Published by Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development

Rio de Janeiro (June 21, 2012): Women from Asia Pacific demand governments address critical issues on women’s human rights missing in the Rio+20 negotiations for sustainable development. Employment and economic rights, militarisation, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and women’s role in climate change significantly impact women across the region, yet are being ignored. Asia Pacific women call for States to ensure the promotion, protection and realisation of women’s human rights in the outcome document.

Our six women’s rights organisations represent rural, indigenous and migrant women across Asia Pacific and we see serious gaps in the current draft of the outcome document.

Employment and economic rights: The economic growth model, which will continue in the “green economy”, depends on gendered and international division of labour exploiting informal cheap labour mostly performed by women in the global south. Under-recognition of domestic work reflects exploitative conditions and rampant abuse of domestic workers. This includes women migrant domestic workers, who are often from marginalised communities and vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, abuse and violence. Dismissal of their substantial contribution to economic development is a serious loss in women’s human capacity which could contribute to sustainable development and to eradicating poverty. We demand that all States legally recognise domestic work as work and ensure that women workers, including migrant workers regardless of their legal status, are ensured equal access to education, skills, healthcare, social security, fundamental rights at work, and social and legal protections, including occupational safety and health. States should address the root causes of women’s migration and the conditions necessary for sustainable development with safe and protected jobs for women, including alternatives to migration. This involves enacting and enforcing laws, procedures and redress mechanisms that prevent exploitation and abuse of women migrant workers. States, in fulfilling their extra territorial obligations must review bilateral agreements that contribute to discrimination and violations of the rights of women migrant workers and ensure States fulfill human rights obligations not only within, but also outside their territories.

Militarisation/peace: Militarisation, often a justification for peace and development, only deepens injustice by suppressing the voices of people and denying people’s access to resources. Opening up of new agricultural lands or construction of roads to connect commodity supply with demand most often fragments habitat, and in addition leads to land conflicts and increase use of militarization resulting to violence and displacement, of which women are most adversely affected. Natural resource extractions have often involved forced and violent responses by the military and private security hired by companies, to communities and individuals who claim their legitimate right to resources. Women human rights defenders combating the negative impact of the extractive activities are often the target of harassment, sexual abuse and even murder by these forces. Conflict over natural resources often forces women to migrate or become displaced, becoming vulnerable to violations without basic human rights protections, especially rural and indigenous women. A militaristic approach to “development, which denies the human rights of women and peoples, shall never result in sustainable development. We call on States to monitor and stop the use of state military, paramilitary and private armed groups, including foreign military interventions, in protecting development projects, which are primarily funded by international funding institutions.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights: The full realisation of sustainable development can only be realised when the states accept the importance of women’s right to health and inter alia protect and promote women’s fundamental human right to nutritional well-being throughout their life span by means of a food supply that is safe, nutritious and adapted to local conditions as well as recognise the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women. In addressing the inter-relatedness of rights, it is essential that the Rio+20 outcome document recognise and adopt recommendations for States to ensure timely access to the range of family planning, in particular, and to sexual and reproductive health and rights in general. Particular attention should be paid to the health education of adolescents, including information and counseling on all methods of family planning.

The environment and climate change: Women’s role in climate change is often limited to defining their role as protectors of the environment, and less as agents of change. This perception often blocks their right to participate in climate change related policies, and in natural resources management. Climate change programmes and projects, including international mechanisms to protect areas from deforestation and enhance biodiversity, should be carefully considered. States should ensure effective forest protection policies which require governments to resolve the global economic and trade pressures that cause deforestation. The rights of indigenous and rural communities are not adequately addressed by the supposed “safeguards” currently in place. We call on States to eliminate laws, policies and practices which instrumentalise women as mere protectors of the environment. There should be a commitment to ensure women as active decision-makers in disaster and natural resources management policy and programme development.

In ensuring the adoption ofa human rights centred approach the principles of non-discrimination, substantive equality, and the recognition of the inter-relatedness of rights must be maintained, along with recognition of the principles of non-retrogression. States should ensure equal opportunity, access and benefits, and address the impact of historical and structural discrimination against women. This must include temporary special measures and the increase of women’s participation to accelerate gender equality.

In order to ensure accountability and transparency, all States are obliged to provide mechanisms through which people can hold the State and private actors accountable, participate constructively in decision and policy-making, and access information required to do so.

Asia Pacific women demand that these key issues be addressed by States before the adoption of the outcome document of the Rio+20. The women of Asia Pacific remain committed in engaging on sustainable development in all its future measures, processes and structures, especially in the course of establishing, supporting and monitoring the implementation of the sustainable development outcomes and goals in the region.

