategies and considered at all levels of planning, decision making and resource allocation;
- Global population dynamics can and must be addressed in ways that respect and protect human rights, placing women’s needs at the heart of all reproductive health policies;
- Greater funding must be made available for rights-based family planning programmes so that all women are able to control their fertility as they wish; offering a ‘win-win’ approach of advancing reproductive health and rights while at the same time contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
References
1. UN Population Division (2011) World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision. New York: UN. 2. PSN (2011) Investment in voluntary family planning programmes: Benefits and cost- saving effects. Available at: { HYPERLINK "http://www.populationandsustainability.org/293/publications/publications.html" } 3. Guttmacher Institute (2010) Facts on Investing in Family Planning and Maternal and Newborn Health. New York: Guttmacher Institute and UNFPA. 4. UN Economic and Social Development Division for Sustainable Development (1992) Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme for Action from Rio. 5. Population Reference Bureau (2009) Population Bulletin, 64, 3. 6. UN General Assembly 17-19 May 2010, Progress to date and remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits in the area of sustainable development and analysis of the themes for the Conference, Report of the Secretary- General to the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. 7. Stephenson, J., Newman, K and Mayhew, S (2010) “Population dynamics and climate change: what are the links?” Journal of Public Health, 32, 2, pp. 150-156. 8. Richard P. Cincotta, Jennifer Wisnewski & Robert Engelman (2000) “Human population in the biodiversity hotspots” Nature 404, pp.990-992. 9. PSN (2010) Population Dynamics and Climate Change Briefing. Available at: { HYPERLINK "http://www.populationandsustainability.org/293/publications/publications.html" } 10. Global Science Panel on Population and Environment (2001) Population in Sustainable Development: Science Policy Statement. 11. De Souza, R-M. (2006). Reducing Poverty by Integrating Poverty, Health and the Environment. Washington, DC: The Population Reference Bureau.
12. Population and Sustainability Network (2010) Population Dynamics and Poverty Reduction: A PSN Briefing Paper. Available at: {HYPERLINK "http://www.populationandsustainability.org/293/articles-and-reports/articles-and- reports.html"} 13. Moreland, S. & Talbird, S (2006). Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: The contribution of fulfilling the unmet need for family planning. Washington D. C: USAID.
About Population and Sustainability Network
The Network is an international advocacy group which aims to bring together development, environment and reproductive health NGOs, government departments, academics, policy makers and others, to increase leverage on population issues.
It endeavors to provide a 'space' in which different constituencies can learn from each other. The intention is that such increases in understanding of the issues will inform the strategies and activities of Network members, and bring population issues higher up the policy agenda in a range of other organisations.
A central aim of the Network is to increase public and professional understanding of the inter-relationship of the key issues and their importance in addressing sustainable development, poverty reduction and climate change both in the rich minority world and in the majority world.
In addition, the Network aims to explore the barriers that inhibit discussion about and action on these issues and, finally, to promote processes that increase participation and exchange between the various stakeholders.
The Network is predominantly UK based but encompasses an increasingly broad range of overseas organisations. It was launched as a United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development Partnership at CSD 12 in New York in April 2004.
Our guiding principles are: • The rights of women and men to choose to plan their families must be safe-guarded where they already exist and promoted where they do not; • Coercive family planning practices must not be tolerated.
26 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Summary The challenge of being the ‘greenest Government ever’ does not stop at the domestic level. Leadership on sustainable development must come at the global level and from the highest levels in government. RSPB suggested priority actions include: • the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister should go to Rio. Currently there is a lack of political leadership at the highest levels in the UK, something essential for the cross cutting nature of sustainable development. The original Rio Summit was allowed to succeed due to engagement by Heads of State. • GDP and beyond: understanding and respecting environmental limits is a key objective of sustainable development. Rio+20 provides an opportunity for the Government to show global leadership around accounting for Natural Capital. • the Prime Minister should work with other Heads of State to announce a target on deforestation: preferably, to halt deforestation by 2020. • DEFRA should work to ensure that the Blue Economy is an integral part of the discussion around the Green Economy.
About the RSPB The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is the largest wildlife conservation organisation in Europe with over one million members. We are part of a global network of conservation organisations called BirdLife International with Partners in over 100 countries. We engage in local, national, and international policy issues related the natural environment and resource use that affects it.
Issues to address 1. We recommend that the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister engages other leaders to give a political commitment to halt deforestation by 2020 at the summit. a. Lack of political commitment: deforestation accounts for between 15 and 20% of all human‐induced emissions of greenhouse gases; more than is emitted by the 27 countries of the European Union combined or more than all of the transport in the World. The loss of natural tropical forests is a catastrophe for wildlife. Tropical forests are the most ecologically rich of all types of forest. They are home to at least 70% of the world’s plants and animals. Forest loss also threatens the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and forest‐dependent communities worldwide, estimated to be 1.6 billion people. Yet we are lacking repeated and significant high level intergovernmental political commitment to halting deforestation. The current EU position, approved by the Council of Ministers, is to halve deforestation by 2020, with some nuance contained therein. This does not fit with the target of halting biodiversity loss by 2020 signed up to by the UK Government. Much could be achieved with high level political commitment. 2. We suggest that DEFRA take action on the ‘blue economy’ by encouraging the UN to use the summit to announce an intergovernmental conference on strengthening high seas Governance. a. Current marine regime failing to protect the ecosystem: discussions around the Green Economy regularly omit the marine environment. The summit provides an opportunity to correct this by raising the incorporation of the ‘blue economy’ as well as the specific issue of high seas governance. In many cases the existing marine management regime is failing to protect marine ecosystems, both inshore and on the high seas. With more than 1 billion people relying on fish as a source of protein, sustainable development in the marine environment is critical. Marine industries must eliminate unsustainable practices (including, for fisheries, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and bycatch of non‐target species) to safeguard marine ecosystems. 3. We suggest that DEFRA, FCO and DECC ensure that, as part of discussions on the ‘blue economy’, designation and protection of ecologically important sites should be made a priority, without which sustainability cannot be achieved. a. Regional approaches and political will: due to its relative inaccessibility, planning in and management of the marine environment is at a much earlier stage than on land. As a matter of priority ‘blue economy’ discussions should prioritise the establishment of marine protected areas as part of planning for sustainable economic use, for instance in the siting of renewable energy developments. The UK’s record on the designation of marine protected areas is mediocre, having received insufficient political support to date. In addition, FCO and DEFRA will need to come to an agreement to promote development of a clear policy in relation to protected areas in parts of the high seas subject to unresolved jurisdiction claims. Government must champion the commitment to regional agreements at the summit. For example, the OSPAR process for the protection of the marine environment of the North‐East Atlantic must drive forward the identification and designation of marine protected areas in the high seas as well as coastal waters. In parallel, the Convention on Biological Diversity must identify Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) including in the high seas.
Issues to avoid 4. Avoid opening climate negotiations: it will be important that the Rio+20 summit does not become a surrogate UN climate summit. There are existing detailed negotiations already under way over various climate issues: forest protection (REDD+), a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol etc. The failures associated with the last climate summit in Copenhagen were partly tied in with the involvement of Heads of State in the detail of the negotiation, often to the exclusion of many nations. Yet there is a role for leaders to give political commitment to overarching aims and goals, such as putting an end to deforestation (see paragraph 1.). A further risk is that if detailed climate issues were put on the agenda for Rio+20 they would risk absorbing all the political oxygen, relegating other issues crucial to sustainable development.
Issues to clarify The extent to which greening the economy can help eradicate poverty, including the tensions between growth and prosperity in the context of sustainable development. 5. Most green initiatives are not pro poor per se. Some, such as green taxes can be regressive in impact. Others, such as payment schemes for ecosystem services, can commodify resources which the poor previously had access to (like water). The impact of most measures depends on their design and how they are implemented. It can be argued however that some actions are pro poor. In biodiversity‐rich developing countries, the poor are disproportionately dependent on natural resources and ecosystem services. It follows that strategies to manage natural systems more sustainably will have a pro poor bias. The failure to address the series of ecological crises (climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity etc) currently impact disproportionately on the global poor but will eventually extend to all.
6. ‘Don’t let a crisis go to waste’: we suggest the Environmental Audit Committee makes a public statement that the current economic crisis should be seen as a time to reorient the economy towards sustainable development. a. Evidence for sustainable development: since the Rio summit evidence has accumulated to suggest current world economic activity is unsustainable. The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change (2006), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Report (2010) and the Review of the Millennium Development Goals help demonstrate two basic points. Firstly, no discernible progress with improving the environmental and social pillars of sustainable development has been made. Secondly, it makes economic sense to re‐orient the global economy towards a sustainable pathway as the short term costs of doing so are far outweighed by the long term benefits. b. Long term economic planning: current economic difficulties should not be seen as a time to relegate environmental and social issues ‘until the economy is fixed’ and therefore continue business as usual. To the contrary, a time of economic upheaval should be seized as a political opportunity to address the longer term economic outlook and promote sustainable development. 7. We suggest that the Prime Minister promotes his previous efforts to develop economic accounting measures beyond GDP. He will need to build the political case effectively with other leaders as part of Rio+20. a. Promoting work of the Natural Capital Committee: the Government’s Natural Environment White paper announced the creation of a Natural Capital Committee within Treasury that will report on the best way of securing our natural assets for the future. This represents a major step in acknowledging the importance of environmental limits. The UK’s domestic initiative can help shape progress globally on environmental accounting. b. Fundamental question: in the light of the above evidence and ongoing work, there is a fundamental question: can per capita economic growth continue indefinitely given climatic constraints and the growing evidence of the extent to which natural capital is being depleted? c. Economy based on natural resource boundaries: the earth’s ecosystem forms the fundamental basis of the economy. This ecosystem has a capacity to renew but not sustain exponential increases in demands placed upon it. d. Whether we require revolution or radical reform of our economic system Rio+20 needs to signal how to appropriately respond to the crises and opportunities that await us. It is hard to deny that, globally, we need a massive, wrenching transformation in the way we currently invest, produce and consume. Green economy prescriptions are welcome but insufficient. It would be a mistake for Rio+20 to embrace the green economy lexicon if, at the same time, it distances itself from sustainable development and Agenda 21 issues.
Institutional principles & frameworks 8. Matching policy to long term future goals: the single most fundamental shift required is the introduction of limits or fiscal instruments to alter behaviour at all levels and all scales. Arguably the most recent revolutionary change made by the Government in this respect has been the introduction of carbon targets. Our macro economic planning has traditionally centred on economic stability with resource allocation determined by cost/benefit calculus. The fundamental practical shift that is necessary is to consider where we need to be in the future and then to alter the policies and incentives we face today to effect the scale of transition sustainability requires. This principle, exemplified by the setting of carbon targets, will need to be applied across all Departments that are involved in natural resource use. This is of course a major challenge. 9. We suggest Treasury must ensure that institutional capacity to achieve sustainable development is a precondition of UK contributions to international financing institutions, while promoting this principle with other finance ministries. We urge FCO and Treasury to promote the proper embedding of sustainable development into EU financing institutions such as EIB as part of the EU’s sustainable development strategy. a. Proper due diligence currently impossible: over recent years, many development banks have written good policies on environmentally and socially responsible lending practices. However, their ability to implement these policies is blocked by lack of capacity to assess projects properly. For instance, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has two environmental specialists, who in 2010 were responsible for overseeing the environmental due diligence on 684 investment decisions, totalling €72 billion. The day‐to‐day implementation of these due diligence policies is the responsibility of engineers and economists with little environmental training. Multilateral banks need to considerably expand the number of environmental experts that they employ to show that they are serious about implementing the environmental pillar of their sustainable development policies. This should be done at a UK, EU and global level.
The objectives and roles the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run‐up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU preparations and negotiations 10. We suggest the Environmental Audit Committee calls on the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office to champion Rio+20 across Government and therefore to attend the summit. a. Sustainable development as a cross‐cutting issue: past Governments have been leaders in promoting sustainable development as a cross‐cutting issue, both domestically and abroad. It is therefore important that the policies of UK Departments that are concerned with natural resource use, HMT, DfID, DEFRA, CLG, DECC, DfT and FCO (in its responsibility for the UK Overseas Territories), should be coordinated by a Department charged with achieving joined up government. b. Devolution: in view of the fact that significant parts of natural resource use in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved administrations, it will be important for these administrations to be fully engaged in this process – to represent their delivery of sustainable development, and to be accountable to international scrutiny. c. Risk of failure: if responsibility for Rio+20 is left with DEFRA and DfID, there is a real risk that a clear political signal is not heard within Government, the EU, the G20, and the rest of the world. We view this as one of the principle risks of failure to this summit. It is arguable that several of the failures of the Johannesburg summit (Rio+10) were attributable to this limited silo engagement. Conversely, the success of the 1992 Rio summit was permitted through engagement of heads of states and concomitant public engagement in the agenda. 11. Before Rio+20, we suggest the Cabinet Office or Treasury takes on responsibility for sustainable development across Government (for matters reserved for England), and to set tangible sustainability targets. a. The Government abolished the Sustainable Development Commission as part of cost‐cutting, but has to‐date failed to determine how sustainable development will now be championed across Government. Recent planning reform proposals have proposed a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This principle of living within environmental limits is shared across the devolved administrations. Limits need to be defined. Governments tend to define environmental limits in targets and laws. While such targets and laws are not in themselves sufficient, they do provide a useful reference point to assess progress. The RSPB supports a target‐led approach because targets provide a political focus for action and encourage scrutiny and accountability. This process will need to begin before Rio+20 in order to be able to address global sustainability issues with credibility. 12. We suggest the Environmental Audit Committee promotes the role of Parliament as holding the Government to account on sustainable development. The Environmental Audit Committee could be pivotal to this. a. Accountability crucial: unless public bodies are called to account for their failure to meet environmental targets or commitments, sustainable development will be compromised. The building blocks of scrutiny include obligations to monitor and report on progress supported by independent bodies charged with holding the authority to account. In the absence of the Sustainable Development Commission, perhaps the only credible alternative is that this role is taken on by Parliament. The bottom line is that scrutiny and accountability arrangements must have teeth.
Risks 13. Green economy supplants sustainable development: a major risk that the RSPB foresees is that the green economy agenda supplants the sustainable development agenda. This can be described in two parts: a. a stool with only one leg: firstly, focus is lost of all three dimensions of sustainable development with the economy ascendant and the social and environmental dimensions relegated. This is apparent from the very notion of the agenda being about greening the economy. A clear message from Government would be required to avoid this. b. loss of the ‘green environment’: the second risk is that the natural environment aspect of green is lost. In many debates green is routinely used as a synonym for action on climate change. Nowhere is this more in evidence than the Government’s August 2011 paper ‘Enabling a transition to a green economy 2011’. For further details of how we believe the natural environment should be incorporated, please see RSPB’s parallel submission to the EAC enquiry on the Green Economy.
26 August 2011 Written evidence submitted by Dr Eloise Scotford, School of Law, Kings College London
PREPARATIONS FOR RIO+20
This submission focuses on legal developments to date concerning the ‘principles’ agreed in the 1992 Rio Declaration, and reflects on the written and substantive form in which Rio+20 might secure a renewed political commitment for sustainable development. Its main contentions are: • Despite hopeful views that many of the 1992 Rio principles have legal status in international law, the nature of such sustainable development or ‘environmental’ principles – as general statements of policy and political compromise – do not easily translate into precise and binding international legal obligations or norms. • Furthermore, in relation to domestic and regional legal systems, the legal status of environmental principles is again complex. Different environmental principles perform different legal roles in different jurisdictions, depending on the legal cultures of those jurisdictions and the kinds of disputes handled by their courts. • Going forward, settling commitments to sustainable development policies through an agreed set of overarching environmental principles is insufficient to bind negotiating states to the achievement of sustainable development goals and outcomes. • Further, shaping institutional frameworks to promote sustainable development from the international level may not be a straightforward exercise; it is the institutional frameworks of individual jurisdictions that need to be understood in detail to appreciate how a particular country and legal system will best adopt and further any (adequately defined and particularised) goals of sustainable development.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND ‘RIO PRINCIPLES’
1. Particularly since the Rio Declaration in 1992, ‘principles’ have become increasingly popular concepts in environmental policy and law internationally. Such principles include: the precautionary principle, the preventive principle, the polluter pays principle, the integration principle, the principle of intergenerational equity, and the principle of sustainable development (as well as the principle of sustainability).1 Even before the Rio
1 Which some argue is relevantly different from sustainable development: K Bosselmann, The Principle of Sustainability: Transforming Law and Governance (Ashgate, Aldershot 2008). Sustainable development is not always referred to as a ‘principle’; it is also a ‘concept’, even a ‘right’, or just a generally stated idea and goal. Declaration, environmental principles were emerging as important concepts in environmental policy in Europe and Australia, and in German administrative law.
2. Since the Rio Declaration, the profile of environmental principles has only increased, in some jurisdictions more than others, and the environmental principles in the Rio Declaration (‘Rio principles’) now have the highest profile in environmental policy and law. These principles represent a watershed moment for the ongoing international sustainable development agenda, in terms of their ambition and the extent of international consensus and commitment they represent.
3. The set of 27 Rio principles are not defined or easily definable. The principle of sustainable development in particular is the subject of much definitional confusion. The Brundtland Report’s commonly cited exposition of ‘sustainable development’ as development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ is indicative but not definitive of sustainable development as a concept. While there is a general understanding that sustainable development implies the acceptance and balancing of economic development, environmental protection and social development as equal objectives, the Brundtland formulation is ambiguous due to its multiple objectives and it is the subject of sometimes intense disagreement,2 particularly in light of those who reject its anthropocentric focus,3 or who are frustrated by its lack of operational clarity.4 As Lee suggests, ‘[a] single all- embracing definition of sustainable development is probably not possible or desirable’.5 This lack of definitional clarity is compounded by the fact that sustainable development is often said to be defined by other environmental principles, including those in the Rio Declaration. Certain of these principles – the integration principle, the principle of intergenerational equity and the principle of intra-generational equity – are suggested
2 M Jacobs, ‘Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept’ in A Dobson (ed), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (OUP, Oxford 1999). 3 A Tarlock, ‘Ideas Without Institutions: The Paradox of Sustainable Development’, 9 Ind J Global Legal Stud 35, 38; Bosselmann, Principle of Sustainability, above n1, 29-34. 4 J Ruhl, ‘Sustainable Development: A Five-Dimensional Algorithm for Environmental Law’, 18 Stan Envtl LJ 31 44; S Smith, ‘Ecologically Sustainable Development: Integrating Economic, Ecology, and Law’ 31 Willamette L Rev 261, 301-3; G Handl, ‘Sustainable Development: General Rules versus Specific Obligations’ in W Lang (ed), Sustainable Development and International Law (Graham & Trotman, 1995) 36. 5 M Lee, EU Environmental Law: Challenges, Change and Decision-making (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2005) 27. The perennial debate over the meaning of sustainable development – in international policy circles and academia in particular – was given a new twist in the recent UK Budget, in which the Government’s commitment to sustainable development morphed into a commitment to ‘development’ in its outlined reforms to the planning system: thus the Government plans to ‘introduce a new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is “yes”’ (HM Treasury, Budget 2011, London: The Stationery Office [1.82]). (variously) by commentators to be the key elements of sustainable development. Even then, these constitutive principles are themselves ambiguous. Thus, the integration principle is variously understood as the requirement to integrate environmental protection into the development process, as in Rio Principle 4; or the requirement to integrate environmental protection, economic development and social equity into international policymaking (opening up various possible ways for doing this);6 or as a ‘methodological instrument that enables decision-makers to make a transition from a sector-based (environment versus development; trade versus environment), to a more holistic approach in development planning’;7 or as the necessity to integrate the principle of intergenerational equity and the acceptance of limits on exploitation and consumption into individual as well as public choices.8 Similar abstract definitional debates are had about other Rio principles in international law, including the precautionary principle, which is notoriously difficult to define. Fisher paraphrases what she finds to be the most common version of the precautionary principle:9
[W]here there is a threat to human health or environmental protection a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures that would prevent or minimise such a threat.
However, the principle is ‘deeply ambivalent and apparently infinitely malleable’.10 This is for many reasons, including the difficult issues of scientific uncertainty and knowledge it raises and the contentious policy contexts in which it is debated and applied. Many critics of the precautionary principle focus on an extreme version of the principle which requires action.11 Definitional confusion further derives from its differing formulations in various international treaties and instruments. In short, it is not possible to state definitively what any ‘environmental principle’ is or means. Environmental principles are popular and pithy policy prescriptions – useful as terms of negotiated agreement but not binding in prescribing precise policy or legal outcomes.
4. Beyond the definitional difficulties associated with the 27 Rio principles, they do not comprise a consistent grouping of concepts. They represent a wide range of ideas about
6 Ruhl, ‘Five-Dimensional Algorithm’, above n4. 7 A Marong, ‘From Rio to Johannesburg: Reflections on the Role of International Legal Norms in Sustainable Development’, 16 Geo Int’l Envtl L Rev 21, 62-3. 8 Tarlock, ‘Ideas Without Institutions’, above n3. 9 E Fisher, Risk Regulation and Administrative Constitutionalism (Hart, Oxford 2007) 40. 10 J Scott and E Vos, ‘The Juridification of Uncertainty: Observations on the Ambivalence of the Precautionary Principle within the EU and the WTO’ in C Joerges and R Dehousse (eds) Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market (OUP, 2002) 253. 11 Eg C Sunstein, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005) 4. environmental protection and sustainability. Some principles represent economic ideas,12 some procedural ideas,13 some involve scientific issues,14 and some are more overarching, such as sustainable development, as described above. In fact, different environmental principles reflect different approaches to environmental protection altogether (although they can overlap and apply in respect of the same problem). While the precautionary principle is concerned with risk regulation, the polluter pays and preventive principles are concerned with pollution control, and the principle of sustainable development represents quite a different approach to environmental policy again, including notions of environmental justice as well as non-environmental considerations. Such a diverse set of policy ideas in an international instrument reflects the pluralistic goals of environmental and sustainable development policy, as well as the divergent understandings and priorities of stakeholders involved in agreeing such principles.