AMIHAN – National Peasant Women’s Network, Philippines; Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development; Asian Rural Women’s Coalition; International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific;

Kachin Women’s Association in Thailand; Solidaritas Perempuan, Indoneisa

by Ashish Kothari.

In August 2010, the UN Secretary General set up a ‘High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability’, to formulate a “new vision for sustainable growth and prosperity” for the world (‘Beyond the Benchmarks, Hindustan Times, 14.10.2010). Co-chaired by the Presidents of Finland and South Africa, the panel submitted its detailed report in January 2012. The report is under consideration in the Secretary General’s office, and will be a key input to the upcoming UN Conference on Sustainable Development (the so-called ‘Rio+20’ event coming up in June in Rio, Brazil).

How ‘new’ is the Panel’s new vision, and how much does it break away from the current model of development that is clearly leading humanity towards massive ecological, social, and economic breakdown?

The Secretary General gave the Panel a very broad mandate; it had the opportunity to redefine notions of human well-being, progress, and development. The Panel comprised mostly of heads of state and ministers, or former ministers, with the odd scientist (connected to government) thrown in.

And so we have a report that goes a certain distance in critiquing the current pathways of development, and recommending measures to ‘green’ them, but stopping well short of the fundamental rethinking that is so desperately needed. In this sense it fits well into the current negotiations towards what governments will come out with at Rio+20; a push for a ‘green economy’, and for increasing reliance on market mechanisms to solve environmental and developmental problems.

The Panel report has many positive elements. It admits that the “current global developmental model is unsustainable”, notes the growing inequalities between the poor and the rich, and minces no words when it states such failures are a result of lack of political will. As part of its recommendations, it repeatedly stresses women’s and youth empowerment, which is most welcome. It urges full respect for human rights, a move towards green and dignified jobs, universal education access, integrated governmental planning, regular reporting on sustainable development using multiple indicators, combining food, water and energy for sustainable agriculture, the spread of relevant technologies, the greening of finance, doing away with environmentally destructive subsidies (like India’s for chemical fertilizers) and a close interface between science and policy. It stresses that governments must fulfill their responsibilities in all this, while seeking ‘stakeholder’ participation.

So far, so good, but unfortunately, simply not enough. While it talks about the need for democratic governance, it does not stress that this should mean devolution of powers to each local settlement, to decide on their issues. It does not advocate even partial delinking of the local from the global, though it is now widely known that communities are increasingly vulnerable to the vagaries of national and global markets and politics, and though it is also widely known that they can, at least for many of their basic needs, be self-reliant. It does not explicitly challenge the obscene power of the private corporate sector, nor even demand that this sector be strictly regulated; rather, it talks of involving businesses more in a voluntary way. As if the corporations ripping off the planet are suddenly going to become moist-eyed on reading this report and suddenly become ecological heroes. Concomitant with this, the report gives a great deal of space to financial and market solutions to the multiple crises, even though again, there is so much accumulated evidence that these often don’t work, and certainly don’t work to empower the poor.

Here’s an interesting set of statistics. The term ‘private sector’ appears over 50 times in the report; add to this the word ‘businesses’ and ‘corporations’, and it crosses 70. The term ‘local communities’ appears only 7 times; perhaps extended to about 20 where the word ‘communities’ is used to mean the same. The term ‘indigenous people’ appears only once, that too to simply point to their continued marginalization; they don’t come anywhere in the recommendations. Of course, the term ‘civil society’ and ‘stakeholders’ comes several more times, but these generic terms don’t mean much, and could easily be interpreted by governments as anything.

The complete failure of the Panel to acknowledge the importance of empowering and learning from indigenous peoples (about the only people who have shown long-term sustainability in their living) is astounding. Not only this, the report does not even once mention traditional or indigenous knowledge; all its attention goes to modern science. It gets worse; it gives a list of people who were assistants to the Panel members, calling them “Sherpas”; this is an insult to a distinct indigenous people in Nepal who are proud bearers of ancient traditions of living in relative harmony with the earth, but whose name is used synonymously with ‘porters’ by insensitive mountaineers.

An unprecedented opportunity for a very high-level focus on an alternative vision of human well-being has been missed. In a way, this is not a surprise, given the composition of the Panel. No independent civil society members, no indigenous people’s or local community representatives. This is not to say that ministers are not capable of thinking out of the box; but this team did not quite manage it, and the governments where there is some really innovative thinking happening, such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba, were not represented. Nor did the Panel hold widespread consultations with civil society, indigenous peoples, though it did consult with some critical thinkers and practitioners.

India’s Rural Development Minister, Jairam Ramesh, was a member of the Panel. At a very early informal meeting when he joined it, some civil society members had given inputs on how the Panel could learn from the thousands of pathbreaking, innovative initiatives in India and elsewhere, showing that there are fundamentally different ways of achieving human well-being, while respecting the Earth. But then, when he and his government are not learning from these within India itself, its pointless to expect to expect a Panel comprising ministers who are pushing the ‘economic growth’ line in their own countries (with some honourable exceptions), to do something very different. If the UN Secretary General is serious about conceiving a vision of the future that will be truly sustainable and equitable, he needs to look elsewhere.

By Martin Khor

As the Rio summit on sustainable development nears, governments have yet to agree on most issues, and rich countries are backtracking on the original principles and commitments made 20 years ago.

With only 10 days to go before the start of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, the countries are still far from agreeing on what to say in a summit declaration or plan of action.

The final meeting to prepare for the conference last week at the UN headquarters in New York made some progress, but it was not enough.

Only 70 paragraphs of a total 329 in the latest draft declaration have been agreed on. There are differing views in the rest, which have to be bridged when the delegates meet again on June 13 in Rio.

The political leaders are meeting on June 20-23 for what is dubbed as the Rio plus 20 summit, so called because it is marking the 20th anniversary of the historic Earth Summit of 1992, also held in Rio.

More than a hundred heads of state or government are expected to attend Rio + 20, making it the most important international conference this year.

It will be held amid a global financial crisis, growing unemployment and worsening environmental problems, including increasing water scarcity and floods, biodiversity loss, food insecurity and climate change.

These are all part of the crisis in sustainable development and its three dimensions – economic, social and environment.

Unfortunately, the summit comes at a time when developed and developing countries seem less and less able to reach a common understanding on key issues and principles.

Big differences have emerged on the three new issues being addressed by the conference – the concept of the green economy, how to define sustainable development goals, and what new institutional framework to create to house future activities on sustainable development.

But what is even more worrying is that the developed countries are attempting to remove or dilute the principles agreed to in Rio 20 years ago, and to backtrack on the commitments they had made to assist developing countries through finance and technology transfer in order to implement sustainable development.

Thus the North-South divide is not only over specific issues but is also at the deep level of the fundamentals that lie at the foundations of international cooperation of the past many decades.

These include the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), and the commitments on technology transfer and finance.

The CBDR was one of the Rio Principles adopted in 1992. It was agreed that all countries have a common responsibility to protect the environment, but also differentiated responsibilities because the rich countries should play the leading role, due to their greater contribution to the environmental crisis and their higher economic status.

This basic principle is under attack. In the recent negotiations, the United States has made it clear it cannot accept CBDR. Wherever the term is mentioned, it wants it deleted.

Almost all developed countries use the excuse that no single Rio principle should be singled out and a general reference to the set of Rio principles should suffice.

This is causing great concern to the developing countries, grouped in the G77 and to China. For them, the clear reaffirmation of the CBDR principle in particular, and the Rio principles in general, is the most important point that Rio + 20 must proclaim. Otherwise it would be a great retreat from the original Rio.

The second serious problem is the developed countries’ back tracking on their commitment to transfer technology to developing countries.

In the section on technology transfer in the draft declaration, the US, European Union, Canada and Australia do not even want any reference to technology transfer in the title itself.

The original title in the text by the co-chairs of the meeting is “Technology development and transfer”. The US, supported by Canada and Australia, want to delete the word “transfer” and instead change the title to “Technology development, innovation and science”.

The EU also wants a new title: “Research, Innovation and Technology Development.” This is the clearest indication of an intention to kill the concept, let alone the commitment to technology transfer.

However, there are still some negotiating days ahead, and there is a slim chance that there may be a change of heart at Rio itself.

Delegates resumed their discussions on the outcome document for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20) during back-to-back meetings from 19-27  March 2012 at UN Headquarters in New York. The first “informal informal” consultations to negotiate the draft outcome document took place from 19-23 March, followed by the  Third Intersessional Meeting, which took place from 26-27 March.