5. One result of the increasing international profile of environmental principles since the Rio Declaration has been to reinforce the assumption, often made by policymakers, scholars and judges internationally, that there now exist universal concepts of environmental principles that are derived from international agreement which are legally binding in some sense. Thus environmental lawyers often now look to environmental principles as key concepts to unify and legitimise environmental law as a scholarly discipline, to iron out complicated legal issues that arise when environmental issues cross jurisdictional boundaries, and to drive policy outcomes through legal obligation.15 In short, there is now a lot of legal hope around the work that environmental principles can do to improve environmental law, just as there is policy-driven hope about the work that environmental principles can do in promoting environmental protection and sustainable development outcomes.
6. However, as yet there is no definitive group of environment principles in international law, which might translate directly into regional and national legal systems and provide a universally coherent group of environmental principles that forces policy change across different jurisdictions. In international law terms, there are four reasons why environmental principles are legally ambiguous and inconsistent: they are contained only
12 Rio Principle 16. 13 Rio Principle 17. 14 Rio Principle 15. 15 E Scotford, Environmental Principles and the Evolution of Environmental Law (Hart Publishing, forthcoming 2012), Ch 2. in instruments of soft law such as the Rio Declaration and so have uncertain normative status; they represent between them very different kinds of ideas about environmental protection (as set out above); their meanings are unclear or contested (again, as set out above, they are inherently ambiguous pithy catchphrases of environmental policy); and those that have a high profile so far in international law debates constitute a select group of principles out of all the ‘principles’ so-called in the Rio Declaration.
7. At the same time, there have been significant legal developments in relation to environmental principles in a number of different legal systems, from the EU to India and many of the Australian jurisdictions. In some cases, these developments have been very progressive, but they have also been idiosyncratic. Thus relevant legal developments across these jurisdictions have involved different sets of environmental principles – some of which overlap with and respond directly to Rio principles and some of which have independent derivations – and they have involved different legal issues and outcomes. This is unsurprising due to the general and often ambiguous form of environmental principles and the varying legal systems involved.
ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES IN DISCRETE LEGAL SYSTEMS
8. Environmental principles have taken on a range of legal roles in different legal systems, particularly through decisions made by courts. In some jurisdictions, environmental principles have taken on very progressive and transformative roles in judicial reasoning. These include: a. providing the basis of legal decisions in constitutional cases concerning environmental protection and the right to life, compelling policy outcomes in some cases (India and Pakistan);16 b. informing and uniting the case law of a proactive and progressive specialist environmental and planning court, including determining the substantive outcomes of merits review and sentencing decisions (New South Wales). Thus, for example, the NSW Land and Environmental Court has used the principle of intergenerational equity to decide, on the merits, that a wind farm planning application ought to be approved, since intergenerational equity required the substitution of energy sources that result in fewer GHG emissions for energy
16 Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v Union of India AIR 1996 SC 2715; Zia v WAPAD PLD 1994 SC 693. sources that result in more GHG emissions, ‘thereby reducing the cumulative and long-term effects caused by anthropogenic climate change’.17
9. In each such case where a generally stated environmental principle takes on a legal role, its meaning is rendered more precise by the legal and factual context in which it is applied. Such fleshed out meanings are at best marginal – they are not universal – being largely contingent on the legal questions in relation to which, and jurisdictions in which, they are considered. This is how environmental principles end up being ‘defined’ in particular jurisdictions and how they give rise to precise and context-specific legal obligations.
10. These legal developments are sometimes on the basis of environmental principles being included expressly in domestic legislation, but not always. Thus the jurisprudence of the NSW Land and Environment Court now relies heavily on four ‘principles of ecologically sustainable development’ that are recited in the objects clauses of all its major planning and environmental legislation – the precautionary principle, the principle of intergenerational equity, the principle of conservation of biological diversity, and an expanded version of the polluter pays principle.18 Equally, in New Zealand, complex layers of the idea of sustainable development come through in its attempt to formulate a legislative version of the concept of ‘sustainable management’,19 with which the courts have since grappled, giving it divergent interpretations. However, in other cases, environmental principles have legal roles in case law due to interpretive judicial reasoning that reads such principles into legislative provisions,20 or due to activist courts drawing on environmental principles independently, particularly from their inclusion in international soft law instruments such as the Rio Declaration.21
11. Each jurisdiction in which environmental principles have a high legal profile has unique features – of jurisdiction and legal culture – which limit the direct relevance of their legal treatment of environmental principles in informing comparative legal developments in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. These features also limit the extent
17 Taralga Landscape Guardians Inc v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 59; (2007) 161 LGERA 1 [74]. In relation to NSWLEC case law concerning environmental principles more broadly, see Scotford, above n15, Ch 5. 18 The polluter pays principle is one element of a broader ‘principle of internalisation of environmental costs’. 19 Resource Management Act 1991 (NZ), s5(2). Cf National Environmental Management Act 1998, s1 which defines sustainable development differently again, as an overarching concept which comprises other environmental principles (as in NSW: Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, s6(2)). 20 Eg Ethyl Corp. v EPA, 541 F.2d 1 (DC. Cir. 1976). Such reasoning is also common in cases of the European courts. 21 Eg AP Pollution Control Board (1) v Nayudu [1999] 2 SCC 718. to which the legal effects of environmental principles can be predicted in any general sense.
12. From the perspective of UK law, EU law provides the most relevant and influential examples of legal roles take on by environmental principles. While there is no distinctive and discrete body of EU law around environmental principles, EU environmental principles have had an increasing impact on the jurisprudence of the European courts in the last 15 years. EU environmental principles do not match Rio Principles exactly but derive from the EU Treaties and include: the principle of sustainable development, the integration principle, the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, the principle of rectification at source, and the preventive principle.22 In terms of legal roles, these environmental principles now inform the interpretation of ambiguous terms in environmental legislation (eg the definition of waste, assessment obligations under the Habitats Directive, the meaning of a ‘producer’ of waste under the Waste Framework Directive); they inform tests of review of the legality of Member State action within the scope of EU environmental law (particularly in derogating from internal market rules on environmental and public health grounds); and they also inform tests of review for the legality of EU environmental and public health measures (in relation to the precautionary principle in particular, on the basis of which a detailed and complex body of case law has developed, including the development of a discrete test of legal review in EU law – requiring, for relevant decisions to be lawful, a foundation of ‘adequate scientific evidence’ obtained by as thorough a risk assessment as possible).23
13. In the UK, environmental principles are part of UK environmental law through EU law. There are also an increasing number of explicit statutory references, mainly to the principle of sustainable development, in planning legislation. Thus section 10 of the Planning Act 2008 requires that the Secretary of State must designate and review National Policy Statements under the Act with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Probably the most far-reaching and ambitious statutory reference to an environmental principle in a UK statute is found in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which imposes a general statutory duty on central and local government to have regard to sustainable development. Thus section 5(1) provides that:
22 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Arts 11, 191. 23 See further, Scotford, above n15, Ch 4. ‘A public authority must, in exercising its functions, act in the way it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in Northern Ireland, except to the extent that it considers that any such action is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.’
Further, environmental principles are scattered throughout UK policy statements, again particularly the principle of sustainable development in planning policy statements.24 Such policy statements are different from the overarching sustainable development strategies adopted by each UK political administration,25 in that they might give rise to material considerations that planning authorities must take into account in making planning decisions, or face potential judicial review proceedings. This indirect route of legally ‘enforcing’ sustainable development has not (yet) featured heavily in any cases.26 On the whole, however, there is no widespread or systematic inclusion of a range or set of environmental principles in UK environmental legislation, whether in purpose clauses or otherwise, nor in the reasoning of UK courts.
NEGOTIATING AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES
14. The broad lesson from legal experiences internationally in relation to environmental principles to date is that the act of agreeing generally-stated principles concerning sustainable development – as in the 1992 Rio Declaration – does not give rise to a binding set of clear obligations that drive desired policy outcomes in any simple way. This is because broadly agreed principles are too imprecise to give rise to clear legal obligations, and also because environmental principles influence legal argument in different ways in different jurisdictions, depending on the legal culture involved. The comparative legal picture in relation to environmental principles internationally is an increasingly prolific but also a legally complex one, which requires close analysis of relevant jurisdictions individually to appreciate their precise legal effects.
15. Thus, if the objective of Rio+20 is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, it should not be presumed that such political commitment translates into predictable legal effects. Further, any such political commitment is
24 Eg ODPM, Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, 2005, [3]. 25 Eg HM Government, The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy, CM 6467, March 2005. 26 Environmental principles might also be seen to be playing such a role in judicial review proceedings implicitly, in that they underlie relevant government policy that must be taken into account in the judicial review of Government action: see, for example, R (Hillingdon LBC & Others) v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWHC 626 Admin (considerations of sustainable development underlying various arguments and reasoning in this case). weakened to the extent that it centres on a set of generally stated, and inherently ambiguous, principles. More detailed agreement is required to ensure commitment to particular defined policy goals and outcomes, ideally in treaty form.
16. Furthermore, in negotiating about institutional frameworks for sustainable development, the legal experience concerning environmental principles in courts across different jurisdictions, set out above, shows that there is a limit to how institutions can be shaped from the international level. Different jurisdictions have different legal as well as political institutions, with their own cultures and histories, and these will inevitably shape how any commitment to sustainable development at the international level manifests within a particular jurisdiction.
17. This is just as Agenda 21 suggested, in highlighting that local action implementing sustainable development goals would be contingent and idiosyncratic: 27
The ability of a country to follow sustainable development paths is determined to a large extent by the capacity of its people and its institutions as well as by its ecological and geographical conditions. Specifically, capacity-building encompasses the country’s human, scientific, technological, organizational, institutional and resource capabilities.
Such capabilities include legal capabilities, which thus must be understood in their own terms in determining and evaluating how legal commitments to sustainable development (and other environmental policy goals reflected in principles) are, or might be, reflected within the institutional and legal framework of a particular jurisdiction.
26 August 2011
27 Agenda 21 [37.1].
Written evidence submitted by the Council for World partnership and Development, Diocese of Hereford
Preparation for the UN Sustainable Development Conference in 2012 A Bulwark against Famine
Summary
Based on its experience of working with its link Dioceses in Tanzania, the Diocese of Hereford suggests that:
• There is an urgent need for action to combat the growing hunger and famine in Africa exacerbated by climate change • Sustainable agriculture should be adopted as a means to avert hunger and famine through the development and training of small-scale farmers • Sustainable agriculture is based on social justice, inclusiveness and flourishes best within a democratic system of government • Successful change depends on working at local level • The main risk in not addressing food, farming and environment issues as a matter of urgency is civil unrest.
1. Background to this submission
1.1 The Diocese of Hereford is linked with four seaboard Dioceses in Tanzania. Its Council for World Partnership and Development (CWPD) has long-standing links with Tanzanian schools, parishes and communities. CWPD’s remit is to support poor and vulnerable people regardless of religion, political affiliation or any other grouping through self-sustaining partnerships in which people work towards mutually agreed goals.
1.2 CWPD works through unpaid officers and volunteers with the help of a budget – less than £20,000. The writer is Adviser to CWPD. Before retirement she was Director of the International Division of the Royal Institute of Public Administration and subsequently ran her own consultancy and training business working for aid agencies and governments, and has worked in 40 countries.
1.4 This paper intends to show how simple techniques help poor people to protect themselves against the worst impacts of famine, and build self-reliant communities. This objective cannot be achieved as a free-standing goal; it has implications for the development of social justice, listening to many voices in a diverse and free society, the operation of local government in a democratic system, provision of a minimal infrastructure at least, and relations with NGO’s.
1.5 For the last two years CWPD has focused on the theme of food, farming and environment, motivated in part by comments from two Tanzanian Bishops who identified the main problem in their Dioceses as hunger. Tanzania is increasingly affected by drought. Farmers are uncertain whether to plant all, or some, of their seeds as rains become more unpredictable. Most are subsistence farmers, most are poor, most are women. We are encouraging the implementation of sustainable agriculture through all means available to us, including diverse links and networks.
1.6 Currently this Diocese has 124 teachers and 3,250 children involved in links and in Tanzania the corresponding numbers are 204 teachers and 9,500 children. In addition there are parish, community and hospital links. The comments below are
{PAGE }
based on our experience of working with partners here and in Tanzania – in schools, parishes and communities. Comments are organised under the headings in the briefing document.
2. Issues which should be urgently addressed at the Rio conference include:
2.1 The short time-scale available for a response to environmental change. Two reports published in January this year have influenced us to work even more intensively to promote sustainable agriculture. These reports are: Global Food and Farming Futures published by the UK Government Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and World on the Edge by Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington. Both reports highlight the fragility of current systems of growing and storing food, demonstrating that food systems world-wide are closely interlinked with the growing impact of climate change. Brown suggests that we are one bad harvest away from chaos. Our communities in Tanzania recognise that changes in climate, in the quality of their land and in their harvests all point to the need for change now, not in the distant future.
2.2 The degradation in the quality of soil. The earth is our only resource for survival, together with air, rain, plants and energy from the sun. CWPD conducted a survey in Tanzania in 2009-10 of a cross-section of people from ministry officials to farmers, teachers, discussion groups in schools and communities to check on past history and current farming practice: the soil was not as fertile as it used to be even with the use of fertilisers, crop yields were worse, water scarcer, trees gone. In less than a generation, Tanzania has gone from having a rich and productive environment to one in which food is scarce and getting scarcer. Our experience is confirmed by the World on the Edge report (see above) which cites, for example, over-ploughing of land, sapping of the earth’s natural resources, the creation of dustbowls through soil erosion and the overuse of fertilisers, which all result in soil degradation. Our work on sustainable agriculture will help communities renew the fertility of their soil.
2.3 Lack of awareness of the way in which local factors, for which people can assume responsibility, contribute to the overall impact of global warming. Many of Africa’s fires - over 2 billion acres burn annually – rage for hours or days. Many of the materials burned in Africa mean a loss to soil fertility because if left intact, they would decompose and return to the soil as organic matter. (Mugove Nyika, ‘Facts on climate change’, paper in Forward to Eden – Report on CWPD workshop on Food, Farming and Environment, 2011.) If people feel something is within their control, they are more likely to act responsibly; if they feel the impact of climate change is overwhelming, the temptation is to do nothing.
2.4 The issue of land ownership. When asked what skills they needed to support their people, two of our Tanzanian Bishops mentioned advocacy. They needed legal advice to challenge big companies and foreign countries from buying up swathes of local land, and advice on how to evict squatters. Lester Brown, see above, gives examples of the impact of land purchase: the first shipment of rice recently sent to Saudi Arabia from Ethiopia while 5 million Ethiopians are being fed on a World Food programme, and food, grown in the Congo on Chinese-acquired land, being shipped to China while millions exist on food aid in the Congo.
2.5 Adoption of sustainable agriculture (permaculture) as a means for enabling people to grow food, develop self-reliance and avoid famine. (Some comments are drawn from More and Better Food by Mugove Nyika and Anne Bayley, both of whom are working with us in Tanzania) Sustainable agriculture exists when farming is done in a way that it does not compromise the ability of future generations to
{PAGE }
produce their own food. Farmers keep all the natural resources such as land, plants, and animals healthy, and water and air clean so that all these resources remain productive for future generations. Such methods ensure the maintenance of ecological life support and biological diversity as well as good use of resources. The methods focus therefore on using a resource-based approach to farming and the environment that conserves water and energy, avoids damage to soil from tillage, leaves soil surfaces undisturbed (covered with mulch while mature plants grow to maturity), and does not use artificial nitrogenous fertilisers or chemical pesticides. This technique promotes mixed planting (not monoculture) and uses compost to feed the soil, and mulch to keep surfaces covered in order to maintain and increase soil productivity. We have seen that these methods, used in schools and local communities, produce from bare, dry ground, an abundance of fruit and vegetables within the space of a few months. These techniques are easy to learn, cheap to implement, economical of effort (allowing human energies to be directed at money-making activities) and fit government and Diocesan priorities, e.g. all schools in Tanzania are now expected to grow food and priests throughout the Dioceses also expect to grow their own food – they would otherwise have none – or very little. Thus there are powerful role models to spread the techniques.
2.6 Appreciation of the role of small-scale farmers in producing food. They are the key to increasing food production in the 21st century. They were largely ignored during the ‘green’ revolutions of the 20th century but now that there is little new land to bring into cultivation, their role will be more important: small-scale farmers are better than large industrial scale farmers at increasing output.
2.7 Appreciation of the ethical values underpinning sustainable agriculture or permaculture. In this method of farming, the farmer remains in control of farming and the farming process, can draw on tradition (e.g. planting traditional, more nutritious crops instead of imported ones), working in sympathy with a modern understanding of ecology. For this process to work within a community, the process of change comes from within the community itself: suggestions, discussions, adaptation, agreements, and agreed action. This iterative procedure may seem over complicated to aid agencies and governments, which have to deliver results against a timetable, often to meet political objectives, but its roots go deep and firm. Its guiding principle is long- term ecological sustainability. It aims at developing environmental management systems that are socially just, economically viable and ecologically diverse, stable and resilient.
2.8 The importance of local small scale training to suit a local context, developing local change agents within local organisations. The values and techniques outlined above put an emphasis on the strengthening of local communities, encouraging them to take charge of their own development, offering them information, working with them so that they can see that the growing of food is the first step in the alleviation of their poverty. The Diocese, building on the experience of its long-term links in Tanzania and the expertise of the authors of More and Better Food, is planning to offer, in conjunction with its Tanzanian partners, short training and development activities with the following characteristics:
o Emphasis on practical learning to achieve sustainable harvests o Emphasis on learning relevant to specific climate conditions across our 4 link Dioceses, i.e. common agriculture themes adapted to different conditions and communities o Sharing of experience of farming – across gender and across generations
{PAGE }
o Sharing of of development evaluation criteria – to encourage specific goals and to widen aspiration. If this is what we hope for, what do we have to do? o Shared development of realistic action plans for growing food in a sustainable way o Focus on continuation, evaluation and sharing of learning across communities.
In order to start this process of transformation we will need to raise money. Generous though our own Bishop has been, and although we have mainly worked through volunteers, we still need to persuade funding agencies to invest in these small-scale activities, in competition with the large consultancy and business companies which appear attractive to traditional funders. As a Ugandan World Bank Adviser once said, ‘It takes as much time to read a bid for $50,000 as it does to read one for $500,000. It’s a more efficient use of time and money to go for the larger bid.’ Efficient for whom?
2.9 Development of networks for the sharing of experience. The best networks give people a voice, strengthen communities, bring in different views and experience, are inclusive rather than exclusive, are capable of taking many different forms, welcome people for their expertise and can be life-enhancing for people on the edge of survival. However, networks have weaknesses too: people drop in and out, move away, or change profession. They are voluntary and not easily managed in the conventional sense. The Hereford Diocese has found that personal contact over many years has encouraged the development of sustainable professional networks through its link schools, parish links and many contacts in Tanzania. The Diocese is now looking to formalise some of these networks to facilitate the sharing of information and expertise through group activities, meetings, emails (when the electricity is functioning) and involvement of more groups, e.g. politicians and farmers, from our own Diocese in links with Tanzania.
2.10 Challenging the conventional view of agricultural development. Conventional development in agriculture has become overlaid with values derived from big business: maximisation of profit, large centralised organisations perpetually seeking growth (sometimes through the trading of commodities which may never leave a warehouse), specialists isolated from each other and from those they are supposed to serve, nature seen as something to control and dominate, success measured in monetary terms – all leading to the simplification of diets and landscapes, leading in turn to poor health, and land susceptible to infertility and drought. High input technologies are sometimes imposed but they do not always sustain productivity, thus leading to increased food insecurity and a culture of dependence and deepening poverty.
2.11 Exploring the relationship between environment, poverty and power. Poor people have no power. We see in Tanzania concern over land rights, inheritance, the role of big business and the buying up of land by foreign governments. A review of the recent history of famine, Poverty and Famine by Amartya Sen, Nobel Prizewinner for his work on development economics, shows that major famines were failures of organisation where no political pressure had been applied in the run up to the actual famine. Democracies on the whole do not experience famine. Some countries in Africa have, for example, restrictions on owning land, and systems of government which do not allow dissent or the free spread of information. Tanzania is an open society where there is hope for developments to relieve poverty.
{PAGE }
2.12 Challenging the accepted link between growth and prosperity. Prosperity and well-being do not necessarily depend on continuous growth. There are not sufficient resources available for everyone to live a Western life-style.
3. Extent to which greening the economy can help eradicate poverty
3.1 The experience of using sustainable agriculture or permaculture techniques shows that a ‘green’ method of farming helps to eradicate poverty. The following comments on the comparative amounts of food grown under different conditions come from a paper given by Mugove Nyika at a seminar on sustainable agriculture in Hereford to our local farmers in July this year.
‘The yield from a permculture land-use system is always multi-faceted. While you can get 10 tones of hybrid or GMO maize on a hectare using conventional agriculture, you can easily get, on a permculture designed hectare, 5 tonnes of organic maize - and in addition you will have at least 1 tonne of green pumpkin and 2 tonnes of yellow pumpkin, 1 tonne of cowpea, half a tonne of cucumber, 2 tonnes of sweet millet, 1 tonne of sweet potato, a quarter tonne of at least 5 species of vegetables, a quarter tonne of various herbs, 3 tonnes of firewood, 4 tonnes of compost and/or mulch and all this on a very low external input budget.
Taken to the kitchen, the 10 tonnes of hybrid maize produce a simplified diet that brings with it a host of health problems such as kwashiorkor in children. The permaculture diet leads to a diversified diet and its attendant health benefits. In a pest outbreak the permaculture designed farm suffers fewer losses. During a drought year the permaculture designed farm suffers lower losses. The profit margins are higher on the permaculture farm and the farmer is in greater control of the farming process and is less dependent of external forces.’
3.2 Healthy eating also suggests that we should cut back on meat consumption, reducing the industrial output of meat which puts a strain on grain stores, water supplies and leads to the cutting down of forests. Sustainable agriculture has not been given enough attention either for its potential in tackling poverty or its capacity to reverse desertification. Thus ‘greening’ the economy is not a simple strategy to be implemented on its own but has implications for wider political initiatives. Food, farming and environment policy will be more important than industrial development as a measure of development in the future: agriculture has been taken for granted for too long.
4. Institutional frameworks required to deliver a green economy and a sustainable future for all
4.1 Based on our experience of working in partnership with Tanzania, we suggest that the following ideas for institutional frameworks are valuable in the development of a ‘green’ economy:
• Create institutions which are representative of their community, with the capacity to listen to all stakeholders, women and elderly included • Devolve responsibility to local level as much as possible, giving institutions a remit to network with various local constituencies • Provide professional, local, action-based training and development for institutions, extended where possible to local NGOs in the same locality, local
{PAGE }
politicians and community leaders, and disadvantaged groups to encourage a local voice for change and the capacity to deliver that change. Provision for the sharing of experiences and the evaluation of outcomes. • Provide training and development in communication and journalism, particularly the imaginative use of mobile phones, texting, and local radio to stimulate awareness of the urgency for action in ‘going green’ • Support NGOs which have the capacity to develop ‘green’ networks through schools, parishes and communities • Publicise good results • Show that famine is not inevitable • Trust people to develop a vision of their own future and see how ‘in small things they may perfect be.’ • Build confidence in people’s capacity to work towards their vision, to call others to account and to recognise when a proper account is being given • Rein in the big organisations which avoid taxes, and exploit natural resources while short-changing local people. Stamp out corruption. A ‘green’ economy means that some of us will have to make a smaller ‘footprint’. Some people who work for the greedier organisations and governments may have to be reminded that their children and grandchildren hope to have a stake in the future too.
5. Objectives and roles to be assumed by UK government
5.1 Potential objectives for the UK government are to:
• Ensure that the items listed under 1 are addressed at all levels in the conference - in ‘big government’ and in ‘the informal sector’ as well • Promote sustainable agriculture together with its ethics and institutional assumptions as a bulwark against famine • Persuade the funding agencies to accept bids from small organisations, using their own example of DFID’s experimental funding against poverty • Decouple prosperity and growth as concepts which inevitably belong together.
5.2 Potential roles for the UK government are:
• Builder of alliances before the Rio conference, especially with Commonwealth countries, to promote sustainable agriculture and associated policies • Networker with the informal sector organisations, largely ignored at the Copenhagen conference, building their confidence to lobby for changes in policies with regard to food, farming and environment • Negotiator with funding agencies for more imaginative approaches to funding • Persuader of big business and associated millionaires that they should invest in the development of communities as well as single track projects, e.g. vaccination, which stops children dying of disease but will not stop them dying from hunger.
6. Ideal outcomes from Rio+20 – and how agreements should be monitored
6.1 Agreement that sustainable agriculture is established as a priority for action by governments, funding agencies, the ‘informal sector’ and NGOs would be the ideal outcome for us.
{PAGE }
6.2 Monitoring of agreements could be through: setting of deadlines for action by governments, monitoring of funding policies of aid agencies, encouraging the informal sector and NGO’s to monitor land use, farming methods and food production.
7. Potential risks to the ideal outcomes – and lessons learned from previous conferences
7.1 The main risk to our ideal outcome is civil unrest. If governments and communities fail to address climate change and fail to adopt more sustainable methods of farming, they will endure the inevitable consequences of food shortages. Hungry people become increasingly unreasonable.
26 August 2011
{PAGE } Written evidence submitted by the International Institute for Environment and Development
A. Introduction and Summary
A.1 The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) is a policy research organisation which focuses on sustainable development challenges and solutions, particularly in low and middle income countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. By forging alliances with individuals and organisations ranging from urban slumdwellers to global institutions, IIED ensures that national and international policy reflects the agendas of marginalised people (see www.iied.org).
A.2 IIED hosts the Green Economy Coalition (GEC) which is an international alliance of organisations which share the view that our economy is failing to deliver either environmental sustainability or social equity. In short, our economic system is failing people and the planet. The shared vision is of a resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of the planet. The Coalition’s mission is to accelerate the transition to a new green economy (see www.greeneconomycoalition.org).
Summary
• A strong negotiated outcome to the Summit looks unlikely – but the focus on green economy in the context of poverty eradication plus sustainable development governance is highly appropriate • There is much that the UK and others can achieve through focusing in 3 areas: o showcasing highly effective initiatives and policies which can be replicated and scaled up to achieve major impact o supporting ‘coalitions of the willing’ in areas such as job creation, wealth accounting and valuation of ecosystem services, and government procurement policy and practice o debating and progressing principles and tools for future global collaboration – notably the framework to come into effect when most of the Millennium Development Goals reach their target date in 2015 • The institutional framework for a green economy requires real change – for the UK as much as for other countries. Priorities for attention include: o Move beyond GDP as the main means to define progress in development and the way we measure it o Bring environment into national budgets and policy frameworks o Make changes in decision‐making structures – recognising that powerful actors benefit from the status quo while our current economic models don’t adequately benefit the vast majority o Empower unrecognised actors who already play key roles in ‘greening’ economies and can do more if supported effectively o “Tilt the playing field” to encourage sustainable practices by businesses, governments and consumers o Make changes in environmental management and accounting to enable better management and use of environmental assets
1. Issues which should be urgently addressed at Rio and issues that should be avoided
1.1 We are currently losing the battle for sustainable development. The incremental changes in economic policy and governance that we have been able to bring about are not keeping pace with the more negative trends that persist, notably in the fields of environment, climate and energy and also in resource scarcity and inequality in access to water, food and fuel both between and within countries. While 20 years ago at the first Rio Summit major progress was achieved in establishing new conventions and shared understanding of common goals and imperatives, the prognosis for Rio 2012 is bleak: the failure of the climate change COP15 in Copenhagen, and lack of momentum in other global negotiations has led to a decline in interest in global environmental issues at the senior political and policy level.
1.2 A core of major powers has little interest in locking themselves into domestic policy obligations on environmental issues through international commitments and routinely resists strong consensus agreement in UN fora. The UN secretariat has limited capacity to provide intellectual leadership on the issues on the agenda and the UN has adopted a markedly low‐key approach to the Summit preparations (eg. only providing 8 days of inter‐governmental negotiating time, in comparison with UNCED in 1992, for which approximately 50 days were scheduled). Many have looked to the Brazilian hosts (both the government and civil society organisations) to articulate a high level of ambition for the Summit but this has yet to emerge and time is short.
1.3 Given the above, while the issues on the agenda for Rio +20 are hugely important and timely, any progress in agreeing common commitments and frameworks for action is likely to be small in scale and of little significance in relation to the current challenges and future trends the world faces. However, this doesn’t mean that Rio 2012 is not an important event with potential to have major positive impacts on future policy and practice around the world. Although the Chinese, Indian and US governments (and others) can be expected to block agreement to major new commitments, all recognise the need to shift energy use away from fossil fuels; to invest in low‐carbon technologies and jobs; and to plan for a future in which key resources become even scarcer. For many poorer countries, the impacts of climate change and resource scarcity are placing immediate pressures on society and economy – and solutions that can work within each country are urgently needed, together with support from the wider world. A high profile global event on green economy and sustainable development governance can have a major impact in sharing lessons from good practice (and cutting out bad practice); in allowing ‘coalitions of the willing’ to form without being held back by others; and in enabling high level dialogue and agreement on the principles and tools needed
1.4 The UK Government should actively promote three linked approaches in the Rio +20 process:
1.4.1 Sharing of good practice. This might include:
a. Lessons on increasing energy access for poor and marginalised communities b. Lessons on spatial planning and urban development – including direct engagement of alliances of urban poor people plus development agencies (see for example IIED and UNFPA work on urban density: { HYPERLINK "http://www.urbandensity.org/" }) c. Identification of appropriate technologies which have significant energy savings, are readily transferrable and have potential to operate at scale (see for example work led by Development Alternatives in India on the Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln ‐ { HYPERLINK "http://www.iges.or.jp/en/cdm/pdf/india/04/10.pdf" })
1.4.2 Development of ‘coalitions of the willing’ on key issues. For example:
a. Build on work of the cross‐agency WAVES partnership (Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services) led by the World Bank to explore willingness of countries, inter‐ governmental agencies, regional and city authorities plus non‐state actors to adopt better measures of economic value in their decisions and operations b. Join with other countries willing to commit to supporting creation of significant numbers of green and fair jobs through use of policy incentives, regulation and investment c. Join with other countries willing to use government procurement as a lever to shift market practice through guaranteeing use of sustainable and ethically produced products wherever possible
1.4.3 Elaboration of principles and tools to underpin global collaboration in a rapidly changing world. Major issues the UK could lead on or contribute to include:
a. Assessing the future role of development aid and climate finance. Over the coming decade climate finance channelled from high income to middle and low income countries will dwarf official aid flows, but the links between the two are still very unclear. Climate‐resilient poverty reduction will not be cheap: making the MDGs in Africa resilient to climate change over the next decade was recently estimated to be 40% more expensive than in a non‐climate change affected scenario. The UK Government has strong credibility in this context, both through continued growth in our aid budget and through leadership on international climate change policy and knowledge generation. HMG (and particularly DFID and DECC) plus the multi‐agency Poverty Environment Partnership (in which DFID plays a leading role) should use the Summit to engage in dialogue with developing countries to explore how climate finance can take on board lessons from aid effectiveness about the need to align with, and support, national development and policy. b. Supporting better REDD strategies. There’s been a strong global push to create the means to pay for avoided deforestation but with insufficient attention to the complex systems governing rights to forest resources. This poses a significant hurdle to strategies for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). Dialogue involving key countries and relevant non‐governmental actors in the Rio context could lead to significant improvements in practice in the management, channelling and use of REDD funding – particularly through better recognition of the need for effective and accountable national governance to deliver clear and fair benefits for forest‐dependent people in country as well as current and future contributions to global emission reductions. c. Relaunch the concept of global sustainability – focusing on responsible and equitable economic models and sustainable prosperity. As a result of high level political engagement in climate change policy, the sustainability concept is now much more anchored in future economic and resource development. If climate change is the problem, sustainable development is the solution. While future climate change accords are clearly necessary, it is new economic and governance goals and structures – a ‘green economy’ – that will drive sustainable development. There is some momentum behind efforts to start setting the framework for international co‐ operation in Rio next year that will succeed the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (see for example the work of the UN High Level Panel on Global Sustainability). The UK could play a key role arguing the need for this framework and helping to establish credible and ambitious effort to put this framework in place over the next 4‐5 years.
2 The extent to which greening the economy can help eradicate poverty
2.1 The current dominant economic model will increase extremes of poverty and disparity between rich and poor if it is allowed to continue unchecked: attempts to shift our economies to a more sustainable and fairer footing are of fundamental importance if to efforts tackle poverty, now and in the future, are to have any chance of success. The last few years have seen a combination of crises that threaten our ability to spread prosperity and sustain our planet. Climate change, environmental degradation, unemployment, poverty, insecurity and inequality seem to feed off one another. At their roots are prevailing ‘extractive’ economic models, and governance systems that are not capable of shaping a world that respects nature’s potentials and limits.
2.2 It is now considered inevitable that climate change, a by‐product of unsustainable growth, will threaten the lives and livelihoods of many, especially poor people. As a result, previous gains in development are being reversed – leading to a loss of 5‐20% World Gross Product by 2050, with 55‐90 million more people living in extreme poverty and 100 million more suffering hunger. Real ‘tipping points’ are looming in environmental, social and economic systems, but our governance and financial systems cannot cope with such linked changes. While we are currently aware of the climate change boundary, others are looming closer unrecognised. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 revealed how the environmental foundations of development are threatened. It calculated that 60% of ecosystems are now degraded with, for example, 75% of marine fisheries fully or over‐exploited, and a freshwater crisis imminent. In 2009 an authoritative paper in Nature identified the world as having exceeded three of nine interconnected ‘planetary boundaries’.
2.3 What is true for the environment is true for many development issues. The Millennium Development Goals stand out not only because they were adopted by Heads of State at the Millennium Summit but because they are realistic and eminently implementable. No insurmountable financial, institutional, cultural or diplomatic obstacle stands in the way of smooth progress towards their realisation. But with the target dates growing closer, it appears that very few goals will be met.
2.4 Why, then, take the current wave of interest in “green economies” seriously? There are several good reasons to do so now, despite the limited impact in the past:
2.4.1 First, the dominant global economic paradigm – variously called the Washington Consensus or neo‐liberalism – collapsed with the economic crisis of September 2008, provoking the deepest global economic downturn since the Great Depression. Despite prominent efforts to put the economy back on its feet on the same basis as before, many also believe that the crisis is an opportunity to amend economic organisation. 2.4.2 Second, the economic collapse coincides with the growing fear of irreversible environmental crises, and realisation that returning to environmentally destructive forms of growth would only precipitate these crises and undermine the economic foundations of recovery. Fear of climate change is the most visible of these, but it is likely that influential people will begin to take seriously the evidence that other crises are imminent. Most of the recovery packages claim – at least in name – various shades of green. 2.4.3 Third, if a new economy is to be designed with the imperative of controlling climate change as an integral motivation, then attention shifts to imagining what that economy might look like and how we might get there. The emerging scenarios are attractive – most proposals emphasising ‘low‐carbon’ models, ambitiously reframing our approaches to generating and using energy, and promising a range of new green jobs, industries and business opportunities, especially for the first movers. The imperative stems from observing the jobless growth, the breakdown of social institutions and the rapid degradation of natural resources and ecosystems that appeared to be an inevitable companion of the form of growth followed by the neo‐liberal agenda 2.4.4 Finally, there are also recent calls to shift economic goals towards resilience as opposed to growth. Some of them also point, if obliquely, to (a) social justice and equity, and (b) investing in good management of the environmental asset base – both key contributors to that resilience.
Why does the world need green economies?
1. Economic security and human wellbeing are dependent on natural systems 2. Yet much economic activity damages natural systems and creates poverty 3. Economic inequality exacerbates this, as fewer actors make resource use decisions 4. Certain policies, such as subsidies for fossil fuels and corporate accountability frameworks, are clear causes – but are entrenched by vested interests 5. A few policy and market innovations reveal ways forward – but are not at scale 6. The problem is systemic: debt‐fuelled, consumption‐based growth with insecure jobs is so entrenched that we rely on it to solve the problems it creates 7. Thus a spiralling confluence of crises in economic, natural and social systems is beginning to exceed system thresholds 8. Thus we need a system‐wide effort to put ‘people’ and ‘planet’ into the heart of economic thinking, governance and management.
[from ‘A Green Economy Framework: To inform dialogue, diagnosis and strategy’ (Steve Bass, IIED
Working Paper August 2011)
3 The institutional frameworks required to deliver a ‘green economy’ and a more sustainable future
3.1 As above, green economy is not a ‘bolt on’ to existing economic models. Many of the following entail institutional transformation at national level, which will require strong political commitment, capacity, and (in many instances) international support and engagement. HMG should assess the extent to which the UK can claim to address these issues, and also how we can effectively support and learn from others’ efforts:
3.2 Redefine progress in development and the way we measure it: GDP has proven to be a grossly inadequate tool for measuring national development, and GDP driven economic, monetary and fiscal policies and targets have led to many of the problems we are now confronting. The need for new methods and indicators has been increasingly acknowledged. For example, the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, established by the President of France, has developed recommendations for a global measurements system that emphasises people’s well‐being rather than economic production. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment is a significant contribution to this ongoing debate: how can lessons and policy implications be shared in the context of Rio +20?
3.3 Bring environment into national budgets and policy frameworks: Industrial, economic, fiscal, agricultural, health, land use, transport and many other policies can have impacts, both positive and negative, on ecosystems and the goods and services they contribute to human well‐being. Achieving a green economy requires that environmental concerns and priorities are taken into account at all levels of national policy making and spending, and also integrated into the countless tributaries of development – sectoral government ministries and departments, local government institutions, businesses, the media, academia and civil society in its many facets. How is the UK addressing this challenge? What do we have to share with others and how can we learn from their experience?
3.4 Changes in decision‐making structures: One barrier to change is that those who are setting economic and market policies believe they are well served by the status quo. Invalid assumptions are therefore made about others’ demand, preferences and willingness to change. The language and tools of public participation, while widely accepted in many areas of development, have barely made an impact on economic and financial planning. There is much that participatory approaches can do to bring economic policies and decisions more into line with the widely shared desire for a sustainable future. Decentralising decision‐making processes can also help to assure that those affected by economic decisions have a say in them. In Brazil and several other countries, participatory budgeting, in which citizens are directly involved in setting budget priorities, is used by many municipalities. Resulting decisions have seen greater allocation of government resources to expenditures with widespread impacts on well‐being, such as health care.
3.5 Empowering unrecognised actors: Much of what is now contributing to the emergence of a green economy is coming not from governments or the mainstream business sector but from economic actors that are often overlooked, including the informal sector, local communities and social enterprises that have characteristics of NGOs, unions and businesses. The Self‐Employed Women’s Association in India has put in place a system in which poor women in the informal sector get organised, receive training and earn better wages by providing communities with electricity through renewable energy sources. The NGO IDE has created a flourishing business in treadle pumps in India and Bangladesh, which has allowed millions of poor farmers to greatly increase their incomes. Waste recycling employs millions of poor people, particularly women, in cities throughout the world – very often in terrible conditions. A 2008 study of informal waste recycling in five cities estimated the combined value of environmental benefits from these activities at up to €30 million per year. Not only are the contributions of these actors rarely considered in economic planning, but in many countries some of them are systematically excluded, particularly the informal sector. The economy needs to identify, scale up and strengthen these innovative initiatives, which have positive environmental and social as well as economic outcomes, and assure these actors a voice, rights, legal and social protection.
3.6 “Tilt the playing field” to encourage sustainable practices by businesses, governments and consumers: Tilting the playing field means making ‘good’ behaviour cheaper and ‘bad’ behaviour more expensive. For consumers the sustainable choice and lifestyle should be the easy and right choice. Often the reverse is true at the moment, so we need to level and then tip the rules in favour of positive behaviour and business practice. One good example is the German “feed‐in” tariff that has provided 200,000 green jobs in Germany and significantly increased the amount of renewable energy used. By providing an incentive for people and companies to generate their own renewable energy and input the surplus to the national grid at a guaranteed premium, the playing field was tilted effectively in favour of both small and larger scale renewable energy production.
3.7 Changes in environmental management and accounting: With ecological limits approached or already exceeded, scarcities in natural resources reflected in wild price fluctuations, and environmental deprivations making up a significant part of poverty, it makes real sense to be more organised in accounting for, and managing, environmental assets. The last decade has seen some innovations that need now to be reflected in – or integrated into – key mainstream procedures, such as public expenditure review and development monitoring. They include:
3.7.1 Integrated assessment of human and ecosystem wellbeing. The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment developed a framework linking human and ecosystem well‐being for its 2000 global assessment. This framework might also inform better ways to integrate factors such as national accounts, development monitoring, household census, and environmental assessment. 3.7.2 Environmental cost accounting: One approach being widely used is EcoBudgeting, an environmental management system designed with and for local governments to help them plan, monitor and report on natural resource consumption within a municipal boundary. It has three main components, which mimic the phases of the financial budgeting cycle: budget planning, spending and balancing. Citizen and stakeholder participation is considered critical to success. EcoBudgeting was pioneered in the Philippines and is now being used by a number of other countries including India, Sweden and Italy. 3.7.3 Environmental certification: Certification programmes can protect natural resources from overuse by steering consumers towards products that are exploited sustainably. For example, the Marine Stewardship Council has developed standards for sustainable fishing and seafood traceability to ensure that the products it certifies come from, and can be traced back to, a sustainable fishery. The programme currently covers 69 certified fisheries, which are reviewed on an annual basis. 3.7.4 Co‐benefits: The costs of environmental management can be converted to social and economic benefits when management also contributes to other national objectives. For example, the Working for Water Programme in South Africa has cleared more than one million hectares of invasive alien plants, providing jobs and training for about 30,000 poor rural people each year, more than half of whom are women. The scheme, which has been in operation for 15 years, also helps develop entrepreneurial skills and alternative jobs for women in ecologically sensitive areas, such as the production of charcoal from the vegetation cleared. Also, the Building and Woodworkers International has promoted afforestation and reforestation policies in East African countries, as a means for securing incomes, jobs and the environment.
4. The objectives and roles the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run‐up to the Conference
4.1 As set out under section 1 above: • Showcase good practice and innovation – and create effective means for this to continue and grow after the Summit • Actively seek to develop commitments to act jointly among likeminded countries – and other non‐ state actors (eg trade unions, civil society alliances, private sector) • Elaborate principles and tools to underpin global collaboration to realise sustainable development
5. The ideal outcomes from Rio +20 and how any agreements should subsequently be monitored
5.1 First, focus on accountability. Rio +20 will be a failure if its main output is a “consensus text” that merely recalls past agreements, or creates further weak and unenforceable ones, reflecting the lowest common denominator or willingness to change among participating government officials. It is much more important to focus on implementation of existing targets and accountability for action. It must challenge countries to make unilateral or shared political commitments to change, and to show how they will be accountable. It should also offer an attractive stage for them to showcase those commitments.
5.2 Despite the concerns noted above over the current political context for Rio +20, we see a strong need for international consensus on the goals of sustainable development and the potential for ‘green economy’ and effective governance and institutions to move us in the right direction. In our ideal scenario, the very language that the world uses to discuss the economy would change in order to break away from and move beyond the neo‐liberal paradigm that has served a few well, but has served our planet and too much of society so poorly. The big shifts that Rio 2012 could help the world to understand, to commit to, and to be accountable for, include these: International 5.3 A new way of understanding and supporting innovation. In order to break out of current systems and infrastructures that the world is “locked in to” – such as fossil fuel‐based mobility, fragmented decision‐making processes, and national or local regulations to global challenges – more radical innovation processes and pathways need to be set out. In many cases, innovation will need to involve many more stakeholders and industries – bottom‐up, community or workplace innovations revealing pathways for reorganising society. It may be rooted less firmly in market contexts.
5.4 An end to financial practices that fuel environmental degradation and economic insecurity. The unconstrained expansion of the global financial sector has produced too many negative social and environmental returns. Strong international accords must be agreed to rein in dangerous speculation and to instead encourage positive externalities from economic activity. One piece of the solution should be a global commitment to sustainable employment through decent and green job creation.
5.5 Recapitalisation of our natural resource base. Leaving environmental protection in the hands of the market or governments alone has failed. What is needed now is a sustained global commitment, matched by robust financial mechanisms, to recapitalise eroded soils, depleted water bodies, degraded forests and fisheries and other parts of the natural resource base, and to incentivise investment in such ‘green infrastructure’ that provides countless goods and services to society, from flood protection to timber, recreation and clean drinking water.
5.6 An international challenge “race to the top”. The more profitability can be aligned with the creation of positive sustainable development outcomes, the more likely it is that business will strive to deliver these. This will require getting not just the prices right but also getting the incentives right. The WTO and other international trade and financial institutions often undermine efforts to move in this direction at present. But if the goals and values by which they operate are reframed these institutions can be important partners in achieving a more sustainable world.