Negotiations were based on the “zero draft,” which was developed by the Co-Chairs and Bureau of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee. Titled “The Future We Want,” the document was released on 10 January 2012. The draft incorporated the input received by the UNCSD Secretariat from member states and other stakeholders by 1 November 2011 (referred to as the “compilation document”) as well as comments offered during a 15-16 December 2011 Second Intersessional Meeting of the UNCSD. The first and second readings of the first two sections of the zero draft (the Preamble/Stage Setting and Renewing Political Commitment Sections) were conducted during a three-day session in January. Written comments on the remaining three sections-Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication, Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development, and Framework for Action and Follow-up-were submitted and compiled by the Secretariat into a draft that was used for negotiations during the March UNCSD meetings.

During the March meetings, delegations discussed additional amendments and responded to other delegations’ amendments on most of the text. The first reading of the sections on the green economy, institutional framework and framework for action took place during the week-long informal informal consultations. A second reading of these three sections, along with a third reading of the Preamble and most of the Renewing Political Commitment sections, was conducted during the two-day intersessional meeting.

While Major Group representatives and some delegations bemoaned the large number of brackets placed around various textual amendments, many noted that the real decisions on whether specific text will remain in the outcome document and in what format it will appear will begin during the next round of informal informal consultations. Others anticipated that the delegations at the next meeting, from 23 April – 4 May, would use the information they gained from the March discussion of positions (and, perhaps more importantly, from the behind the scenes consultations to consolidate the positions of negotiating blocs), to begin to reach agreement on what the Rio+20 outcome document will bring to the evolution of the global approach to sustainable development policy.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MEETING

Delegates that gathered at UN Headquarters for seven negotiating days in March found themselves tasked with a very demanding assignment: the “zero draft” of the outcome document for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20) had ballooned from 19 to approximately 206 pages, when all proposed amendments were added. Delegates devoted the majority of their time to a “first reading” of the sections on green economy in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development, the institutional framework for sustainable development, and the framework for action and follow-up. Many observers commented that “reading” aptly described the session: as proposals for additions, changes and deletions in the zero draft text added yet more pages to its length and were often offered with limited explanation.

Alongside this process, the corridors of the UN Headquarters North Lawn Building were abuzz with parallel meetings and side events. In contrast to the main meeting, forums and discussions held at lunchtimes and evenings provided substantial presentations and discussion of policy options, while intense networking took place in the corridors. The disparity between the energy in the corridors and side events compared to that in the informal informal negotiations raised questions about what the Rio+20 Conference can actually achieve. This analysis considers that challenge in light of the seven negotiating days in March.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT +20

Delegates in 2012 find themselves in a very different world than their counterparts did in 1992. That Summit had higher ambitions and more negotiating days-the UNCED PrepCom met for an organizational and four substantive sessions for a total of 18 weeks over two years. In contrast, UN General Assembly Resolution 64/236, which set out the parameters for Rio+20, established a limited agenda and limited preparation time. Interest in sustainable development today is more dispersed across constituencies, and many more players are in the field.

While governments are being called on to take strong and decisive action at Rio+20, the push-and-pull of civil society participation has greatly intensified, and intergovernmental processes are both more numerous and more complex, thereby increasing the demands on the time and energy of negotiators.

What this means is that the Rio+20 preparatory process is only one of many venues for decisions on environmental, social and economic development-related issues. Consequently, some suggested that this situation lessens the potential influence of the decisions to be taken in Rio. In effect, they argue that it is a little wheel, compared to the big wheels of the climate change process, trade agreements or the international financial institutions, leading some to wonder whether Rio is the right process to address global challenges twenty years after its namesake.

Inevitably, comparisons are being made with the hopes and intentions of the first Rio Conference: many point out that the current debates are rooted in decisions from the past 20 years. Developing countries look at the agreements over this period, and what they see as the lack of full implementation of commitments made at the Earth Summit in 1992 and at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. On the other hand, developed countries have suggested that the focus should be on how the role of public and private sector actions has evolved over the past 20 years. Developing countries’ references to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities throughout the draft text was met by developed countries with frequent requests for not singling out individual principles, prompting one observer to note that the Rio Principles have generated debate ever since they were adopted. In such an atmosphere, as a policy expert from the global South commented, there is a prospect that nothing will be achieved and that the conference could “end in acrimony.” Now that the wheels have been set in motion, however, some suggested that there is also the policy space to create real alternatives to the current impasse.

SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE NEXT ACT?