6. Potential risks to the ideal outcomes being achieved and lessons from previous conferences
6.1 There is a very real risk that preparations for the Summit will see a steady downgrading of expectations and an attritional negotiating process which entails rearguard action by the EU and others to retain existing commitments and language from dilution or removal. There is also significant hostility toward the ‘green economy’ concept from many G77 governments and civil society organisations: in part this is justified in that the concept has not been adequately articulated as one which draws on their countries’ priorities or realities, or as a tool which is intended to aid in a collective transition to a fairer and more sustainable world.
6.2 The second Summit focus, on the institutional framework for sustainable development, is also widely questioned: while a thorough analysis of lessons since 1992 would suggest that the dominant governance capacity to deliver sustainable development lies at national level, to date the Summit deliberations have been dominated by a rather stale rehash of longstanding positions on the international institutional framework (notably the mandate for the UN Environment Programme and potential amendments to the role and functions of the UN General Assembly). There seems little likelihood that this will lead to major improvement given that past efforts to recast these parts of the UN system have come to nothing. In the meantime key actors from national contexts with real contributions to make to an international process addressing SD governance will largely be left out as a result of this misplaced priorisation.
6.3 As a result the main focus and objectives of the Summit may be called into question during the preparatory process and the negotiation of the consensus text may run into serious problems (as happened at the 2011 session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and of course at the 2009 UNFCCC COP15 in Copenhagen).
30 August 2011
Written evidence submitted by Oxfam GB
Oxfam GB welcomes the opportunity to make a submission to the Committee’s inquiry on the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in June 2012 (“Rio+20”). Oxfam works with partners around the world to find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice. Currently, we work in more than 70 countries and respond to an average of 30 emergency situations each year. Oxfam believes that people are entitled to five fundamental rights: a sustainable livelihood; basic social services; life and security; to be heard; and equity. We work to support people in realising these rights and fight poverty and suffering through campaigning, long-term development work, and emergency response. Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International, a confederation of 15 Oxfam affiliates around the world.
Summary
1. Rio+20 is a milestone Summit that can deliver decisive action. The world has deep knowledge about sustainable development and many of the solutions needed, yet the threats to sustainability are increasing. The barriers to progress are largely political, as governments focus on short-term issues, over longer-term, global risks to prosperity and security. Rio is a unique opportunity to expand political space and agree concrete actions to build a fair, resilient and sustainable economy. It sets the direction for another generation: on-going policy paralysis and multiplying resource risks, or paradigm shift for a new prosperity.
2. Failure at Rio carries high costs and risks – governments must not waste this opportunity. Rio+20 could fail to achieve strong outcomes due to the low priority and ambition accorded to it by governments, including the UK. Yet failure at Rio would only lead to: an ongoing drag on economic recovery and development from a depleted natural asset base; destabilising competition over scarce resources; greater market volatility, macro-economic imbalances, social deprivation and unrest; a reversal of progress on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); and a loss of faith by citizens in governments’ ability to take decisive action. Strong UK action on Rio+20 can help achieve economic stability.
3. Governments should view Rio as both a “catalyst” and “pathfinder” Summit. Without a specific treaty to negotiate, Governments are still grappling with what outcomes Rio can deliver. Identifying these is not straightforward – which is why the UK and other governments need to increase engagement rapidly. In general terms, governments should view Rio+20 as a Summit to:
• Set the vision for 21st century development and agree concrete measures across key areas that will shift economies onto a sustainable, equitable path (“catalyst”).
• Identify areas where future multilateral action is needed to manage shocks and scarcity, and start to build the interim steps and progressive coalitions to achieve these (“pathfinder”).
• Engage citizens so they are inspired to act and change consumption behaviours, and support strong governmental and intergovernmental action.
4. Rio must focus on the big questions of greening economic development, achieving fairness in a world of resource constraints, and increasing resilience to shocks and risks. Some specific outcomes Oxfam GB believes the UK and other governments should work toward include:
• Agreeing a vision and approach to the green economy that make poverty-eradication, equity and resilience central - not supplementary. • Committing to reform the food system, focusing on key hotspots of food security, smallholder agriculture, agro-ecological approaches, gender, soil, water and biodiversity. • Agreeing new energy goals to expand energy access to the poorest, shift to renewables and increase energy efficiency. • Using new indicators of economic progress, additional to GDP, focused on well-being and equality, on building social, human and economic wealth, and preserving natural resources. • Championing a financial transactions tax and measures to raise finance from international transport to generate financial flows for climate change and poverty reduction. • Enacting a step-change in global institutional co-ordination and coherence – in particular to mitigate, and respond to, resource-related crises and risks, such as food and climate shocks.
5. The UK is in a good position to show leadership due to its record on aid and climate change. Raising the priority across Whitehall and building buy-in for strong outcomes in key international fora are vital. The PM pledging his attendance at Rio can help build political momentum.
Defining the challenge and vision of 21st century development
6. Progress on sustainable development since 1992 has been weak and, overall, threats have worsened. Whilst millions of people have been lifted out of poverty, the benefits of growth have been unevenly distributed and global income inequality is rising. Hunger levels are almost unchanged from 40 years ago, despite gains in income and agricultural productivity. We have faced two food price crises within 3 years and now a famine in Somalia. Humanity’s ecological footprint has more than doubled since 1966 and we are using nature’s services 50 per cent faster than Earth can renew them. We have transgressed 3 out of 9 critical planetary boundaries (biodiversity, greenhouse gases, nitrate use). Further natural resource depletion threatens to widen the gross inequalities of today, whereby most resources are consumed by a well-off minority.
7. At Rio, governments need to set a vision and direction for 211st century development, equipped for the underlying sustainability challenge we face. Between now and 2050 the world needs to:
• Cut humanity’s ecological footprint by 33% to live within the planet’s resource capacity (for climate change alone this means an 80% cut on 1990 greenhouse gas emissions).
• Share the world’s limited resources more fairly so those living in poverty have more, and are able to meet their needs and rights.
• Accommodate a growing population of 9.3 billion and a global economy expected to quadruple in size1 - both of which imply increased pressure on resources. Reconciling these challenges requires unprecedented political, economic, social and technological transformations, particularly in terms of patterns of consumption and production.
8. Figure 1 - which compares a country’s Human Development Index rating to its Ecological Footprint2 -- highlights these challenges and indicates the critical choices countries face at Rio+20. Developed countries can either focus on building prosperity on the basis of smaller ecological footprints, or risk sliding backwards to lower levels of human development as resource
1 According to the OECD, the global economy (in 2005 prices, PPP $) is expected to grow from $70tn in 2010 to $150tn in 2030 to $300 tn in 2050 2 Human development is a measure of income, education and life expectancy. The dotted vertical line indicates each person’s sustainable share of the planet’s biocapacity using a proxy measure of 1.8 hectares per capita. scarcities undercut their model of development. Emerging economies are critical; currently closest to the ideal “Sustainable Development Quadrant,” they must change tack to avoid replicating the unsustainable path of developed countries. The clear priority for most developing countries remains to increase levels of human development: the action of developed and emerging economies will determine the extent to which they can do so.
Figure 1: Human Development vs Ecological Footprint
Source: Global Footprint Network and UNDP
To what extent can ‘greening the economy’ help eradicate poverty?
9. Oxfam believes that ‘greening the economy’ has good potential to help eradicate poverty, but achieving that depends on how the vision of ‘green economy’ is understood and pursued. The term is being frequently used, but with widely differing meanings. For some (such as the OECD), policies to ‘green the economy’ are primarily focused on pursuing ‘green growth’ in order to decouple environmental impacts from increased economic output, while social policies are an important, but parallel, area for action. For others (such as UNEP) a Green Economy is one that “results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities” – thereby making eradicating poverty central.
10. This lack of a shared meaning is leading to politically charged debates. For instance, some Southern governments and civil society groups have raised concerns that a concept which marries environment (‘green’) with economy will neglect poverty and equity, and could prioritise market- led responses (carbon trading) over other effective approaches (eg regulation, human rights). 11. To win international buy-in, governments at Rio must back a vision of the green economy, which has eradicating poverty, ensuring equity, and building people’s resilience at its heart. Five key principles and policy areas are highlighted below.
• Ensuring fairness in global efforts to manage natural resource. Equitable burden-sharing between countries – with the biggest polluters cutting emissions most and helping others - has long been accepted as both ethically just and politically necessary for a global climate deal (the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’). As the world starts to hit limits for other key resources (e.g. land, water), the issue of ‘fair shares’ in consumption may become relevant to these as well. Finding ways to operationalise ‘fair shares’ and win widespread political backing remains extremely difficult. Rio+20 is a space to discuss ‘fair shares’ in new ways and help overcome long-standing stalemates.
• Expanding access and protecting poor people’s rights to natural resources. People living in poverty in rural communities are especially reliant on natural resources for their livelihoods and resilience, yet their access to, and rights over, these resources are often inadequate and insecure. As demand for key resources grows and supply struggles to keep up, poor people may be excluded further – as evidenced by the trend toward ‘land grabs’ leading to improper displacement of people from their land. Unless properly designed, green economy interventions could further exclude or harm poor. Rio should endorse a green economy approach, which ensures effective regulation to protect people’s rights to these assets, and creates benefits (e.g. designing new clean technology which is appropriate and affordable).
• Promoting gender equity. Rural women in developing countries have long experienced unequal and insecure access to natural resources, while depending disproportionately on them. Supportive policies include, for example, securing women’s land rights or designing energy services to meet women’s needs. In every country, policies should recognise and invest in the unpaid or low-paid care economy - a sector with high social value and low resource intensity, but which is undervalued in its contribution to national output and wellbeing.
• Ensuring a just, resilient transition. The transition to green economies will involve significant industrial change and economic flux, exposing people to rapid adjustment as jobs in resource-inefficient industries are lost. At the same time, economies will face more shocks and stresses from volatile commodity prices (oil, food) and as climate change gathers pace, pushing the poorest into hunger and poverty. Green economy policies need to ensure the transition is fair and increases resilience. For instance, by re-skilling workers and promoting jobs for low-income workers (e.g. agriculture, forestry, construction), by making green funds accessible to SMEs, and by using social protection measures effectively.
• Voice and participation in green economy strategies. Participation and accountability have long been emphasised as critical for sustainable development, but in many countries these remain weak. For instance, discussions on new low-carbon strategies can be highly technical, skewed by elite interests or focused on technology solutions not suited to poor people’s needs. Green economy policy processes should make a specific effort to include marginalised groups, build their understanding of the issues and their capacity to hold governments to account.
What are the issues that should be urgently addressed at Rio?
12. Rio needs to go beyond defining a vision and green economy principles by agreeing concrete measures, which can catalyse the shift to a sustainable, equitable economy. Whilst precise goals and actions require further thought and definition, four areas Oxfam GB already sees as important are: food, energy, alternate economic indicators and innovative finance.
Food security and sustainable agriculture
13. Rio is the key opportunity to set us on a new global course for agriculture. With its Foresight report on the “Future of Food and Farming”, the UK is well-placed to champion this agenda.
14. The food system is under intense pressure to meet demand for a growing population in a world of resource-constraints. Arable land and water resources are being degraded and squeezed by demands for other uses. Climate change is an additional threat. At the same time, investing in smallholders, rural economies and sustainable agricultural practices in developing countries can boost poor people’s incomes, food availability and environmental protection - and provide the ‘growth spark’ for development. Setting a new course for global agriculture requires multiple interventions and a much stronger role for governments. Some key priorities for action in developing countries, which Rio+20 can support, are to:
• Change the terms of debate toward an “ecosystems approach”. Despite significant developments in agriculture, policy remains dominated by an interventionist approach focused on specific techno-fixes and inputs, such as agrochemical application. However, there is huge potential for low-input, agro-ecological farming techniques to raise yields, improve soil fertility, conserve natural resources and reduce dependence on expensive inputs (e.g. System of Rice Intensification). Several expert agencies and reports advocate these approaches (the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, UNEP, UNCTAD, FAO and the IAASTD).
• Focus on key threats to soil, water and biodiversity. Soil health, water availability, and biodiversity are three pillars for a productive agro-ecosystem, yet these are under threat. For instance around a quarter of vegetated land on earth has already been affected by human- induced soil degradation and three-quarters of plant genetic resources – vital to make production resilient to pests and weather shocks - have been lost over the last century.
• Promote smallholder access to resources, markets and information – with a strong role for governments. This wide agenda encompasses, for example, improving access to finance (credit, insurance) and information (market prices, weather forecasting), supporting producer organisations to strengthen their links into value chains, improving land tenure systems and water rights, and investing in on-farm and rural infrastructure (storage facilities, roads).
• Champion the needs and contribution of women farmers. Women produce much of the food consumed in developing countries, yet receive just 7% of total aid to agriculture, forestry and fishing. Inclusion in decision-making and ensuring access to land and water, new technologies, agricultural extension, credit, markets and social capital will dramatically increase women’s productivity and the food security of their communities.
• Increase and re-align finance flows. Donors, governments and companies need to increase investment in smallholders, agriculture extension services, conservation agriculture and rural infrastructure. R&D should be redirected toward ‘technologies of practices’ (not just specific products or inputs). Perverse subsidies should be dismantled, including biofuels mandates and trade-distorting agricultural subsidies in the EU and North America.
Energy access and clean energy
15. There is already strong interest in making the energy sector a focus for Rio+20, which Oxfam GB welcomes. Transforming our energy systems is essential to cut poverty, meet the Millennium Development Goals, boost growth and help countries cope with rising fossil fuel prices.
16. Rio+20 should build political commitment by agreeing new energy goals. The UN’s 2012 campaign of Sustainable Energy for All provides a starting point for defining what those goals could be. This aims for, by 2030, universal access to modern energy services, a 40% reduction in global energy intensity and increase of renewable energy use globally to 30%.
17. Increasing poor people’s energy access should be the priority. On current projections, the numbers of people using traditional biomass for cooking will be higher in 2030 than today and those without electricity access will only fall by a small margin. New goals and investments must focus on the full range of energy services that poor people need, such as energy for lighting, cooking, heating and cooling, access to information and communications, and mechanical power. Achieving universal access will require additional finance of $35-40 billion per year by 2030, with at least $15 billion of that needed in the form of grants for the least developed countries3.
Measures of Progress Beyond GDP
18. Governments at Rio should champion the development and systematic use of new indicators of economic progress, which can ‘measure what matters’ in the 21st century, far better than GDP has done. A fair green economy will require new measures of economic progress. These can provide a new compass to steer economies and targets for governments and policy-makers. Leading, credible experts and institutions are throwing their weight behind this agenda – from the 2009 Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission, to the work of OECD and UNEP. The UK is well-positioned to contribute through its own work on measuring well-being.
19. New indicators could draw on the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi proposals to: shift from focusing on economic output to measuring income, including its distribution across households; recognise the value of unpaid goods and services, particularly in the care economy and in environmental service provision; and give value not just to the current stream of goods and services but to changes in the underlying stock of assets from which all wealth is generated – a nation’s natural assets (ecosystems, renewable resources), human assets (people’s knowledge and skills), social assets (institutions and community), and physical assets (infrastructure and machinery). Measures and goals on inequality should be a particular focus, given the link between equality, social cohesion, resource use and development. Economies, defined in these broad terms, can grow and progress substantially from where they are today.
3 UN, 2010. Energy for a Sustainable Future. The Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change. Innovative finance for climate change and poverty reduction
20. A fair green transition will require a mobilisation of public finance on a massive scale to leverage private investment and address gaps. As well encouraging rich nations to meet their commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on development aid, Rio is an opportunity to get agreement and backing for innovative finance mechanisms. Two mechanisms which are gaining political momentum among governments (in the EU, G20, UNFCCC) and are supported by many expert reports are:
• Revenue-raising from tackling international transport emissions. Schemes to cut air and shipping emissions, which are currently unregulated, could raise at least US$12bn each year. This should be used to address climate change adaptation and mitigation in poor countries.
• A tax on financial transactions. An average tax of 0.05% on all transactions between financial institutions could generate US$400 billion worldwide for poverty-reduction and climate change – and help address the risks of high frequency trading. Several countries already levy certain types of financial transactions tax, including the UK.
What are the institutional frameworks required to deliver a “green economy” and a more sustainable future for all, now and into the future?
21. Reforming the institutions, rules and processes is vital, since ‘unsustainability’ is largely a result of weak governance at all levels (global, regional, national, local). Yet, even though many drivers of environmental degradation and vulnerability are global, appetite for more multilateral co- operation is currently weak among many governments. Painfully slow process at the UNFCCC and failure by the G20 to tackle the drivers of food price volatility are just two examples of this governance vacuum. The existing ideas being discussed by governments for Rio+20 for a small reconfiguration of the UN system fall short of what is needed. Governments need to take more concrete steps to reform at Rio. As a starting point for defining those steps, governments should:
• Assert firm backing for stronger multilateral governance needed to a) assess and regulate resource use so these remain within safe environmental limits and are shared fairly; b) mobilize investment to public goods and shift the behaviours of business and consumers; and c) protect vulnerable people by limiting risks and building resilience to shocks.
• Prioritise the need to build resilience to shocks and stresses as a new challenge for the international system. The frequency and intensity of shocks (financial, economic, food, environmental, weather-related etc) experienced by poor communities are increasing, but without any major advances in resilience. At an international level, a resilience agenda would involve, for example, more leadership and investment on Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction and exploring a multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a Common Resilience Framework – needed to harmonise currently un-aligned interventions across development, risk reduction and climate change adaptation.
• Focus on improving co-ordination and coherence in the short-term. Institutional silos and fragmentation between different parts of the international systems continues to be a key problem – leading to wasted resources, lower impacts and short-lived or conflicting outcomes. More joint work between agencies on cross-cutting issues, like food or energy security, to create shared goals, develop and share data, and build common analysis and responses is vital. • Play the ‘pathfinding’ role to see where future deals are needed in the long-term. There are some areas where future agreements and co-operation will be needed, but understanding of the issues or solutions may be limited, or political consensus does not yet exist (e.g. food price volatility, soil degradation, water grabs, ‘fair shares’, conflict-related resource shocks etc). Rio+20 provides a space to identify these gaps and tensions, the different interests at stake, and agree initial steps to address these – for instance, by commissioning assessments of the readiness of existing institutions and agreements to handle future stresses.
22. Finally, there have been discussions around whether Rio should help define a successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals through new ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs). Oxfam is currently exploring the pros and cons of such an approach.
What objectives and roles should the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run up to the Conference?
23. The UK should aim to play a leading role in driving ambition and helping prepare for Rio+20. The government’s commitments on aid and climate, and contribution to the debate on sustainable food (Foresight report on Food and Farming), puts it in a good position to drive discussions forward. Key actions it should take domestically and internationally, include:
• Ensuring all relevant government departments are actively engaged in preparing for the Summit, particularly Treasury, DECC, DfID and BIS, and avoiding Rio+20 being sidelined or stuck in a DEFRA silo.
• Appointing a Special Envoy or Ambassador on Rio+20, tasked with generating a vision across government, ensuring effective public engagement and helping lead dialogue with other countries.
• The PM pledging his attendance at Rio+20, as a way to help build political leadership.
• Hosting a high-level international policy dialogue on a prominent issue, such as sustainable food systems. The government should also capitalize on the fact a major science conference (Planet under Pressure) will be held in London in March 2012.
• Building global political buy-in for a strong result at Rio in key international processes. The EU should be the immediate focus, as it defines its position at the Environment Council in October and its submission to the zero draft text. Current discussions on an EU position appear to lack any real substance. Other key international fora include the G20, UNFCCC and the Busan Forum on Aid Effectiveness, which already have Rio-related themes on their agenda (green growth, food crises, finance, climate change). These are key opportunities to identify strong outcomes for Rio+20 and build progressive coalitions to support these. 31 August 2011 Written evidence submitted by the World Society for the Protection of Animals
Summary
WSPA would like to see the benefits of humane and sustainable livestock production as a core to advance discussions on the future of food and farming at the forthcoming Rio conference. Animal welfare is also central in tackling specific emerging issues including climate change, disaster management, deforestation, pollution, public health, poverty, water scarcity, food security and gender equality. WSPA would like to see integration of animal welfare into all relevant sustainable development policies.
General
1. The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) has offices in 13 countries and works with a network of more than 1,000 animal welfare organizations in over 150 countries. WSPA holds consultative status with the United Nations and observer status with the Council of Europe. This submission is from the WSPA UK office. 2. WSPA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee.
The issues which should be urgently addressed at Rio, and any that it should avoid
3. The new and emerging issues that should be addressed at Rio are the future of food and farming as part of a green economy and poverty eradication. Industrial livestock production and matching unsustainable food consumption patterns have proven to be one of the root causes of a series of interlinked crises – food security/sovereignty, water scarcity, climate change, threats to human health (obesity, zoonoses, antibiotic resistance), biodiversity loss, and land and marine degradation and animal suffering.1 A shift to sustainable and humane food production and consumption is therefore urgently needed and should be high on the agenda in Rio, both as a part of the green economy in
1 E.g. FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow, 2006; UNESCO, Water in a Changing World, World Water Development Report 3, 2009; WHO, Report on Infectious Disease, 2000; Pew commission, Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, 2008; WHO/FAO, Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases, 2003; UK Department of International Development, Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture, 2001; NEAA, Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies, 2010; International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), Agriculture at a crossroads, 2009; UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, Agroecolgy and the Right to Food, 2011; WSPA, Eating our Future -The environmental impact of industrial animal agriculture, 2008; CIWF/Friends of the Earth, Eating the Planet, 2009; CIWF, Beyond Factory Farming, 2009. the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and as a way to address new and emerging challenges.
The increase in population and the need for more food production over the next ten years with also an increasing water scarcity problem in some areas will require an integrated approach that ensures not only humans but animals and biodiversity are not adverse affected.
To quote the EU’s toolbox on SCP (CSD18):
‘Recognizing the role that livestock played in poverty reduction, food security and sustainable development, and acknowledging that about 1 billion of the world’s poorest people depended on animals for food, livelihoods and social status it would be beneficial to consider animal welfare in the formulation of sustainable consumption and development policies’.
The livestock sector is a key part of the green economy and also has major impacts on the environment and resource base – including land and water use. Implementing humane and sustainable livestock farming practices will help to ensure that livelihoods and nutrition, especially in developing countries and rural areas, are safeguarded and improved.
Moreover it is important to note that rates of livestock production and consumption are increasing rapidly and are based mainly on industrial systems. This is putting an unacceptable unsustainable strain on natural resources such as land, soil, forests, biodiversity, and water as well as producing significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Expanding large scale industrial production would lead to an increase in production, in demand and an overall increase in sector impacts including emissions. Left unchecked, by 2050, animal production is predicted to account for 70% of the sustainable level of all global GHG emissions.
It is critical, therefore, to prioritize limiting the growth of this sector. In conclusion, we call on member states and other stakeholders to commit to policies which incorporate specific and regionally-sensitive measures to ensure that global food production and consumption is humane, climate- resilient and sustainable. There is an urgent need for a ’rapid and significant shift from conventional, industrial, monoculture-based and high-external-input dependent production towards mosaics of sustainable production systems that also considerably improve the productivity of small-scale farmers’.
Furthermore, funding and both international and national commitment to sustainable development policies need to be renewed.
The extent to which greening the economy can help eradicate poverty, including the tensions between growth and prosperity in the context of sustainable development
4. One of the fundamental problems of the brown economy is that environmental and social costs are externalized. This holds especially true for animal production. For example, according to a conservative calculation of the Centre for Environmental Studies, VU University, Amsterdam, the total annual externalized societal costs (mainly environmental and public health costs) of pigs slaughtered in the Netherlands is at least €1.3 billion per year, or about €80 per Dutch citizen.2 Therefore, a green economy should internalize costs and fully implement the polluter pay principle.
The livestock sector is a key part of the green economy, employing around 1.3 billion people and about a billion of the world’s poorest people depend on animals for food, income, transport, social status, and financial security. Implementing humane and sustainable livestock farming practices will help to ensure that livelihoods and nutrition, especially in developing countries and rural areas, are safeguarded and improved.
Greening the economy requires policy reform at all levels, both within countries and globally. Prices will have to include environmental and other external costs if they are to steer public and private investment in the right direction. To achieve this, several initiatives can be taken involving a mix of regulatory, market-based, financial and/or information tools. Furthermore, investments in education and training are necessary to ensure appropriate skills in the green economy, and adequate support to the workforce is needed in order to secure swift transitions in the labour markets. Also, barriers that stand in the way of a green economy need to be removed. In addition, schemes and indicators to measure progress towards a green economy need to be introduced.
Specifically on farming and livestock - we suggest policy measures could include: government procurement initiatives; shifting public support and investment from industrial systems to modern, mixed farming systems; public research on suitable breeds, feed and cropping systems; farmer extension, education and services; technology transfer and aid based on higher welfare systems; and encouragement of sustainable and humane diets through education and measures which affect behaviour.
2 Van Drunen et al, The True Price of Meat, Amsterdam 2010. The objectives and roles the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run-up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU preparations and negotiations
5. We would expect the UK to take a lead role in promoting higher welfare and sustainable farming systems and for the UK leaders attending to aim for the strongest and most ambitious targets and actins from the event. We have requested that they include in their representations and negotiations at the EU level at in the UN where appropriate, the commitments given in 3 and 4.
The ideal outcomes from Rio+20, and how any agreements should be subsequently monitored.
6. From the food security and sustainable development perspective we want to see the following outcomes:
1) Develop policies for sustainable food supplies.
2) Intergovernmental organizations, national governments and food supply industries urgently need to develop policies for sustainable and humane food supply chains. For livestock production to have a reduced impact on climate change and to be sustainable, it must be biologically based, socially just and humane. To achieve this, animal welfare needs to be included in all future discussions on agriculture, land use and climate change.
3) Manage unsustainable demand for farm animal products and support producers in transition.
4) National governments and intergovernmental organizations need to develop mechanisms to deal with the current acceleration in meat and dairy production, notably in grain feeding and intensive production methods that are not ecologically sustainable.
5) Research and development to support humane and sustainable agriculture.
6) Research is urgently needed to support farmers in developing livestock systems, breeds, feeding and management to ensure humane and sustainable animal production. Research is also required to determine effective policies for addressing meat consumption.
7) Phase out subsidies and investment for unsustainable, inhumane systems.
8) Financial support for industrial livestock production methods, such as unseen subsidies for externalized costs, should be ended. Economic mechanisms to support humane, sustainable livestock production (for example grants and research funding) should be prioritized.
The potential risks to the ideal outcomes being achieved, and any lessons that should be learnt from previous conferences.
7. It is vitally important that the spirit of Rio is revived and this requires political leadership both from the developed and developed world. The original Rio commitments need to be renewed and implemented. We recommend that civil society participation is strengthened in order to make the process truly representative of all interest groups.
24 August 2011 Written evidence submitted by Derek Osborn and Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum
Inquiry into the UK Preparations for the UN Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012
1. Conclusions and recommendations
1.1 The Rio 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development ought to send out a clear signal to the world community, with specific proposals for the transition to an economic order based on the restoration and improvement of quality of life, natural environments and ecosystems. Sustainable development will require more efficient use of energy and resources and lower levels of environmental pollution than have ever been achieved in the past.
1.2 The transition to a sustainable economy needs to be a fair one, with all that that implies. To this end, the social dimension of sustainable development needs to be given greater emphasis. The basic preconditions for this are: social cohesion, fairness, including inter-generational fairness, fair redistribution and solutions for social problems such as growing inequality, lack of access to a whole range of resources, poverty and unemployment.
1.3 New global challenges to maintain food security, energy security and natural resources security need to be added to the global sustainability agenda and prioritised.
1.4 Governance for sustainable development should be strengthened at national, regional and local levels, and in the governance of businesses. Ombudsmen for future generations should be considered.
1.5 The Conference should establish a UN GA Council for Sustainable Development similar in status to the UN Human Rights Council.
1.6 It should adopt a set of principles to guide the new Council and all others concerned with the greening of the global economy.
1.7 The Conference should give the new Council a “Rio” mandate to drive forward work around the world on:
• Dealing with emerging issues including: food security, water security, energy security, climate security and economic security and their interlinkages • Greening the global economy including • Measuring progress in the green transition; • Educating for the green economy; • Fiscal measures for the green economy; • Investing for the green economy; • Regulating for the green economy; • Targets for sustainable development in different sectors of the economy that can feed into the MDG review in 2015.
1.8 UNEP should be upgraded to a World Environment Organisation and given a responsibility for co-ordinating and rationalising all the disparate global multilateral environmental agreements.
1.9 The conference should launch negotiations to establish a framework convention on corporate responsibility requiring listed companies to operate sustainably and to report publicly on this.
1.10 Forums for dialogue should be established at national and international level to facilitate dialogue between civil society stakeholders, and between civil society and political decision- makers, on issues related to the greening of the economy and sustainable development.
1.11 The Conference should support the establishment of regional conventions to secure public access to information, participation in environmental decision-making and environmental justice in pursuance of Principle 10 of the original Rio Principles.
1.12 The EU, the UK and all the other member states should put their own houses in order on all the challenges of sustainable development and moving to a green economy. Both the UK (and other member states) and the EU need to revive and reinvigorate their own commitment to sustainable development, so that they can be credible champions of the global advances that should be made at Rio.
1.13 The conference should recognise and support role of Parliaments in countries throughout the world in promoting and monitoring progress on sustainable development and the transition to a green economy.
2. Background
2.1 On 24 December 2009, the UN General Assembly (GA) adopted a resolution to hold a Summit level Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in Rio in 2012.
2.2 The GA resolution determined that the Conference should have three objectives:
• securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development; • assessing the progress to date and remaining gaps in implementation of the outcomes of the major Summits on sustainable development; • addressing new and emerging challenges.
2.3 Progress to date. Although there has been progress on some aspects of sustainable development over the past 20 years many issues are becoming more difficult. Well-known examples include:
• Current demographic trends mean that by 2050 the world's population will have grown to around 9 billion. • Poverty has increased in absolute terms. 2.6 billion people are living on less than USD 2 a day; • 1.5 billion workers, half the global total, work under insecure conditions. In 2010 the highest level of unemployment was measured since records began; • Carbon emissions and carbon levels in the atmosphere are continuing to increase and climate change is having increasingly damaging impacts on living conditions in many parts of the world; • Migration is on the increase globally, putting additional pressure on the environment and security of supply;
2.4 New and emerging challenges. Growing world population and continuing growth in expectations of standards of living and material consumption are beginning to place strains on the world's supplies of food, marine resources, forests, energy and other natural resources, leading to higher prices and severe social and political problems.
2.5 Maintaining or achieving adequate food security, energy security, and resource security for all in a world of increasing population and greater scarcity of resources is therefore one of the biggest new challenges facing the world in the century ahead. Establishing institutional structures and an intellectual framework for managing this challenge should be a central issue for the 2012 Summit.
2.6 The financial and economic crisis has preoccupied political leaders and finance and economics departments over the past three years. But these pressing short term issues must not be allowed to distract attention from these emerging problems in the real economy of the world and the urgent need to transform the operation of the world's economies in a more sustainable, fairer and greener direction. That transformation should itself be a major source of new investment and new jobs, and should create greater equity, cohesion, stability and resilience. It is an essential part of the solution to current economic difficulties.
2.7 Renewed political commitment. Rio 2012 provides a crucial opportunity to build a framework for this transformation, and to establish the high level political commitment to making this change a reality. It is essential that Heads of Government themselves take hold of the issues, attend the Conference and guarantee its follow through. And since transformation of the global economy is the key issue the Conference needs to be attended also by Ministers of Finance and Economics and prepared by all the major financial players as well as those responsible for environment and development.
2.8 Sustainable development relies on civil society initiatives and participation. Civil society needs to be actively involved in both in the preparation for the Summit and in its follow-up and implementation. Forums for dialogue should be established at national and international level, to facilitate dialogue between civil society stakeholders, and between civil society and political decision-makers, on issues related to the greening of the economy and sustainable development. Businesses of all kinds need to be actively engaged in reshaping their operations in a more sustainable direction.
2.9 The GA resolution determines two specific themes:
• a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; • the institutional framework for sustainable development.
2.10 The hope is that the Summit will outline a compelling vision and intellectual framework for the greener economy that the world now urgently needs. It will not be possible however at a single Summit meeting to reach agreement on all the practical steps that need to be taken in the world to achieve this transition. A crucial objective for the Conference should therefore be to establish a stronger governance framework for sustainable development at national and international level that will be able to carry forward an effective action programme for greening the global economy and pursuing sustainable development over the years ahead.
3. The Institutional Framework. A new Council for Sustainable Development
3.1 At international level the UN Commission for Sustainable Development has had a responsibility for monitoring progress on sustainable development in the world for the past 19 years. In its present form however the CSD is no longer as productive as it should be. It has made some good analyses of problems, but it has not proved capable of following through with substantive action on the major transformational issues for the global economy. A more powerful structure within the UN system is needed to tackle the big global sustainability issues more effectively.
3.2 One promising idea that is emerging in the preparatory discussions in New York is the concept of a new top level Sustainable Development Council reporting directly to the General Assembly and integrating and strengthening the work currently done separately in the UN ECOSOC and CSD. It should be charged with driving forward global action on all aspects of sustainable development, promoting the transition to a greener economy, and initiating action on new and emerging issues such as food and energy security.
3.3 Participation in the new Council should be led by Heads of Government and supported by all relevant departments and ministries with the responsibility and power to discuss and agree substantive action on sustainable issues at a global level. In particular economics and finance ministries need to be fully engaged and committed to managing the transition to a greener global economy in a just and sustainable way.
3.4 Membership of the new Council should include all the countries of the world. The G20 or a similar grouping of leading countries might be given a special responsibility within this structure to prepare positions on some key topics.
3.5 The new Council should establish close links with the World Bank and the IMF, which should themselves be given a new mission to put promotion of sustainable development at the heart of their mission.
3.6 The work of the new Council should have a strong secretariat under the Secretary General and should be able to draw on the highest level professional advice on economic, social and environmental issues. It should be supported within the UN system by an interagency committee led by the Secretary General bringing together all the UN agencies concerned with aspects of sustainable development, including the World Bank, IMF, WTO, WHO, UNESCO etc.
3.7 UNEP and UNDP should be strengthened so that they can together provide stronger inputs on the environmental and developmental dimensions of sustainable development.
3.8 National governance. At the same time as establishing this new UN Council for Sustainable Development political leaders need to use the opportunity of the Rio Summit to reinvigorate their own national machinery for sustainable development. The lead responsibility for promoting sustainable development needs to be clearly identified at the heart of government; and economics and finance ministries need to take on an explicit responsibility for managing the transition to a greener economy with appropriate support from environmental and other ministries.
3.9 Good governance and transparency are essential for sustainable development. National Sustainable Development Strategies need to be revived and refreshed with full engagement and support from business and all parts of civil society. Advisory bodies such as Councils for Sustainable Development need to be adequately resourced to play their full part in bringing forward new thinking and maintaining pressure for progress.
3.10 Regional, city and local governance. Regional, city and local governments have many responsibilities that are crucial for the advancement of sustainable development, and there are many excellent examples in the world of what they can achieve. The Summit should showcase the best examples and commit national governments to mandate and support their regional and local governments in making further advances.
3.11 The role of business and social partners. Building on the best examples of good practice the time is ripe for mandating best business practice on sustainability more widely by creating a framework convention on corporate sustainability responsibility and Accountability Framework convention based on ISO26000. Negotiations to this end should be launched at the Summit. Trade unions and other social partners should be fully engaged in this process.
3.12 Ombudsmen for Future Generations. The needs of future generations are a crucial element of sustainable development, but are not represented in the relevant decision-making processes. In order to remedy this situation and ensure that long-term interests are heeded, a proposal is being advanced at the UN for the creation of ombudsmen for future generations at UN and national level.
4. The Green Economy
4.1 At present the operation of the global economy does not produce deliver sustainable development. On the environmental side it encourages over-consumption of natural resources, allows pollution of the environment, and fails to prevent climate change; while on the social side it allows widespread unemployment, allows widespread poverty, poor health and lack of education to be widespread.
4.2 Greening the global economy means redirecting the way it operates so as to deliver more sustainable outcomes. Other economic objectives need to be reassessed in terms of their contribution to sustainable development. All the tools of economic management need to be reset to steer the economy in a more sustainable direction.
4.3 Economic growth has been a central objective for all countries for the past two hundred years as providing the means for people to enjoy a better quality of life. It must remain a key objective, particularly for developing countries still striving to achieve a decent quality of life for all. But the world is now for the first time coming up against the finite limits of some non- renewable resources, and the severe global impacts of by-products and pollution from some economic activities. Future economic growth will therefore need to follow different pathways, and be consistent with the sustainable use of natural resources. There will need to be less reliance on consumption of material resources, particularly non-renewable and scarce ones. There will need to be more care to avoid waste and pollution. Growth paths will need to favour leaner, cleaner, greener modes of production and consumption
4.4 This is a very large task that has to be carried through in many different arenas:
• at international, national and local levels of government, • in many different sectors of the economy, • involving businesses of all kinds and social partners and other economic actors. engaging citizens and consumers in the changes they will need to make in their lifestyles and consumption patterns
4.5 The Rio Conference should generate a new political commitment to promoting sustainable development and the green economy transition throughout the world. It should adopt a set of principles to guide the new Council and all other bodies concerned with the transition to a greener economy. And it should give a mandate to the new Council to develop and action- oriented work programme on key issues for the advancement of sustainable development in the world
4.6 Principles for a green economy. Principles for a greener global economy could be derived from relevant parts of the Rio principles, the Earth Charter, work in UNEP and OECD and other authoritative sources. They should clearly include • the polluter pays principle and the internalisation of externalities; • the elimination of perverse subsidies, • building sustainability assessments into investment programmes and fiscal decisions, • the crucial principles of intra and inter-generational equity, cooperation, and common but differentiated responsibilities.
4.7 A Green Economy mandate for the new Council. Six main pillars or chapters should be included in a green economy or “Rio” mandate for the new Council to drive forward work around the world on:
• Measuring progress in the green transition; • Educating for the green economy; • Fiscal measures for the green economy; • Investing for the green economy; • Regulating for the green economy; • Targets for the green economy
4.8 Measuring progress. Parameters need to be established that give a clear indication of the extent to which countries, businesses and other organisations are making progress towards greater sustainability. In particular there need to be agreed ways of measuring the various types of natural capital in our land, seas and atmosphere and the biosystems they support, and of how this capital is eroded or can be enhanced by different types of economic activity.
4.9 The Summit should establish a timetable for the new Council to oversee standardisation of the way in which countries should draw up and publish natural capital accounts, and reports on how annual economic activity in each country is contributing to the enhancement or erosion of natural capital and to the shared goal of sustainable development.
4.10 In the past most countries have focussed on the growth of GDP (production and consumption) as the main goal for management of the economy, and have given attached less importance to dealing with "externalities" such as pollution and with promoting equity. A more sustainable or "greener" approach to the management of the economy requires a broader concept of maximising national welfare as the true goal of society. Commitment to establishing a new system of measuring welfare or a Green GDP, perhaps derived from the new OECD Better Life Index, should be a specific goal for the Summit.
4.11 Education and Information. Information about the environment, progress towards a greener economy and other aspects of sustainable development need to be made widely available within each country so that there can be better informed public debate about the key issues. In Europe the 1998 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) has been successful in extending and entrenching public rights of access to information, and promoting public participation and access to justice. The Summit should encourage moves to establish similar conventions in all the regions of the world and the new Council should be mandated to pursue this objective within a global framework.
4.12 Fiscal measures. The Summit should give a further impetus to national and international efforts to green the fiscal base, by eliminating perverse subsidies and shifting tax burdens away from taxes on labour and more onto pollution and consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources that need to be better conserved. The time is also ripe to launch a new initiative to tax financial transactions on a globally agreed basis, and to use the proceeds to fund sustainable development investments.
4.13 Investing for a green economy. The new Council should be specifically charged to have an oversight of R and D efforts for sustainability throughout the world, and in particular to identify areas for potentially useful international collaboration. It should also promote the greening of public procurement programmes throughout the world.
4.14 Investment Flows. A new Global Deal. Authoritative estimates of the global investment needed in the energy sector alone to move to a low carbon economy over the next 40 years run to trillions of euros. Other aspects of the sustainability transition will also need very large sums. The new Council and its supporting machinery should provide a forum for monitoring the major global flows of investment, and identifying where they need to be increased or modified in order to support the sustainability transition.
4.15 The capacity to make the sustainability transition varies considerably between countries in terms of natural, economic and human resources. The 2012 Summit needs to secure a global deal to mobilise public and private resources for capacity building, technology transfer and sustainable investment programmes to help the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and other developing countries to keep pace with the sustainability transition in an equitable way. The new Council should be mandated to monitor progress on financial and other commitments to assist developing countries in the sustainability transition.
4.16 Regulatory Measures. Within Europe efficiency standards for many different products and processes (particularly energy efficiency standards) have been driven steadily upwards by progressive tightening of minimum standards over the years. Europe should propose similar machinery for driving the same process forward internationally. The time may also be ripe for new international initiatives on the management of chemicals in the environment, and for regulating the impact of new emerging technologies such as nanotechnology.
5. Targets in key sectors
5.1 A greener economy will affect all the main economic sectors. In each sector it will be necessary to promote greater efficiency in the use of energy and all other natural resources, to reduce the impacts of pollution and waste production, to pay greater regard the natural environment and biodiversity, and to ensure equity and fairness.
5.2 International development objectives are currently focussed around implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Many believe that at their review in 2015, a new set of international development goals should be set for the next period, with a greater emphasis on sustainable development objectives. The Rio Summit should adopt this as a general objective and should mandate the new Council to follow it through with specific proposals in the key subject areas. The following paragraphs briefly review the priorities in some of the key sectors.
5.3 Energy. The greening of the energy sector and the promotion of energy security is the single largest challenge within the whole greener economy project.
5.4 The transition to a greener economy requires a radical transformation of the energy sector away from fossil fuels towards low or zero carbon sources of power such as renewables. At the same time in order to manage this transition more economically and efficiently there needs to be a major effort in all sectors to utilise energy more efficiently and thus to contain or reduce increases in total global energy demand.
5.5 Many people in the world still have inadequate access to energy or suffer from fuel poverty. The transformation to greener forms of energy production must have as a primary objective the bringing of energy to poorer communities.
5.6 Agriculture, biodiversity and the natural environment. The agricultural sector in many parts of the world needs thorough review from the perspective of the green economy perspective and maintaining food security for all, in maintaining the natural capital of the land and its biodiversity resources, and in promoting resource efficiency in this sector. There is a particular need to manage and conserve water resources better. New targets are needed in these areas.
5.7 The marine environment. The marine environment is under severe stress from pollution, over-fishing and over exploitation of other marine resources. The Summit should initiate a new international process to strengthen and coordinate existing mechanisms for protecting the marine environment, and protecting fish stocks and other marine resources more effectively than present arrangements, perhaps under the banner of the “Blue Economy” concept.
6. Role of the UK and the EU
6.1 The Rio Summit in 2012 provides a unique opportunity to establish a new Council for Sustainable Development in the United Nations charged with driving forward an action programme for the greening of the global economy.
6.2 The UK and the EU should both be powerful champions of this approach over the next 12 months.
6.3 The UK has established appropriate inter-departmental machinery to co-ordinate UK positions, for inputting both to Brussels and direct to the UN process. It has also held some initial discussions with UK civil society on the issues. But the imminence of the Rio Summit is not yet very high in public awareness, and there will need to be more intensive interactions between civil society, business and other groups and government in the months ahead.
6.4 Many of the issues on the UN agenda for the Summit will need to be co-ordinated at European level, and a European preparatory process to establish appropriate European positions is already under way. The Commission has produced a slightly disappointing communication setting out some ideas for this process. The European Parliament will be discussing a rather stronger resolution early in September. The Council is expected to co- ordinate Ministerial positions during September and October.
6.5 In order to be credible champions at the UN both the UK and the EU (and other member states) need to put their own houses in order on their approach to sustainability. The most important points, corresponding to the recommendations for international action recommended above, are:
• for the UK (and other member states) and the EU collectively to reconfirm their political commitment to sustainable development by placing responsibility for it at the centre of government supported by economics and finance Ministers as well as by environment and other ministries • for the UK (and other member states) and the EU to reinvigorate their own sustainable development strategies and specific action programmes, which can take a worthy place in the global framework for the green economy transition to be established at Rio. • for the UK (and other member states) and the EU to engage fully with business and all parts of civil society in preparing and following up the Conference and in promoting sustainable development and the green economy
6.6 There is considerable scope for Parliaments throughout the world to play an active part in championing sustainable development and in promoting and monitoring the transition to a greener economy. The Environmental Audit Committee is well-placed to take this role within the UK. It might also wish to support international efforts to promote Parliamentary capacity and engagement with sustainable development issues around the world through the GLOBE process or other similar initiatives.