Many of the issues related to the UNCSD’s two themes were at the core of interventions from many delegations, albeit with very different emphases. Developed countries have promoted the possibility of a green economy in which externalities are factored into choices about how to produce and what to consume. The “Green Economy in the Context of Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development” agenda item has been the focus of many recent environmental policy discussions, including at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum’s meeting in Nairobi in February. While questions remain, discussions have pointed towards the need for a better basis for planning and implementing of sustainable development aims: bringing science and the policy making process closer together; sharing knowledge across borders; and developing “beyond GDP” indicators that can encapsulate both costs and benefits to human well-being. At the March informal informals, however, developing countries resisted mention of a green economy “roadmap” in the text and expressed concern that this could become a pretext for aid and trade conditionality. Poverty eradication, they argued, not the greenness of the economy, jobs, or technology, must be at the core of sustainable development.

Some have defined the discussions on the institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD), the other theme of Rio+20, as the biggest challenge facing the Conference, with many emphasizing that elements under this agenda item are among those issues that “will keep us up the last night in Rio.” While dissatisfaction with the Commission on Sustainable Development is widespread, the proposed alternatives have not generated a clear favorite. Observers note that proposals for a strengthened ECOSOC or creating a sustainable development council (SDC) both have potential strengths and pitfalls. Strengthening ECOSOC might be easier to do organizationally, but its broad agenda and its limited headway in promoting sustainable development coordination, despite past agreements to this effect, has limited the enthusiasm for this option. Meanwhile, the prospect of an SDC raises concern over the budgetary implications among some delegations. Many non-governmental organization representatives at the March meeting favored an SDC as potentially offering more space for participation, than would be possible under the current arrangements with ECOSOC. Some, however, privately question whether a council would be simply a cosmetic name change or garner real transformation in addressing sustainable development priorities-with the latter relying more on political will rather than institutional organization. Discussion of alternatives related to UNEP remains for another round of talks.

Some suggested that the success of another possible outcome from Rio+20-on the proposed sustainable development goals (SDGs)-may rest on decisions regarding the IFSD. The SDGs proposal, originally advanced by Colombia and Guatemala, has garnered support from developed and developing countries, as well as the report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability. Observers have highlighted that such goals would be universally applied, unlike the current Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which primarily apply to poorer nations. Supporters emphasize that the SDGs will need to build on successful aspects of the MDGs. However, the challenges will be numerous as negotiators attempt to define a consensus text on a process for developing the goals. Privately, some delegates noted procedural concerns about potential overlap with and the relationship to the MDGs, which this meeting does not have a mandate to address. Nevertheless, developing countries agreed to explore a process for consideration of SDGs, opening the possibility that delegates at Rio might have SDGs to point to as the outcome, although some mentioned that this “is another one of those issues that will go into the wee hours of the morning in Rio.”

Another proposed outcome, a “compendium of commitments” database, according to its supporters, could offer both public and private actors the opportunity to register their own sustainable development commitments. Proponents say it offers the possibility of more meaningful actions by a range of actors, and can be monitored. Some note similarities with the registry of actions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Some pointed to other precedents. For example, the “Every Woman, Every Child” initiative housed in the office of the Secretary-General maintains a registry of commitments on health and development, while the International Labor Organization has an online database on labor standards monitoring. Others highlighted that something similar has been planned in text related to the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production in the form of a listing of initiatives undertaken not only by states and UN bodies, but also by other actors, whether other intergovernmental organizations, private sector or civil society.

Developing countries bracketed the compendium on commitments proposal due to concerns that developed countries could use this approach to evade meeting sustainable development commitments reached over the past 20 years, diluting responsibility through the dispersal of actions among public and private stakeholders. Others considered the compendium to be a promising approach, well suited to the “web 2.0″ nature of the world today. Yet still others expressed the view that, while some targets may be met through the goodwill of the private sector, governments have a responsibility to make sustainable choices more possible through changes in regulatory frameworks, so that the correct price and other signals are given.

RETURNING TO FIRST PRINCIPLES

Everyone has called for new ideas, but, as one stakeholder asked, “How do you get new ideas into an antiquated political system?” This chicken-and-egg situation could persist indefinitely, if governments do not take strong action in the coming two and a half months. In the context of discussion about commonly defined goals for sustainable development – in other words, SDGs – one delegate from a developing country highlighted the need to return to first principles on why the UN is needed: common planetary problems can only be solved collectively, and Rio offers a chance for common agenda setting and prioritization. One stakeholder expressed the view that “the real action is in the country capitals,” where state and non-state actors are now in full preparation mode, suggesting that this second Rio process, in the end, may be the little wheel that makes the bigger intergovernmental wheels turn. The energy in the corridors during the March meeting, not to mention the extraordinary number of events that multiple actors are organizing around the Rio+20 event, demonstrate that this meeting does have “convening” power, and will indirectly send ripples through the sustainable development policy community. The member states of the UN have the opportunity, through their outcome document, to set the course for that little wheel.

By Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee).

We strongly object to blanket statements that “welcome” and “endorse” the Nagoya Protocol – without any mention of its inherent injustices. These include the discriminatory treatment of the customary rights and practices of Indigenous peoples globally.

In regard to implementation of the Protocol, Canada has already prepared draft domestic policy documents that would dispossess many Indigenous peoples of their genetic resource rights.

For those unfamiliar with the Nagoya Protocol, we are attaching a detailed analysis that was submitted to the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in July 2011.

1. Zero Draft lacks balance. In the absence of carefully-balanced qualifications, the following statements are highly problematic:

“We welcome the Nagoya Protocol” (paras. 90 bis, 91)

“We welcome the Nagoya Protocol and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets” (para. 91)

“We endorse the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Nagoya Protocol” (para. 80)

2. Discrimination concerns ignored. Indigenous peoples and civil society – from different regions of the world – have repeatedly objected to the discrimination and other substantive and procedural injustices in the Protocol. These objections are well-known to various coordinators of Indigenous positions for Rio + 20 and have been communicated to a wide range of States, UN bodies, agencies and special rapporteurs. In accordance with basic principles of democracy and human rights, these diverse global voices and concerns cannot be ignored in the Zero Draft.

3. In regard to both access to and use of genetic resources in the Protocol, only “established” rights – and not other rights based on customary use – appear to receive some protection under domestic legislation. Such kinds of distinctions have been held to be discriminatory by the Committee on Racial Discrimination (CERD). In its 2011 report, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has also raised discrimination concerns.

4. The prohibition against racial discrimination is a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permitted. All States are bound to respect this norm. Where discriminatory provisions in the Protocol were adopted by consensus among the Parties, such texts lack validity and require redress.

5. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that such kinds of distinctions based on “established” rights are “not honourable”. According to the Court, strong prima facie rights are not “established”. “Established” rights include those that are affirmed in a domestic law, judicial decision, or agreement. If such rights are not so proved, the Nagoya Protocol does not appear to provide any protection – regardless of how strong the evidence that such rights exist.

6. Dispossession and impoverishment. Should the term “established” be interpreted and applied in such a restrictive manner, most Indigenous peoples worldwide could be denied their rights to genetic resources. If so, widespread dispossession and further impoverishment would result. Third party corporations could gain access to and use of such resources in Indigenous territories, without Indigenous peoples’ free, prior and informed consent.

7. In the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Protocol, the central objective of “fair and equitable sharing” of benefits requires that “all rights” to genetic resources be taken into account. The Protocol fails to achieve this objective.

8. UNDRIP devalued in Protocol. States failed to respect Indigenous peoples’ rights to genetic resources, consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, art. 31). In this regard, the Parties ignored or dismissed the recommendations of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in its April 2010 report.

9. Aichi Biodiversity Targets derogate from Convention. In regard to the customary use of biological resources (Convention, art. 10(c)), there is no such qualification as “subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations”. Without authority, the Conference of the Parties added this phrase to Aichi Biodiversity Target 18 in the Strategic Plan rather than the Convention phrase “in accordance with traditional cultural practices”.

10. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 derogates from UNDRIP. The Conference of the Parties (COP) – whose decisions generally are not legally binding – exceeded its authority and unilaterally added the following wording that could be construed as lessening the standard in UNDRIP for its full and effective implementation:

Invites Parties to take note of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, as appropriate, and in accordance with national legislation … (COP Decision X/2)

11. In the latest Zero Draft, the significance of UNDRIP should be highlighted in regard to all issues relating to Indigenous peoples. States should commit to full and effective implementation of UNDRIP, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples (in contrast, see Zero Draft para. after 104 bis).

12. Unjust procedures. In regard to the Protocol, States repeatedly exploited the practice of obtaining consensus in order to lower human rights standards relating to Indigenous peoples. In its August 2011 report on participation in decision-making, the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples emphasized: “Consensus is not a legitimate approach if its intention or effect is to undermine the human rights of indigenous peoples.”

13. In regard to the Convention and Protocol, existing rules of procedure do not expressly prohibit States proposals that are incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations and States’ human rights obligations. In relation to Indigenous peoples, the UN Expert Mechanism has called for reform of multilateral environmental processes and forums as a “major priority and concern”.