5 September 2011
Written evidence submitted by the Marine Conservation Society
Introduction
The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) is the UK charity dedicated to the protection of our seas, shores and wildlife. MCS campaigns for sustainable fisheries, clean seas and beaches, protection of marine life and their habitats, and the sustainable and sensitive use of our marine resources now and for future generations. Through advocacy, community involvement and collaboration, MCS raises awareness of the many threats that face our seas and promotes individual, industry and government action to protect the marine environment. Recently we have been at the forefront of campaigns for Marine Acts for the UK and Scotland, Marine Reserves, radical overhaul of seafood sourcing policies by supermarkets and CFP reform.
We welcome the Committee’s inquiry into Preparations for Rio + 20: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.
The UK is making progress in the conservation and sustainable development of our seas and with further commitment could become a world leader. In 2009 it enacted the UK Marine & Coastal Access Act and is now on course to establish an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas by 2012 and a system of Marine Spatial Planning throughout our seas. In 2010 it designated the Chagos Archipelago as the largest no-take Marine Reserve in the world. The UK is calling for radical reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, leading the approach in Europe to achieve Good Environmental Status for our seas under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and is leading the world in providing for the development of 40 GW of offshore wind. It is therefore well placed to make a significant contribution to discussions and declarations that should be agreed at UNCSD. Being an “island nation” with a number of island overseas territories also gives the UK a unique understanding of the importance of our seas and places a responsibility on us to champion the conservation of our seas at UNCSD.
Summary of MCS priorities for UNCSD
• Fisheries: The proteins derived from fish, crustaceans and molluscs account for between 13.8% and 16.5% of the animal protein intake of the human population1. Seafood is, therefore, an essential major world wide protein source and yet over 25% of the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted and a further 52% are fully exploited2; hence, almost 80% of the world’s fish stocks are exploited at or beyond their means. The potential collapse of key fish stocks would, therefore, not only have devastating effects on our marine biodiversity, but also the nutrition, development and coastal economies of countries throughout the world.
o Sustainable fisheries: Commitments must be made at UNCSD to ensure that all fisheries are only exploited sustainably, within Safe Biological Limits, in compliance with and not exceeding scientific advice of bodies such as ICES. This objective is in line with the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Actions to achieve this objective may vary from region to region but will necessitate comprehensive monitoring, obligations not to exceed scientific advice, implementation of the ecosystem approach, catch restrictions, gear modification, and closed areas. The environment must take primacy before any other consideration, if it does not then there will be no base for continued economic profitability or for the maintenance of fishing communities as fisheries collapse. Fisheries management must legally oblige fishermen to conform to sustainable fishing levels which may not be exceeded. We will also need to find innovative feed solutions for the growth in fish farms and ensure there is a net increase in the production of fish protein if it is to contribute to future food security as the present reliance on fish as feed is unsustainable. A global perspective is essential in rebuilding marine resources due to the impacts of international fleets, the lack of alternatives for many poorer regions and the implications globally of a failure to tackle this issue. Marine Reserves (see below) will also play an important role in restoring fish stocks.
• Biodiversity: The biodiversity and productivity of the world’s oceans are diminishing at an increasing rate. Globally some 90% of large fish species, like sharks, tuna and swordfish, have
1 { HYPERLINK "http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index5.html" } 2 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm
disappeared in the last few decades3. There are 22 species of mammals and fish considered to be threatened in UK seas alone4. Once abundant species such as Atlantic cod and the common skate are now considered globally threatened and only eight of the 47 main fish stocks found around the British Isles remain in a healthy state5. Many marine habitats, ranging from the species-rich rocky reefs of Europe and coral reefs of the tropics, to the fragile creatures and ecosystems found in the deep sea, have already been fundamentally altered by destructive fishing techniques and other anthropogenic activities. Despite international commitments from 168 nations to safeguard our marine life in protected areas, there has been limited implementation or ambition by the world’s governments. Only 1.42% of the world’s oceans are nominally protected as ‘Marine Protected Areas, and less than 0.5% are fully protected Marine Reserves6.
o 30% Marine Reserves by 2016: International scientific consensus suggests that between 10 and 50% of our oceans should be fully protected as Marine Reserves7. The United Nations recommend 30%8. The Marine Conservation Society and other NGOs including ZSL, Pew, Greenpeace and Client Earth agree. We believe a commitment must be made at UNCSD to designate at least 30% of the world’s seas and oceans in Marine Reserves (areas that are fully protected where no extractive or potentially damaging activities are allowed i.e., no fishing or dredging). Only by fully protecting a third of our oceans in Marine Reserves will marine biodiversity and fish stocks have a chance of recovery.
• Pollution: MCS would like to see all pollutants addressed at UNCSD, but for this inquiry we have limited our evidence to marine litter/debris. Marine debris is a widespread pollution problem with plastics making up approximately three-quarters of all litter floating in the ocean. During the 25th International Coastal Cleanup in 2010 co-ordinated by the Ocean Conservancy 615,407 volunteers picked up 8,698,572 pounds of litter (3945606 kg or 3,946 tonnes) at 114 countries around the world. Over ¾ of this plastic debris was plastic. Plastics are of particular environmental concern as they may never completely disappear from the environment, and could persist for many hundreds if not thousands of years. In the UK plastic is the most prevalent beach litter material and has consistently accounted for over 50% of all litter recorded in MCS Beachwatch Big Weekend surveys. The percentage of plastic during MCS Beachwatch Big Weekend 2010 was the highest ever recorded at 63.3% and there has been a 135% increase in plastic density levels compared to figures in 1994.
o 50% reduction in beach litter levels by 2020 with an intermediate target of 25% reduction in beach litter levels by 2015. The reduction should be from ICC 2010 data. In the UK this would necessitate a reduction from 2,000 items per km in 2010 with 1,000 items by 2020.
3 Myers, R., Worm, B., (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280–283. 4 IUCN (2010). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. <{HYPERLINK "http://www.iucnredlist.org"}>. [Cited 10th May 2011]. 5 Defra (2008). Marine Fisheries Science Yearbook 2007/2008. Defra, UK. 56pp 6 J. Nelson, Pew Environment Group, USA, pers. comm. 11th May 2011. 7 Gell F.R. and Roberts C.M. (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 18(9) 448-455; Marine Conservation Society. (2008). Silent Seas. MCS, UK, { HYPERLINK "http://www.mcsuk.org/information/About%20MCS/About%20MCS/Silent%20seas%20report" } [cited 16th May 2011]. 8 Wood, L.J., Fish, L., Laughren, J., Pauly, D., 2008. Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Oryx 42, 340–351.
UNCSD 2012
The Marine Conservation Society believes the following are priorities for UNCSD 2012.
1. Fisheries 1.1 The proteins derived from fish, crustaceans and molluscs account for between 13.8% and 16.5% of the animal protein intake of the human population.9 Seafood is, therefore, an essential major world wide protein source and yet over 25% of the world's fish stocks are either overexploited or depleted and a further 52% are fully exploited10; hence, almost 80% of the world’s fish stocks are exploited at or beyond their means. The potential collapse of key fish stocks could, therefore, have devastating effects on the nutrition, development and economics of countries throughout the world. Demand for seafood meanwhile is predicted to increase by 40 million tonnes over the next 20 years , yet leading scientists from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) tell us that the capacity for the world’s oceans to provide us with fish has been reached; put simply - we can’t take out any more fish than we do now. Fish farming will need to expand to fulfil this growing need but at present the most popular farmed species are also reliant on these exploited fish stocks - a third of world capture fisheries are not for human consumption, they are reduced to make feed for other animals, mainly fish.
1.2 In the UK only eight fish stocks out of a total of 47 found around the British Isles are known to be in a healthy state and once common species such as Atlantic halibut and common skate are now listed as critically endangered. As a result of these collapsing fisheries, the number of people employed in the UK fishing industry has fallen by 32% in the last ten years alone. Sustainable fisheries which promote biodiversity and ecosystem health are not only good for the fish but are essential for the long-term sustainability of the fishing industry. Only with strong and science based management will this goal be achieved.
1.3 MCS feels that there are a number of general management areas which should be prioritised to ensure the future sustainability of fisheries and the health of the marine ecosystem.
1.4 The environment must take primacy before any other consideration, if it does not then there will be no base for continued economic profitability or for the maintenance of fishing communities as fisheries collapse. Fisheries management must legally oblige fishermen to conform to sustainable fishing levels which may not be exceeded. Fisheries management should legally be based on the best available scientific advice as it is in the USA11, whilst also adhering to the Precautionary Principle, in contrast to the current system in Europe where the Commission regularly sets catch levels higher than those advised by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Different nations carry out different levels of monitoring and types of stock assessment and so more formalised and standardised monitoring, both within jurisdictional waters and without, should be implemented to form the basis of sound scientific advice. The EC and other Nations that enter into agreement with Third Countries to exploit their fisheries should fund comprehensive monitoring of these stocks to prevent over-exploitation and must be obliged to ensure that no income is lost to local coastal communities. Without thorough and regular assessment scientific advice may be weakened which could be devastating for the sustainable management of our fisheries and the ecosystem as a whole.
1.5 An Ecosystem Based Approach must be applied to all fisheries management as single species management e.g. the CFP quota system, has proved entirely unsuccessful. Nations must, therefore, take account of multi-species interactions and take measures to minimise fishing impacts on the wider ecosystem. This must include management measures to ensure harmful fishing practices avoid vulnerable habitats and that the mortality of non-target species (resulting from ‘discards’ and ‘by-catch’) is drastically reduced as well as the long-term effects of fishing on the ecosystem. For EBFM to be successful management should be made at the fisheries level to account for mixed fisheries, encouraging long-term management plans which require not only multi-stakeholder cooperation but also multi-nation coordination.
9 { HYPERLINK "http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index5.html" } 10 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm 11 Implementing Annual Catch Limits: A Blueprint for Ending Overfishing in U.S. Fisheries.” Marine Fish Conservation Network (MFCN) Website. MFCN. April 2009. Web. Pg. 3. November 2, 2010
1.6 Management measures must be properly enforced with sufficient, fines and other deterrents. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fisheries are a global problem worth between $10 - 23.5billion p/a , revenue which is then lost to coastal communities. IUU depletes fish stocks, skews scientific advice, harmfully impacts local coastal communities, destroys marine habitats and gives dishonest fishers an advantage over honest ones. This practice must not be allowed to continue for the future of the marine ecosystem and the fisheries that it sustains, strict enforcement must be carried out in all waters not only within national waters but also in the high seas.
1.7 The protection of the high and deep seas within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction must be prioritised. Recognised as regions of extreme vulnerability to human impacts, the deep seas are subject to numerous harmful practices which threaten long-term sustainability; particularly the practice of high seas bottom trawling. Bottom trawling not only directly removes vulnerable long-lived species from the deep sea, but also damages sensitive habitats such as deep sea coral. MCS would ask that deep sea fisheries be strictly monitored and fishing only be permitted on stocks which have substantial scientific evidence proving that they can be sustainably managed in accordance with the precautionary approach, with minimum impacts on the marine ecosystem. A recent paper produced by Norse et al. (2011) suggests that “Instead of mining fish from the least-suitable places on Earth, an ecologically and economically preferable strategy would be rebuilding and sustainably fishing resilient populations in the most suitable places, namely shallower and more productive marine ecosystems that are closer to markets.”12
1.8 Aquaculture (fish farming) now provides approximately 50% of global seafood. With demand for seafood predicted to increase by 40 million tonnes in the next 20 years, the need to ensure that aquaculture operations takes place in an ecologically and environmentally sustainable way has never been greater.
1.9 MCS believes that if aquaculture is to be promoted and developed as an alternative to wild caught fish only ecologically sustainable and environmentally responsible aquaculture should be supported. The most crucial element of achieving this is to ensure that aquaculture does not rely on or lead to the overexploitation of feed fisheries to feed farmed carnivorous fish. Aquaculture development must ensure that there is a net increase in the production of fish protein if it is to contribute to future food security. This can be partly achieved by innovative feed solutions, produced on land. It is essential that we ensure wild capture fisheries are sustainable, but also that we encourage innovative feed solutions for the farmed fish of the future that ensure human health benefits are maximised without further depletion of our oceans resources.
1.10 All areas of fisheries management, production and practice must be transparent to allow cooperation between all stakeholders with a vested interest in the marine environment. This transparency must allow consumers to make clear choices about their seafood, it must make clear where, what and how the species was caught or farmed through eco-labelling. Not only does this allows concerned consumers to eat locally and sustainably but allows retailers to make sustainable choices about the seafood that they sell.
2. Biodiversity
2.1 The biodiversity and productivity of the world’s oceans are diminishing at an increasing rate. Globally some 90% of large fish species, like sharks, tuna and swordfish, have disappeared in the last few decades. There are 22 species of mammals and fish considered to be threatened in UK seas alone. Once abundant species such as Atlantic cod and the common skate are now considered globally threatened and only eight of the 47 main fish stocks found around the British Isles remain in a healthy state. Many marine habitats, ranging from the species-rich rocky reefs of Europe and coral reefs of the tropics, to the fragile creatures and ecosystems found in the deep sea, have already been fundamentally altered by destructive fishing techniques and other anthropogenic activities. Despite international commitments from 168 nations to safeguard our marine life in protected areas in the Convention on Biodiversity, 2011 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation there has been limited implementation or ambition by the world’s governments. Only 1.42% of the world’s oceans are nominally protected as ‘Marine Protected Areas, and less than 0.5% are fully protected Marine Reserves.
12 Elliott A. Norse, Sandra Brooke, William W. L. Cheung, Malcolm R. Clark, Ivar Ekeland, Rainer Froese, Kristina M. Gjerde, Richard L. Haedrich, Selina S. Heppell, Telmo Morato, Lance E. Morgan, Daniel Pauly, Rashid Sumaila, Reg Watson, 2011, Sustainability of deep-sea fisheries. Marine Policy 36 (2012) 307–320.
2.2 30% Marine Reserves by 2016: International scientific consensus suggests that between 10 and 50% of our oceans should be fully protected as Marine Reserves. The United Nations recommend 30%. The Marine Conservation Society and other NGOs including ZSL, Pew, Greenpeace and Client Earth agree. We believe a commitment must be made at UNCSD to designate at least 30% of the world’s seas and oceans in Marine Reserves (areas that are fully protected where no extractive or potentially damaging activities are allowed i.e., no fishing or dredging). Only by fully protecting a third of our oceans in Marine Reserves will marine biodiversity and fish stocks have a chance of recovery, with restoration of biodiversity increasing productivity fourfold13.
3. Pollution
3.1 MCS is concerned about all types of pollution from diffuse agricultural run-off & sewage pollution to oil pollution & endocrine disrupters. While we would like the UK to call for all marine pollutants to be addressed at UNCSD we will confine this submission to litter.
3.2 Marine debris is a widespread pollution problems with plastics making up approximately three- quarters of all litter floating in the ocean. During the 25th International Coastal Cleanup in 2010 co- ordinated by the Ocean Conservancy 615,407 volunteers picked up 8,698,572 pounds of litter (3945606 kg or 3,946 tonnes) at 114 countries around the world. Over ¾ of this plastic debris was plastic.
3.3 Plastics are of particular environmental concern as they may never completely disappear from the environment, and could persist for many hundreds if not thousands of years. Larger items will eventually break down into small plastic particles and microscopic dust, which can be consumed by filter-feeding animals such as barnacles. Toxic pollutants can be attracted onto the surface of plastic pieces so may pose a previously unrecognised threat to marine animals once ingested. Ultimately these pollutants may then be passed up the food chain to fish and to human consumers. Items of fishing litter which are also composed of plastic are also of particular concern as these are the items most likely to entangle wildlife.
3.4 In the UK plastic is the most prevalent beach litter material and has consistently accounted for over 50% of all litter recorded in MCS Beachwatch Big Weekend surveys. The percentage of plastic during MCS Beachwatch Big Weekend 2010 was the highest ever recorded at 63.3% and there has been a 135% increase in plastic density levels compared to figures in 1994.
3.5 UNCSD needs to commit to:
- A 50% reduction in beach litter levels by 2020 with an intermediate target of 25% reduction in beach litter levels by 2015. The reduction should be from ICC 2010 data. In the UK this would necessitate a reduction from 2,000 items per km in 2010 with 1,000 items by 2020.
Other • An acknowledgement that Marine Litter is a clear and growing problem • Marine Litter Strategies for every regional sea. • Encouragement of reuse of items • Further investment and research into making plastic items more easily recyclable, reduction of unnecessary packaging and increased use of recycled materials in products • A move away from single use items • Specific actions to be included in litter strategies should include free collection of waste at ports as part of normal port dues, regular beach cleaning and litter facilities, more investment into collection and recycling facilities for old fishing gear.
6 September 2011
13 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5800/787.
Written evidence submitted by Progressio
Progressio welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry on ‘Preparations for Rio+20: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development’. We will in this submission provide evidence on “issues which should be urgently addressed at Rio”, with a focus on water.
1. Summary
1.1 Progressio recognises the importance of Rio+20 for reigniting progress towards sustainable development, in the context of increased environmental degradation, competition over scarce resources and climate change, and urges the UK Government to take a leadership role in the process.
1.2 Water should be a key focus area under the Rio+20 process, as a fundamental element that underpins both life and livelihoods and therefore represents an essential part of sustainable development. This should build on experiences, knowledge and conclusions from previous ‘Earth Summits’, as well as other relevant processes and new research, including the impacts of climate change on the water cycle.
1.3 Water insecurity and scarcity affects a large proportion of the world’s population, with a particular impact on the world’s poorest people. Environmental degradation and competition over water resources is increasing and, furthermore, climate change is expected to have a substantial impact on the hydrological cycle, with follow on effects on people and ecosystems. A clear poverty and equity focus must therefore be at the heart of Rio+20.
1.4 A Green Economy cannot function without water, as recognised by both UNEP and many water experts, such as in the World Water Week statement on Rio+20. Water is not a ‘sector’, and its cross cutting nature makes it a fundamental part of many important aspects of a Green Economy, such as agriculture and energy. Green Economy policies therefore need to include recognition of water to ensure water related impacts are fully acknowledged and accounted for, in particular where usage can have direct or indirect impacts on other sectors.
1.5 A Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty reduction must be underpinned by principles of social equity, including on water. This includes a core focus on sustainable and equitable water resources management, with clear poverty and equity objectives, and active involvement of key stakeholders.
1.6 A strong gender approach must also be included. Women are generally the main water managers on a household level in developing countries, both for consumptive and productive use, and their knowledge and participation should be acknowledged, and they should be provided with adequate support according to their needs.
2. Introduction
2.1 Progressio is an international development charity that enables poor communities to solve their own problems through support from skilled workers. We work in partnership with civil society organisations in 11 countries around the world and we also lobby decision‐makers to change policies that keep people poor and. Our work is guided by
three themes: Participation and effective governance, Sustainable environment; and HIV and AIDS. Progressio is the working name of the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR).
2.2 The UNCSD Rio Earth Summit in 1992 was a landmark event in terms of sustainable development, however, there has been a considerable lack of progress in many areas since, and there is an urgent need to speed up progress, in particular in the light of growing challenges of environmental degradation, competition over scarce resources and climate change. Progressio believes that the Rio+20 summit presents a vital opportunity to get progress back on track, in particular in the light of increased environmental stress and climate change, and urges the UK Government to take a leading role.
2.3 Agenda 21 and other processes has recognised the importance of water for sustainable development, however, it remains a key concern. Progressio aims in this submission to draw particular attention to the significance of water as an urgent issue for Rio+20, including its vital role for poverty eradication.
3. The Water Crisis
3.1 Only 2.63 per cent of global water is freshwater, which includes a large part that is tied up in snow and ice.1 Despite this, there is currently no overall global water scarcity, but a number of regions are chronically short of water2, and climate change is expected to make this worse.3 It has been estimated that out of the 2.8 billion people that live in areas facing water scarcity, 1.2 billion live in ‘physical water scarcity’ and 1.6 billion in ‘economic water scarcity’, meaning that water access is not limited by supply, but constrained by financial, human or institutional capacity.
3.2 Increased attention is being given to the cross cutting nature of water for many different uses and tension around availability and prioritisation, for example, in the so called ‘water, food and energy nexus’. Looking at freshwater supply alone is therefore not sufficient if we aim to ensure sustainable access of water for all that also caters for other vital needs, such as for food production, energy provision and ecosystems, which also needs to be assessed in terms of impacts of climate change.
3.3 In addition to the basic need of water, food production is particularly important given that 70 per cent of freshwater withdrawals are for agriculture, highlighting direct linkages between water availability and food security concerns. There are also direct linkages to the rural poor, recognising that smallholder farms feed one‐third of the world’s population.4 Furthermore, increased reliance on water intensive sources of energy is raising questions around long term sustainability even for many renewable energy sources, a concern that also needs to be recognised within climate change mitigation policies.
3.4 Poor people are often hit hardest and despite progress on the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7 on access to water, 900 million people still lack access to safe drinking water. Women are often particularly affected, since they are often responsible for water management on a household level, both for consumptive and productive use. Furthermore, population increase, changes in consumption and production patterns, environmental degradation, pollution and a number of other factors implicates on water
availability. Lack of progress on access to water also often has fallback effects on other MDGs, such as gender equality, hunger, health and education.
4. Rio +20 and the Green Economy
4.1 The ‘Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication’ is one of the main focus areas of Rio+20. While the Green Economy has been set in a broader concept of the intersection between environment and economy, to highlight synergies rather than trade‐offs, coupled with social issues, no clear definition has been agreed within this context, partly due to some resistance to the concept in itself. UNEP’s definition is therefore sometimes used, "A Green Economy is one that results in improved human well‐being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental and ecological scarcities." 5
4.2 Outside of Rio+20, Green Economy is often used more or less interchangeably with Green Growth. OECD has identified Green Growth as “fostering economic growth and development, while ensuring that natural assets continue to provide the resources and environmental services on which our well‐being relies”6. The most significant difference to UNEP’s definition is the lack of reference to social equity, a key fundamental for achieving sustainable poverty reduction.
4.3 Despite a clear definition, the Rio+20 process has identified different green economy policies that indicates a general direction: green stimulus packages; eco‐efficiency; greening markets and public procurement; investment in sustainable infrastructure; restoration and enhancement of natural capital; getting prices right; and eco‐tax reform. ‘Getting prices right’ is defined as better reflecting environmental externalities in market prices, especially for natural resources.7 A consultative bottom‐up approach is also recommended, with government leadership and multi‐stakeholder engagement, with careful design to ensure social equity.8
4.4 Furthermore, it is acknowledged that there is no simple one‐size‐fits‐all for poverty reduction, and that poverty eradication and enhancement of the livelihoods of the most vulnerable deserve priority in measures promoting a green economy transition. In the long term, a development path limiting environmental impacts would be more conducive to prosperity and poverty alleviation. The poor are generally most affected by trends, such as climate change and environmental degradation and shocks such as food scarcity and shifts of the economy that decrease such risks will benefit the poor. Production and consumption systems that are compatible with sustainable development play a key part in this.9
5. Water and the Green Economy
5.1 Water is not a new concern within the UN ‘Earth Summit’ framework. Outcomes of both the 1972, 1992 and 2002 conferences include direct references and recommendations in relation to water, and are complemented by the MDGs. Most importantly, Agenda 21: Chapter 18 is dedicated to water ‘Protection of the Quality & Supply of Freshwater Resources: Application of Integrated Approaches to the Development, Management & Use of Water Resources’. Furthermore, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation includes several references to water, many with particular reference to the MDGs, included the added target on access to sanitation.
5.2 In the Rio+20 context the challenge of access to clean water and sanitation is one of the main concerns, but also water availability more generally, noting that ‘increased action is imperative’.10 Furthermore, water is being recognised in broader terms than before with a focus on its role as a cross cutting resource, including as an essential part of the ‘Green Economy’ and the so called ‘water, food and energy nexus’. Within this context suggested solutions have largely moved away from a primary focus on management issues, towards market based approaches, including full cost valuation and pricing, to solve problems around supply and demand.
5.3 Furthermore, the Stockholm Statement to Rio+20 from World Water Week 2011 argues that water is “the bloodstream of the Green Economy”, and recognises the interconnectedness of water, food and energy as a fundamental priority. It also calls for universal access to water and sanitation by 2030, over and above current MDG aspirations.
5.4 UNEP’s report ‘Towards a Green Economy’ identifies investment in clean water and sanitation services to the poor as one of the biggest opportunities to speed up the transition to a green economy in many developing countries. Not having access to water is costly, since either large amounts of their disposable income have to be spent on purchasing water from vendors or large amounts of time, in particular from women and children, have to be devoted to carting it. In addition, the cost of water‐borne diseases is high. UNEP estimates that under a scenario of an investment of around 0.16 per cent of global GDP per year, water use at the global level could be kept within sustainable limits and the MDG for water could be achieved by 2015.
5.5 UNEP argues that a green economy should acknowledge where water is scarce, and manage it carefully, to ensure use is kept within sustainable limits. The role of water in both maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services should be recognised, valued and paid for, and the use of technologies that encourage efficient forms of recycling and reuse is encouraged. To progress towards the pursuit of green objectives various tools can be used, such as the redesign of governance arrangements, the improved specification of property rights, the adoption of policies that reflect the full costs of use including the costs of adverse impacts on the environment, and through improved regulation. The suggested indicators for tracking progress include the number of people without access to reliable supplies of clean water and sanitation, as well as the volume available per person in a region.
5.6 The report recognises that the complex flow of water resources affects its availability and opportunities to manage it. Given the high level of water used by agriculture, one of the biggest challenges is to find a way to significantly increase the productivity of irrigated agriculture, so that water can be transferred to other sectors without adversely affecting the environment or food security. The report argues that gauging the true value of ecosystems, including water, is a key part of the movement towards a green economy, coupled with market‐based approaches, as well as consumer driven accreditation and certification schemes. Water entitlement and allocation systems are other options, however, the environment should have rights that are either equal or superior to those of other users of a water resource.
5.7 To reduce the cost of a transition to a green economy, the report recommends improvements in governance arrangements, reform of water policies and the development of partnerships with the private sector. Other key recommendations
include the phasing out of perverse subsidies and adopting freer trading arrangements, which are believed to bring benefits to many sectors. In terms of water and sanitation, the report remains decisive on the importance of full cost accounting, but inconclusive on ‘how best to charge poor households for access to water and sanitation services’. It concludes that green economies should include commitment to factoring social equity into the transition to arrangements that influence investment and decisions by people and industry, but how this is done largely depends on the context.11
6. Green Economy, Water and Poverty Analysis
6.1 The lack of a clear definition of a Green Economy within the Rio+20 context presents a potential hazard in that what is considered ‘green’ becomes a very broad concept that primarily responds to short term concerns, without adequate analysis of cross cutting issues or social and environmental impacts in the long term. If not managed carefully this could ultimately lead to negative impacts on sustainable development and poverty reduction, including from a water perspective. It is therefore essential to comprehensively analyse potential effects on environmental, social and economic levels, both on short and long term, and across sectors and including the impacts of climate change. This includes strong environmental and social safeguards, with a clear focus on cross cutting water related impacts, as an essential part of a Green Economy.
6.2 Green Economy policies should avoid moving into a ‘new paradigm’ on water, without proper recognition of lessons learned through other water related processes, in particular in terms of poverty related aspects. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and other similar approaches came through as viable strategies from the Rio and other processes. Implementation has been slow, partly due to lack of political will, but it is essential that they still form a key part of the Green Economy process. The important role of poor communities and other key stakeholders also need to be recognised, not just as beneficiaries, but as key agents and co‐creators of positive change. The Rio Declaration and Agenda put local communities, with particular emphasis on women, as a key component of sustainable development and it is essential that this recognition is also reflected in Green Economy policies.
6.3 As described above, the UNEP report argues that shifting to a green economy usually involves a commitment to begin charging for the full costs of resource use. The main tension is how to include principles on social equity, including how to charge for water and sanitation services, also recognising that this is now a human right. While market based approaches, including a full cost valuation of water, could provide benefits in terms of discouraging over usage, social equity principles are essential to ensure poor communities are not put at considerable disadvantage, in particular in a context of increased environmental degradation, competition over water resources and climate change. Furthermore, while some argue that there is little practical difference between private or public provision of water, attention need to be paid to the private sector’s mandate to maximise profit and implications for poor communities, as this could undermine poor communities’ ability to pay. From another perspective, profit maximisation could also lead to encouragement to consume more.
6.4 To avoid negative fallbacks of Green Economy policies, principles of social equity must therefore be included, including principles of development through a human rights framework. Adequate and efficient regulation is also important, as well as ensuring poor people are involved in decision making, to ensure sustainability and that their
knowledge and needs are recognised. This should include women, who are often responsible for water management on a domestic level. 12 The linkages to other poverty related processes must also be recognised. Sustainable and equitable access to water also has impacts on other development related issues, such as gender equality, health, education, food production and work opportunities, all key elements of the MDGs. Furthermore, the potential impact of climate change must be recognised, given that the water cycle will be particularly affected, and could therefore severely undermine any progress if not taken into account. Again, poor people are likely to be hit the hardest.
6.5 Progressio, CEPES and Water Witness International’s report ‘Drop by drop: Understanding the impact of the UK’s water footprint through a case study of Peruvian asparagus’ highlights tensions between large scale agribusiness and water for local communities, which can serve as an illustrative example of the importance of recognition of water related impacts and lessons for a Green Economy. The report illustrates a number of far reaching impacts of the growth of agribusiness, largely supported by international investment, including rapid depletion of the aquifer, and with negative fallbacks for poor and marginalised communities in the Ica Valley and beyond, such as lack of water for drinking and for irrigation.13
7. Recommendations
7.1 The Rio+20 process presents a vital opportunity to reignite progress towards sustainable development, in particular in the light of increased environmental degradation, competition over scarce resources and climate change. The UK Government should play a leadership role in this process.
7.2 Water represents a cross cutting and urgent issue that should be at the heart of the Rio+20 process, including as a fundamental aspect of the Green Economy.
7.3 Water is not a ‘sector’ and it’s cross cutting nature must be acknowledged, including impacts on poor and vulnerable communities, and with a gender focus. This includes linkages to agriculture and energy, and both short and long term effects must be taken into account, as well as the impacts of climate change.
7.4 Social equity and participation must be at the heart of the Rio+20 and Green Economy process, with a focus on sustainable and equitable water resource management. This is also crucial for achieving the MDGs, and should recognise the human right to water and sanitation.
1 Agnew C and Woodhouse P (2011) Water Resources and Development, Routledge, Oxon, p.109 2 FAO Water, ‘Hot issues: water scarcity’ http://www.fao.org/nr/water/issues/scarcity.html (accessed 8 July 11) 3 See for example Bates, B.C et al Eds. (2008) Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva 4 International Fund for Agricultural Development. 18 February 2009. President issues wake-up call. IFAD press release, Rome. See www.ifad.org/media/press/2009/9.htm 5 http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/ 6 OECD (2011) Towards green growth: A summary for policy makers, OECD, Paris
7 United Nations General Assembly, Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Objectives and themes of the United Nations conference on Sustainable Development, 22 December 2010 8 United Nations General Assembly, Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Synthesis report on best practices and lessons learned on the objective and themes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, 21 January 2011 9 United Nations General Assembly, Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Objectives and themes of the United Nations conference on Sustainable Development, 22 December 2010 10 UNCSD, Co-Chairs’ Summary, First Preparatory Committee Meeting for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, 2012, 20 May 2010 11 UNEP (2011) Towards a green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport/tabid/29846/Default.aspx 12 See, for example, Waterwiki.net, Utility Privatisation through the Lens of Human Rights, http://waterwiki.net/index.php/Utility_Privatisation_through_the_Lens_of_Human_Rights 13 Extract from Progressio, CEPES and Water Witness International (2010) Drop by drop: Understanding the impact of the UK’s water footprint through a case study of Peruvian asparagus, Progressio, London
6 September 2011
Written evidence submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
1. Rio+20 is the UN Conference on Sustainable Development. It will be hosted by Brazil from 4 to 6 June 2012 to mark the 20th anniversary of the original ‘Rio Earth Summit’. The conference will seek renewed political commitment for sustainable development, and address two themes: ‘a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication’; and the ‘institutional framework for sustainable development’.
2. Rio+20 offers an important opportunity to take action at the global level to deliver green growth and to address the interlinked challenges of climate change, food, energy, water and resource security, in particular to emphasise the underpinning role of natural resources in sustaining growth and lifting people out of poverty. It will also consider changes to the governance of sustainable development.
3. Brazil has high expectations for Rio, and hope to attract the participation of heads of state and governments. The Brazilian domestic preparatory process was launched by President Dilma, accompanied by Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota and Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira on 3 June 2011 in Rio.
4. Preparations are underway at the UN in New York. Two preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings (May 2010 and March 2011) have been held to exchange ideas on the themes of the conference. Written contributions have been invited by 1 November which will feed in to a compilation document for Rio+20. Three negotiating sessions will be held next year to discuss a text for Rio, and a third and final Prepcom has been organised for 28 to 30 May 2012 in Rio. Brazil is also organising a series of informal discussions to prepare for Rio: the first of these was held on 22 and 23 August. The EU is also preparing for Rio+20.
5. The UK is actively engaged in these preparatory processes and will continue to be so, in New York, with Brazil, the EU, other international partners, and with the private sector and civil society organisations in the UK to help to make Rio a success. This note sets out the approach we are taking.
UK approach in preparing for Rio+20 6. Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is leading the UK’s preparations and developing a coherent vision across government, in collaboration with her Cabinet colleagues. An inter-departmental steering group, chaired by Defra, has been established at Director level and is developing the UK’s position this includes:
• An international green economy narrative, supported by a robust evidence base, on the need for low carbon, resource efficient, and climate resilient growth; • Specific green growth deliverables to support the transition to a green global economy. The recent OECD and UNEP reports provide a useful starting point
• Consideration of how the institutional framework for sustainable development might be improved, on which there is a wide range of views, from strengthening UNEP, to establishing a new institution.
Working with others in preparing for Rio+20 7. The Secretary of State visited Brazil in April 2010 and offered support to the Brazilian Government both on Rio+20 and on preparations for a sustainable Olympics. The Secretary of State was accompanied by senior officials who presented the UK Government’s approach to Green Growth to a cross section of Brazilian Ministries working on Rio+20, including Environment, Foreign Affairs, and Finance. The Secretary of State invited the Brazilian Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira to visit London to meet British businesses and NGOs to promote Rio+20, in particular its theme of Green Growth. In addition, the Secretary of State has discussed Rio+20 with the President of the UN General Assembly (Mr Nassir Al- Nasser).
8. Engagement with the EU: The European Commission published a communication on Rio+20 on 20 June, setting out their initial views on potential outcomes for Rio+20 and building on the EU’s policies on sustainable development and the EU2020 strategy. The communication’s proposals include:
• A framework to inform and complement governments’ efforts towards sustainability, including an overall narrative vision, a roadmap at national, regional and international level, exchange of best practice policy, and a mechanism to monitor progress;
• Strengthening sectoral action, including partnerships in the key resource areas, e.g. further protection of oceans, sustainable agriculture and food security, sustainable forest management, and an international regime on chemicals and hazardous waste;
• Economic instruments, including carbon emission trading schemes, reduction of environmentally harmful subsidies, public-private finance partnerships, and green skills training programmes.
9. The EU and Member States’ contribution to Rio will be agreed at Environment Council on 10 October, on the basis of a Polish Presidency draft. In parallel, the EU will also make a detailed contribution to the UN compilation document for Rio+20 by 1 November. The UK is fully engaged in both processes and is working closely with Poland and Denmark (incoming Presidency) to support the development of a robust EU position for Rio+20, for example on resource efficiency. Caroline Spelman is working closely with Commissioner Potocnik and her fellow Environment Ministers on all these aspects.
10. Engagement with wider International work and Institutions in the rest of the world: The Natural Environment White Paper set out UK Government’s broad international ambition as: “internationally, to achieve environmentally and socially sustainable economic growth, together with food, water, climate and energy security”. Rio+20 is one of three major international meetings taking place over the next 18 months, where decisions will be made on a range of priority issues relevant to this agenda, including green growth, climate change, biodiversity, forestry and environmentally sustainable agriculture. The other two meetings are the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban (South Africa) in December 2011, and the 11th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Hyderabad (India) in October 2012.
11. Engagement with business: Delivering green growth will rely heavily on private sector actions – through trade, innovation and investment. Enlightened business is already advanced in its own thinking about sustainability, and knows how to be green, and understands how this aids sustainable profits. Government can facilitate green growth by putting in place measures which will enable the private sector to deliver a green economy. The Secretary of State is engaging with business on this.
12. The Government’s approach to delivering a green economy is set out in ‘Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy: Government and business working together’. The transition to a green economy is essential to delivering sustainable development and long term growth. More detail is provided in Defra’s response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry into the Green Economy.
13. Engagement with civil society: Similarly the Secretary of State is meeting civil society stakeholders to seek their views in preparing the UK’s position for Rio.
9 September 2011
Written evidence submitted by BioRegional
Introduction to BioRegional Development Group
1 BioRegional is an entrepreneurial charity which initiates and delivers practical solutions that help us to live with a fair share of the earth’s resources ‐ what we call one planet living1. One planet living is a positive vision of a world in which we are living happy, healthy lives within the natural limits of the planet‐ wherever we live in the world‐ having left sufficient space for wildlife and wilderness.
2 Working with partners we have developed inspiring, real life examples of sustainable communities and businesses which show one planet living in practice.
3 From this practical experience BioRegional has developed a simple approach and sustainability framework based on 10 principles, which enables others to implement one planet living. These principles are: zero carbon (in building energy use), zero waste (to landfill), sustainable transport, sustainable materials, local and sustainable food, sustainable water, land use and wildlife, culture and heritage, equity and local economy and health and happiness. Please see attached brochure ‘One Planet Solutions ’. Executive Summary
4 Globally we are producing more greenhouse gases and consuming more resources than the planet can absorb or replenish – some 50% more annually2. If everyone in the world lived like we do in the UK we would need three planets to support us. That is why we need “one planet living”.
5 From our own experience on practical projects we know that one planet living is possible, can bring an improved quality of life and can be achieved cost effectively. BioRegional have also developed and made available a simple framework, approach and toolkit to enable others to achieve one planet living. BioRegional will be showcasing these real life examples and launching an improved toolkit at Rio+20.
6 For Rio+20 BioRegional are proposing that:
− Countries from both the global north and south commit to producing national roadmaps to enable their citizens to achieve one planet living by 2030. − An equivalent body to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change be introduced for Resource Use. This could include National Councils on Resource Use to inform the development and implementation of national roadmaps.
7 The UK Government has much to be proud of with regard to sustainability and can show leadership in the run up to and at Rio+20. BioRegional would like the UK Government to prototype a national roadmap to enable citizens to achieve one planet living, perhaps “twinning” with a developing country and showcase and champion the idea at Rio+20. This could be called a roadmap for a green economy.
8 As governments cannot achieve sustainability alone, civil society and business must be meaningfully engaged in the Rio+20 process as key stakeholders in the delivery of a green economy.
1 The words “one planet living” are a registered trademark. BioRegional trademarked it in 2002 because we wanted it to be used only for projects which truly exemplify one planet living. In 2004 we agreed to share the trademark with WWF International as part of a partnership at the time. WWF International have agreed to BioRegional’s request that the words one planet living be freely used for Rio+20. BioRegional’s aim is that it “floats up” and becomes a commonly used term to describe sustainability.
2 Global Footprint Network 2011 http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/
Issues to be urgently addressed at Rio
9 We are consuming too many resources and seeing the results through the impact of climate change, disappearing forests, over exploited fisheries and loss of biodiversity on a massive and rapid scale. Globally we are now consuming 50% more than the Earth’s bio‐capacity, with different countries consuming at different rates. If everyone lived like the average European we would need three planets to support us, whereas the average citizen of Bangladesh consumes the equivalent of a third of a planet.
10 One planet living is about becoming more resource efficient (contraction) in countries where consumption is above a sustainable, one planet living level and developing and growing in a sustainable way (convergence) in countries where citizens do not have enough and are consuming below the one planet living level. At Rio+20, we believe that countries must commit to achieve one planet living by 2030 in order to secure a sustainable and equitable future within the time frame that the science and morality tells us is necessary. Positive Effects of Greening the Economy: Eradicating Poverty, including the tensions between growth and prosperity in the context of sustainable development
11 The approach that we have found to be successful in order to get to a green economy, is first of all to benchmark emissions using ecological footprint and then to implement sustainability within the limits that the science and morality tells us is necessary.
12 At BioRegional, we use ecological footprint to demonstrate that citizens are consuming resources and pumping out pollutants at a rate that is way beyond the planet’s ability to replenish or absorb them. Although the ecological footprint is not an exact science, it gives an important overview of global consumption and production patterns and provides the solution and a vision of a sustainable future in a simple way that even a young child can understand!
13 BioRegional creates sustainable communities and production systems which aim to demonstrate that a sustainable future is attractive, affordable and achievable. These projects follow a one planet living approach that address all 10 one planet living principles, and are closely monitored to provide evidence of what works well and what could be improved, enabling sharing of best practice.
14 We believe that this approach will create efficient, strong and diverse regional economies which are more resilient to external pressures such as resource constraints and price rises. Local economies are more responsive and accountable as any adverse impacts of the economic activity are seen locally and so addressed directly.
15 From our experience working with governments and businesses, we know that the green economy will provide growth in green jobs through new business opportunities.
The institutional frameworks (at international, regional, national and local levels) required to deliver a “green economy” and a more sustainable future for all, now and into the future
16 BioRegional is calling for countries to develop national one planet living roadmaps, to enable them to deliver the green economy. A national one planet living roadmap will differ from current national sustainable development plans in that these roadmaps will be based on what citizens consume. It is our intention that during the Rio+20 process we prototype the concept with three or more nations. Which for us, ideally would include the UK. Our ambitious aim is that twenty per cent of nations, that is forty countries from both the global north and south commit at Rio+20 to producing Roadmaps to enable their citizens to achieve one planet living by 2030.
17 Based on our experience, developing a national one planet living roadmap could be approached in the following stages: − First, in order to have a proper understanding of sustainable resource use of their citizens, countries need to benchmark their consumption based impacts and have a breakdown of where they arise using carbon and ecological footprint and perhaps the nine planetary boundaries3. To ensure that this is informed by good science, we consider that an equivalent body to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be introduced for Resource Use. This could include National Councils on Resource Use to inform the development and implementation of national roadmaps. − Secondly, make a plan by asking; what do citizens need, and what resources do we have in our country to help them meet those needs in a sustainable way? Develop an action plan with society (e.g. citizens, business and local authorities) considering all three pillars of sustainability to reach sustainable carbon and ecological footprint, and social and economic development. We suggest this includes; energy, waste, transport, materials, food, water, land use, biodiversity, culture, heritage, equity, fair trade, local economy, health and happiness. Work together in partnership to create solutions, monitor outcomes and share lessons learned.
18 Institutional frameworks are required to address unsustainable business practice and the corruption of governments; without these measures we cannot achieve sustainability.
Objectives & roles the UK government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run‐up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU preparations and negotiations.
19 The UK Government has the opportunity to show much needed leadership in the run‐up to Rio+20 and during the conference itself. The Government also has lots to be proud of with many significant achievements towards reaching sustainability in the UK, for example the Climate Change Act, which we believe should be shared with other countries to demonstrate best practice and inspire other Governments to take action.
20 BioRegional asks that UK Prime Minister David Cameron shows real leadership by being one of the first global leaders to commit to attend Rio+20 next year and share the UK’s achievements towards reaching sustainability.
21 BioRegional also asks that the Government support the concept of an equivalent organisation to the IPCC for Resource Use and pioneer the development of a Roadmap to enable UK citizens to achieve happy, healthy lives within an equitable share of the world’s resources, perhaps “twinning” with a developing country. BioRegional would be happy to offer hands‐on support and advice to help the government to prototype this idea. Our Chief Executive has already discussed this concept with Secretary of State for the Environment Caroline Spelman and DEFRA officials who are currently considering this idea.