14. Full and effective participation essential. Procedural injustices often lead to substantive injustices that violate principles of democracy and human rights. The right of Indigenous peoples to “full and effective participation” in international, regional and domestic environmental processes should be clearly included in the Zero Draft.

Attached document: Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing: Substantive and Procedural Injustices relating to Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights

By Derek Osborn, President, Stakeholder Forum.

The text that has emerged from the first week of Rio+20 negotiations has become a monstrosity. The already inadequate Zero Draft has emerged festooned with bracketed amendments, whose general tendency is profoundly negative.

Everyone knows what needs to be done. The poorest families, communities and countries in the world need help to rise out of their poverty and gain decent lives and livelihoods. And the whole world needs to transform its patterns of production and consumption to stop pressing so dangerously against the natural planetary limits, overwhelming the carrying capacity of the planet and damaging the environments of the most vulnerable.

Most can see the value of interpreting this objective into concrete and specific sustainable development goals for all countries, with timetables that will both specify and operationalise the various constituent elements of the improvements needed for the poorest communities, while at the same time bearing down on the most damaging elements of excessive global consumption and production, diverting them to safer alternatives.

We know that the full resources of modern science and technology need to be directed towards helping to bring about this transformation and that we need to improve the way in which they interface with decision-making. We know that the vast energies and capacities of the corporate sector need to be redirected towards more sustainable production and that consumption patterns need to be refocused in more sustainable and less wasteful directions.

We know that this transformation requires determined political leadership at local, regional, national and international level. We know that implementation requires strategies, action plans, full use of green economy instruments, redirection of financial and investment flows, indicators, targets and milestones to monitor progress.

We know too that the transformation needs the full engagement, participation and commitment of major groups, civil society partners and the public at all levels. We need champions of sustainable development and future generations, and partnership structures active at all levels.

We know that we need strong and effective international institutions that are capable of monitoring overall progress, marshalling support where it is most needed to assist the transformation, and chiding and restraining those countries and other bodies whose unsustainable activities are most damaging to the planet as a whole, and especially, the most vulnerable.

But does this vision and determination emerge from the debates and amended text? It does not. We hear and see timidity, caution, suspicion, protection of vested interests, and even attempts to undermine and go backward on rights, actions and issues already agreed.

During meetings over the weekend, Major Groups have been shocked as they have taken stock of the failure of the negotiations so far to rise to the level of the challenges which the world faces, or even to the level of ambition with which the negotiations began. The Major Groups are urgently bracing themselves to restate what should be the true goals of the Rio process and to mark out very clearly the red lines of lowest denominator, beneath which it would be truly shameful for the negotiations to fall.

Citizens, the global Sustainable Development Revolution is in danger. We must rally to the barricades.

Ben Vanpeperstraete and Olimar Maisonet-Guzman on behalf of the UN-CSD Major Group of Children and Youth.

Although the first version of the Zero Draft tries to capture a diversity of views from Members States and civil society, it falls short in the proposal of solutions and a plan of action for the sustainability challenges that we face. The document diagnoses existing problems, rather than putting forward concrete solutions for overcoming them. For example, most of the language for the governance section proposes either to continue with the current governance structure, or select from a series of conservative reforms.

Although the Zero Draft seeks to address the multiple challenges of energy, water, food and other critical issues, the Framework for Action still fails to propose integrated solutions. By addressing each sector individually, we will not facilitate the transition to a green economy. With equal importance, Member States should guarantee that young people are key players in the green economy, by providing them the necessary education and specialized training.

The Major Group of Children and Youth has called for the upgrade of UNEP because the current design is unable to deliver results and supervise sustainability initiatives. The Draft-Zero expresses the need for implementing this change, however the language should be strengthened to emphasise the need for a specialised UN agency that goes beyond a requirement for universal membership.

The problem is encountered once again when discussing the establishment of an Ombudsperson for Future Generations. This language proposes only the consideration of the idea, rather than the development of a roadmap to achieve the creation of the office. Will it be left to future generations to establish this ombudsperson?

Another aspect that is not embedded in the governance section is related to stakeholder participation. Although the document recognises the importance of including Major Groups in the deliberation process, it fails to mention how the proposed structure will help improve their participation. Additionally, the document does not consider the possibility that some groups may not be captured in the current Major Group design, and therefore further study is needed on how to upgrade the structure to facilitate their participation.

We understand that this is only a first draft. Normally, one starts with an ambitious text which decreases in ambition during the process. However, starting with a fairly weak text and building it to a stronger text is rather new to us, and we are eager to see how this develops.