Ideal outcomes from Rio+20, and how any agreements should be subsequently monitored
22 Based on our successful experiences working with government and business partners to create real‐life demonstrations of one planet living and the green economy, BioRegional would like to see the following outcomes:
3 Nine Planetary Boundaries http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/thenineplanetaryboundaries.4.1fe8f3 3123572b59ab80007039.html
− Recognition of the fact that the growing human population has to live within the natural limits of our planet and that in a just world we should be working towards equitable consumption of resources (what we call one planet living), fair trade and leaving sufficient space for wildlife and wilderness. These should be highlighted as key guiding principles.
− Countries and regions acknowledge the consumption based impacts of their citizens and note in what sectors these impacts arise. A new organisation established to peer review scientific evidence and advise the UN and nations on the situation with regard to resource availability and use. This could include National Resource Councils. Information and tools provided at Rio+20 will enable all stakeholders to understand and use this information.
− Countries and regions commit to work with their citizens (including business) to create sustainable regional economies which enable citizens to live healthy, happy lives within their fair share of the world’s resources – one planet living. This means considering citizens needs in the region, such as for food, energy, shelter, warmth, employment etc, deciding how these needs can be met in the most resource efficient way and then implementing it. New jobs, businesses and technology will naturally be created in response to this type of approach.
− A guiding framework be used to ensure all aspects of sustainability are considered in the transition to a green economy‐ a generic tool‐kit such as the 10 one planet living principles.
− Any attempt at defining or conceptualising the green economy should be broad and adaptable to the needs of countries at different levels of development.
− Developed countries commit to support less developed countries by providing access to useful processes and technologies, which will support their transition to a green economy.
23 Ultimately we would like one planet living to be seen as the desired trajectory for Rio+20 outputs, with at least forty countries from both the global south and north committing to produce a roadmap to enable their citizens to achieve one planet living by 2030.
24 In addition, one planet living is one of a number initiatives being considered for the UNCSD 10 Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) for Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP). We call for all governments and the UN to complete an agreement and enabling resolution on the 10 YFP for SCP as part of the Rio+20 process. Please refer to BioRegional’s attached proposal for the 10YFP.
Potential risks to the ideal outcomes being achieved, and any lessons that should be learnt from previous conferences
25 It is essential that Rio+20 encourage a collaborative, stakeholder approach towards addressing sustainable development. The green economy will be dependent on the involvement of civil society and businesses, therefore we call for these sectors and all Major Groups to be fully and meaningfully engaged in the Rio+20 process‐ we do not want to be passive observers of this process! One good example of an effective, consultative process towards achieving sustainable development is the French Grenelle Process, which extensively engaged civil society and business throughout the process. The involvement of stakeholders can help to gain great ‘buy‐in’ from governments and further help to hold them to account on any agreements made at Rio+20.
26 We cannot see how we can force governments to create and adhere to their national one planet living roadmaps. We believe that the most important thing is to show how it is possible to achieve one planet living, which we hope will motivate others including governments to realise that ‘it can be done’. We also hope that by communicating the one planet living framework for achieving sustainability to citizens during the Rio+20 process, citizens will hold their governments to account towards meeting the objectives set in their national one planet living roadmaps. Web‐based tools will accompany information on the case studies to help individuals, local authorities and organisations understand where their impacts arise and take action.
27 There are many lessons we can learn from past conferences on sustainable development. Governments should adhere to and reference the commitments that have already been made. One suggestion is an article analysis and review of each of the primary sustainable development agreements that the UN has developed and agreed to over the past 20 years and then how to implement it, taking civil society input into account. Please refer to attached document: ‘Principles for the Green Economy: A Collection of principles for the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication’
BioRegional’s proposals and activities for Rio+20 are also summarised in the attached campaign brochure: ‘Securing a sustainable and equitable future through one planet living’.
23 September 2011 Written evidence submitted by Earth Charter UK
Summary
This paper from Earth Charter UK introduces the Charter, and its current position in the UK. It then addresses the two key issues of Rio+20 (Greening the Economy and Institutional Frameworks) informed both by international papers prepared for the Earth Charter initiative on the issues and work currently being undertaken in the UK.
It contains three recommendations for consideration by the Committee:
1. In order to drive ambition in the run‐up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU the UK government should recognise and support the Earth Charter as a means of inspiring commitment and action by individuals and organisations.
2. The UK government is asked to adopt the fifteen principles of a green economy as providing a working framework. These principals individually and together should form the basis of the UK transition towards sustainability and a green economy.
3. Given the magnitude and multiplicity of environmental and social issues facing our planet, the UK government is urged to support the call at Rio for the establishment of a World Environment Organisation.
1.Background
1.1 The Earth Charter itself was a direct outcome of the 1992 Rio Summit, which called for a document which would complement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but deal with human responsibility to the planet and all forms of life.
1.2 Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev both independently began work, and were then brought together by the Dutch PM Ruud Lubbers. An international drafting committee, under the leadership of Steven Rockefeller drew on the work of a decade long, worldwide, cross‐cultural conversation about common goals and shared values. The drafting of the Earth Charter involved the most open and participatory consultation process ever conducted in connection with an international document. Thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations from all regions of the world, different cultures and religions, and diverse sectors of society have participated. The Charter has therefore been shaped by both experts and representatives of grassroots communities and was published for the millennium in June 2000, and endorsed by UNESCO in 2002. It has been recommended by UNESCO as an authoritative source document for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005 – 2015)
1.3 The Charter provides an integrated ethical approach to the crises which are currently facing us – environmental, financial, population, resources, inequity ‐ !6 Principles (distinct from, though overlapping, the 15 Green Economy Principles below) and 61 detailed sub‐principles grouped under the four headings of
• Care and Respect for the Community of Life; • Ecological Integrity; • Social and Economic Justice • Democracy, Non‐violence and Peace.
1.4 UK contributions came from numerous organisations, encouraged by the Stakeholder Forum but until 2007 there was no dissemination of the EC in UK or, perhaps more importantly, testing of how the EC could foster change.
1.5 In 2007 a small organisation, Earth Charter UK (www.earthcharteruk.org ), was set up to undertake these tasks and five key areas were identified:
• Education • Business • ‘Governance’ – local, national and ngos • Faith communities • Young people
1.6 Two key pieces of work have emerged since then:
• HM Department for International Development has given a 3 year grant to investigate the “Opportunities and Responsibilities for Business in relation to climate change and the millennium development goals”, using the Earth Charter as a framework. We are half‐way through this work, with promising results emerging. • Bournemouth Borough Council has become the first in the UK to endorse the Earth Charter providing exciting opportunities for in‐depth, cross‐cutting work engaging all the target areas in 1.4 above. A brief report is appended.
1.7 The Preamble to the Earth Charter includes the following paragraph on The Global Situation: The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty, ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.
Our overall hope for the Rio+20 meeting is
• for effective challenges to the unquestioned assumption of continual growth • for proposals for the replacement of GNP by wider instruments • for effective policies for establishing sustainable living (rather than sustainable development) • for the replacement of wasteful consumerism by a developing emphasis on reclamation and regeneration. 1.8 Commitment to and, where possible, endorsement of the Earth Charter by individuals, organisations and national governments (Portugal, 2010; Mexico 2009 and Tajikistan 2000) is a major indicator of • the recognition of the need to embed an ethical approach at the core of decision making • a statement that the situation facing us, though perilous is not inevitable and that work together collaboratively can bring about the necessary changes. We therefore recommend: Recommendation One
The Summit should recognise and support the Earth Charter as a means of inspiring commitment and action by individuals and organisations around the world.
In regard to the Committee’s desire to investigate:
• the objectives and roles the UK Government should assume in order to drive ambition in the run-up to the Conference and at Rio, including its part in the EU
We recommend similar recognition and support by the UK. This would be in line with the recommendations of the Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15.09.2010 NAT/469 Paragraph 1.5 (appended)
2.0 After the Charter was published, while responsibility for the text of the Charter remains in the hands of the Commission, the Earth Charter Initiative www.earthcharter.org was set up, with a Secretariat in Costa Rica alongside the UN University of Peace and governed by an international Earth Charter Council, to foster the Charter’s endorsement, adoption and implementation.
2.1 A form of ‘devolved empowerment’ was adopted, encouraging individual Charter groups all over the world to work to achieve the Charter’s aims of a Just, Sustainable and Peaceful Global Society.
2.2 The Secretariat publishes research being done on its behalf across the world and this Submission draws upon that work. Work concerning Rio+20 can be found at http://bit.ly/nXoIKd (accessed 17.09.2011)
2.3 The Earth Charter Initiative has two goals for Rio 2012
• to emphasize the need for a comprehensive ethical framework, articulating shared values and principles to inspire and guide different actors in the transition to a sustainable future. • to demonstrate the relevance of the Earth Charter to the objectives of the Rio 2012 Conference and its process.
2.4 At this time, three articles (appended) have been published on the ECI web‐site: • The Earth Charter and the Green Economy by ECI Secretariat (March 2011) • Principles for the Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication by ECI Secretariat, Stakeholder Forum and Bioregional • Enabling a Flourishing Earth: Challenges for the Green Economy, Opportunities for Global Governance by Bosselmann, Brown and Mackey.
3.0 Principles for a Green Global Economy
3.1 Drawing upon the Earth Charter (and providing a consolidated chart comparing other key instruments: The Stockholm Declaration, the Rio Declaration, The Johannesburg Declaration, The One Planet Living Principles, The Green Economy Coalition, the TUC ‘Just Transition’ principles, and The New Economics Foundation), the Earth Charter Initiative, in conjunction with Stakeholder Forum, has identified and published 15 Principles which together help define a global green economy. They are reproduced here, for convenience:
1. Equitable distribution of wealth: Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations, to reduce disparities between rich and poor, and achieve social and economic justice, within a sustainable and fair share of the world’s resources and leaving sufficient space for wildlife and wilderness.
2. Economic equity and fairness: Guided by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, create economic partnerships that would transfer substantial financial and technological assistance to less developed countries, to help minimize the gap between the developed and developing world and support the environmental sustainability of both.
3. Intergenerational Equity: Environmental resources and ecosystems must be carefully managed and safeguarded so as to enhance the value of environmental assets for future generations, thereby equitably meeting their needs and allowing them to flourish.
4. Precautionary Approach: Science should be utilized to enhance social and environmental outcomes, through the identification of environmental risk. Scientific uncertainty of environmental impacts shall not lead to avoidance of measures to prevent environmental degradation. The ‘burden of proof’ should lie with those claiming that there will not be significant environmental impacts
5. The Right to Development: Human development in harmony with the environment is fundamental to the achievement of sustainable development, so that individuals and societies are empowered to achieve positive social and environmental outcomes.
6. Internalization of Externalities: Building true social and environmental value should be the central goal of policy. To this end, market prices must reflect real social and environmental costs and benefits, so that that the polluter bears the cost of pollution. Tax regimes and regulatory frameworks should be used to ‘tilt the playing field’, making ‘good’ things cheap and ‘bad’ things very expensive.
7. International Cooperation: The application of environmental standards within nation States must be undertaken in a cooperative manner with the international community, based on an understanding of the possible impact on the development potential of other States. Environmental measures relating to trade should avoid unfair protectionism, but overall should ensure that trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection and progressive labour standards, promoting a ‘race to the top’ rather than the bottom.
8. International liability: Acknowledging that actions within national boundaries can cause environmental impacts beyond national jurisdictions, requiring cooperation in the development of international law that allows for independent judicial remedies in such cases.
9. Information, participation and accountability: All citizens should have access to information concerning the environment, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision‐making processes. To ensure that environmental issues are handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, institutions at all levels (national and international) must be democratic and accountable, and make use of tools that enable civil society to hold them to account. In this regard, the access to justice by citizens for redress and remedy in environmental matters is a cornerstone of enhancing accountability.
10. Sustainable Consumption and Production: Introduce sustainable production and consumption with sustainable and equitable resource use. Reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, i.e. reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used, acknowledge the scarcity of the Earth resources and implement activities accordingly.
11. Strategic, co‐ordinated and integrated planning to deliver sustainable development, the green economy and poverty alleviation: An integrated approach must be adopted at all levels to expedite the achievement of socio‐economic and environmental sustainability through strategic planning with civil society and stakeholders, and across all relevant government departments.
12. Just Transition: There will be costs in making the transition to a low carbon, green economy in the pursuit of sustainable development. Some States and actors are better able to bear those costs than others and are more resilient to transitional changes. In the process of change, the most vulnerable must be supported and protected – developing countries must have access to appropriate financial and technical assistance, citizens and communities must also have access to new skills and jobs.
13. Redefine Well‐being: GDP is an inadequate tool for measuring social wellbeing and environmental integrity. Many socially and environmentally damaging activities enhance GDP – such as fossil fuel exploitation and financial speculation. Human wellbeing and quality of life, and environmental health should be the guiding objectives of economic development.
14. Gender Equality: Gender equality and equity are prerequisites to the transition to a green economy and the achievement of sustainable development. Women have a vital role to play as agents of change for environmental management and development and their actions must be rewarded accordingly and their skills enhanced.
15. Safeguard biodiversity and prevent pollution of any part of the environment: Protect and restore biodiversity and natural habitats as integral to development and human wellbeing, and develop a system of governance that protects the resilience of ecosystems to prevent irreversible damage.
Recommendation Two:
The Committee is respectfully encouraged to draw the attention of HM Government to the above 15 Principles in all its work towards fostering and developing the Green Economy and to champion their adoption in Rio.
Further each of the Principles should be studied individually and in conjunction with the others to see where they may be further implemented across the UK economy in order to ensure a swift transition towards sustainability.
4.0 The institutional framework for sustainable development This section is drawn from the appended paper prepared for the Earth Charter Initiative by Klaus Bosselmann (Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Auckland, who, with J. Ronald Engel, the Emeritus Professor of Theology and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Humans and Nature in Chicago has published a textbook, The Earth Charter: A framework for Global Governance); Peter G. Brown, (Professor of Geography and Environmental Ethics, McGill); Brendan Mackey (Prof of Environmental Biogeography Australian National Univ., IUCN Council, Co‐Chair, EC Council). The paper has full, detailed and very helpful references.
4.1 The magnitude of the issues we face globally is truly immense. As yet, we are far from addressing the negative environmental and social outcomes as manifested by the climate change problem, the biodiversity extinction crisis, the ongoing crippling effects on human wellbeing of poverty, violence and war, along with water and food security and other resource concerns. The scale and complexity of our problems has pushed solutions beyond the grasp of current governance mechanisms.
4.2 We need integrated responses that are framed by the reality that Earth is our common home with natural limits to its exploitation, and that people in all nations have a common destiny and share interest in how their world is governed. As noted in the Earth Charter:
…To realize these aspirations we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for the present and future well‐being of the human family and the larger living world.
4.3 We concur with those world leaders who have concluded that the global scope of the challenges, together with the special requirements of the ‘goods of the commons’ (air, water, the oceans, the atmosphere, healthy soil, the diversity of life), will require a new world organisation, identified here as WEO (World Environment Organisation).
4.4 The mandate of such a WEO would provide a trusteeship function over global public goals and common goods – that is, those portions of the planet and its surrounding space which lie above and beyond the recognized territorial claims of any nation. The trusteeship duties will include:
• Global obligations for the integrity of planetary boundaries and the wellbeing of the greater community of life. • Overseeing markets to ensure that they are protective of non‐market common goods • Ensuring impartiality of all interests – individual, civil society, corporate, national – along with respect for human rights and ecological well‐being
The WEO could act in a similar way to that in which the UN trusteeship council acted as a ‘guardian’ of interests of states transitioning from colonisation to independence, that is for entities which have not, as yet, legal standing.
4.5 The legitimacy of such a powerful environmental institution will depend upon its being widely democratic, representative and participatory. As recent geopolitical events illustrate, Earth Charter principle 13 is rapidly becoming an international norm in all the cultures of the world:
Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.
This democratic principle is particularly important with relation to the environment as it is an issue which will affect everyone and often particularly those with the least power.
4.6 Finance must be sufficient, predictable and coherent best secured by a Global Commons Trust Fund, levied on those who are the proximate generators of global environmental and social harm, together with a tax on financial transactions. (Details are provided in footnotes 25‐29 of the Bosselmann paper)
4.7 The creation of such a WEO at the present time, against what might be considered as the current thinking both of nation‐states and multi‐national corporations, may seem impossible to envisage. Nothing, however, could do more to reassure people worldwide, particularly young people, that change is possible, given the magnitude and urgency of global environmental problems. To quote again the Earth Charter:
The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.
Recommendation 3
Given the magnitude and multiplicity of environmental and social issues facing our planet, the UK government is urged to support the call at Rio for the establishment of a World Environment Organisation.
28 September 2011
Written evidence submitted by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health
The UK APPG on PD&RH wants to draw attention to population growth and the 215 million women in the world with an unmet need for family planning and sustainable development.
Population, Consumption and the Environment: The human population has doubled since 1960 to 6.1 billion, with growth mostly in poorer countries. Consumption expenditures have more than doubled since 1970, with increases mostly in richer countries. During this time, we have created wealth on an unimaginable scale, yet half the world still exists on less than $2 a day. We have learned how to extract resources for our use, but not how to deal with the resulting waste: emissions of carbon dioxide, for example, grew 12 times between 1900 and 2000. In the process we are changing the world's climate - we have raised the average global surface temperatures. The human and ecological impact has caused rising oceans, which has subsequently caused increased flooding, coastal erosion, and loss of coastal cropland, wetlands and living space. The intensity and frequency of hurricanes and other hazardous weather may also increase, endangering the growing human population in coastal areas. The great questions for the 21st century are whether the activities of the 20th century have set us on a collision course with the environment, and if so, what can we do about it? Human ingenuity has brought us this far. How can we apply it to the future so as to ensure the well- being of human populations, and still protect the natural world? The stewardship of the planet and the well-being of its people are a collective responsibility. Everywhere we face critical decisions. Some are about how to protect and promote fundamental values such as the right to health and human dignity. Others reflect trade-offs between available options, or the desire to broaden the range of choice. We need to think carefully but urgently about what the choices are, and to take every action that will broaden choices and extend the time in which to understand their implications. Today every part of the natural and human world is linked to every other. Local decisions have a global impact. Global policy, or the lack of it, affects local communities and the conditions in which they live. Humans have always changed and been changed by the natural world; the prospects for human development now depend on our wisdom in managing the relationship. One of the key factors must be population and access to family planning and maternal and reproductive health services. This is one of the areas where action to broaden choices is universally available, affordable and agreed upon.
The Connections: Population and the environment are closely related, but the links between them are complex and varied, and depend on specific circumstances. Generalisations about the negative effects of population growth on the environment are often misleading. Population scientists long ago abandoned such an approach, yet policy in some cases still proceeds as if it were a reality. As human populations increase and globalisation proceeds, key policy questions are: how to use available resources of land and water to produce food for all; how to promote economic development and end poverty so that all can afford to eat and have clean water; and, in doing so how to address the human and environmental consequences of industrialisation and concerns like global warming, climate change and the loss of biological diversity. Environmental devastation is not simply a waste of resources; it is a threat to the complex structures that support human development. Understanding the ways in which population and environment are linked requires detailed consideration of the way in which factors interrelate, including affluence, consumption, technology and population growth, but also previously ignored or underrated social concerns such as gender roles and relations, political structures, and governance at all levels. The relationships among environment, population and social development are increasingly better understood. There is broad agreement on means and ends. Women's empowerment, for example, is a development end in itself. Removing the obstacles to women's exercise of economic and political power is also one of the means to end poverty. Reproductive health is part of an essential package of health care and education. It is a means to the goal of women's empowerment, but it is also a human right and includes the right to choose the size and spacing of the family. Achieving equal status between men and women, guaranteeing the right to reproductive health, and ensuring that individuals and couples can make their own choices about family size will help to slow population growth rates and reduce the future size of world population. Among other things, slower population growth will contribute measurably towards relieving environmental stress.
Demographic Challenges and Opportunities: Changes in the size, rate of growth and distribution of human populations have a broad impact on the environment and on development prospects. A variety of demographic changes in different areas provide new challenges and opportunities.
• 350 million couples would use contraception today, but have no access to advice or services • Around 350 000 women die in childbirth each year, half of these in Africa - the main causes of death being unsafe abortion, Post Partum Haemorrhage, Puerperal Sepsis, Pre-Eclampsia and Obstructed labour
Women, men, couples should be at the core of the sustainable development agenda, if we want to improve human well being and preserve the quality of the environment.
The Rio+20 Summit should heed the first principle of the 1992 Rio Declaration - that 'human being are at the centre of concern for Sustainable Development' - by taking full account of how population and society interact with the natural environment'.
If sustainable development is to mean anything, people must be healthy enough to benefit from it and not have their lives cut off prematurely through a lack of choice.
If we do not put the Human Population and Family Planning, Maternal and Reproductive Health at the core of the sustainable-development agenda, our efforts to improve human well being and preserve the quality of the environment would most likely fail. We will without any doubt jeopardise the Millennium Development Goals.
Regional and national Parliamentary All Party Parliamentary Groups on Population and Development uphold the view that women’s empowerment, women’s rights and human rights including sexual and reproductive health rights are integral components of population and development strategies designed to improve the quality of life of individuals, couples, families and society in general.
Sustainable development rests on 3 pillars, these pillars are mutually supportive and create a synergy for sustainable development:
• Social progress • Economic growth • Protection of the environment and natural resources
Reaffirming our commitment to the Millennium Declaration (2000) and the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development (1994) by empowering women through universal access to education, family planning and reproductive health services will ensure:
• Fewer unwanted and unplanned pregnancies • Reduced Maternal and Infant Mortality & Morbidity rates • Reduced HIV/AIDS prevalence rates • Improved quality of life & well-being • Population stabilisation
On our journey from Rio to Johannesburg and back to Rio we must go through Cairo - the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD PoA)
At the Rio+20 Summit we urge the UK Government and other countries to:
• Reaffirm their commitment to the ICPD Programme of Action by making accessible through the primary health system family planning, maternal and reproductive health care
• Allocate 10% of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Family Planning, Maternal and Reproductive Health – and enshrine in law 0.7% of GNI allocated to ODA
In summary Population and Family Planning, Maternal and Reproductive Health must figure prominently on the Rio+20 agenda as a key component of sustainable development.
Population must not be: the elephant in the living room that nobody wants to talk about.
It is time for us to stand up and fight for women's rights including their sexual and reproductive rights.
3 August 2011