Ben Vanpeperstraete and Olimar Maisonet-Guzman work on behalf of the UN-CSD Major Group of Children and Youth. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook for live updates on the Rio+20 Preparatory Process.

By Lisa Curtis, Youth Representative.

When I was just beginning kindergarten, the leaders of the world came together in Rio de Janeiro for a groundbreaking Earth Summit that put the concept of sustainable development and biological diversity on the global political agenda.

While I was in the third grade, the United States whacked the teeth out of the world’s first agreement on climate change by refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. When America gave me the license to drink, I flew to Copenhagen and watched world negotiators water down the Copenhagen climate treaty till it was virtually worthless-effectively drowning out the cries of hope and change from our U.S. youth delegation and close to 100,000 other civil society members. Twenty years after the first Earth Summit, the leaders of the world are coming together for Rio+20 under the slogan of the future we want.

For the majority of my life and the lives of my peers, our leaders have worked hard to give us a future we don’t want. Global energy needs are skyrocketing and the climate is heating up fast, with normally conservative institutions like the OECD, the IEA, and McKinsey predicting dire consequences from our carbon emissions and explosive population growth.

Twenty years after sustainable development was first put on the agenda, the world’s youth are planning to call this meeting to order. After all, for us, this isn’t merely about the future we want, it’s about the future we will live.

So what type of future do we want to live? Well, world, we’ve already begun showing you. We’ve tweeted and facebooked our way into an Arab Spring that has succeeded in removing dictators. We’ve #occupied cities across the world, calling for the global elite to pay their fair share. Now we’re taking on a new type of tyranny, that of an energy system and a concept of development that a handful of fossil fuel companies and corrupt leaders have profited from, at the expense of our planet and the 99%.

Fossil fuel-based development is proving to be anything but sustainable. As Carl Pope recently wrote, ‘There is not enough cheap oil or coal in the world to elevate the lives of the world’s four billion poor; trying to do so will kill millions, mostly the poor, with soot, smog, and heavy metals; and will bankrupt the treasuries of nations like China, India and America that face trade deficits for the deadly carbon duo, coal and oil’.

We need to rapidly transition to clean energy, but more than that, we need to put our world on the path to sustainable development. Sustainable development encompasses a wide range of practices, but as our U.S. youth delegation is urging world leaders at Rio+20 to define it, ‘sustainability’ must underpin ecological, social, cultural, and economic principles. We want world leaders to think of development in the sense of creating a ‘green economy’, one that prioritises the well-being and basic needs of people and recognises that infinite material growth is impossible in a finite world. A green economy must minimise ecosystem degradation and move beyond GDP as the sole indicator of prosperity.

Our demands are great but our need is even greater. Watch out world, we’re tired of the way you’ve been playing with our future.

This article was originally published in Outreach. Ben Vanpeperstraete and Olimar Maisonet-Guzman work on behalf of the UN-CSD Major Group of Children and Youth.

By Ben Vanpeperstraete and Olimar Maisonet-Guzman on behalf of the UN-CSD Major Group of Children and Youth.

Although the first version of the Zero Draft tries to capture a diversity of views from Members States and civil society, it falls short in the proposal of solutions and a plan of action for the sustainability challenges that we face. The document diagnoses existing problems, rather than putting forward concrete solutions for overcoming them. For example, most of the language for the governance section proposes either to continue with the current governance structure, or select from a series of conservative reforms.

Although the Zero Draft seeks to address the multiple challenges of energy, water, food and other critical issues, the Framework for Action still fails to propose integrated solutions. By addressing each sector individually, we will not facilitate the transition to a green economy. With equal importance, Member States should guarantee that young people are key players in the green economy, by providing them the necessary education and specialized training.

The Major Group of Children and Youth has called for the upgrade of UNEP because the current design is unable to deliver results and supervise sustainability initiatives. The Draft-Zero expresses the need for implementing this change, however the language should be strengthened to emphasise the need for a specialised UN agency that goes beyond a requirement for universal membership.

The problem is encountered once again when discussing the establishment of an Ombudsperson for Future Generations. This language proposes only the consideration of the idea, rather than the development of a roadmap to achieve the creation of the office. Will it be left to future generations to establish this ombudsperson?

Another aspect that is not embedded in the governance section is related to stakeholder participation. Although the document recognises the importance of including Major Groups in the deliberation process, it fails to mention how the proposed structure will help improve their participation. Additionally, the document does not consider the possibility that some groups may not be captured in the current Major Group design, and therefore further study is needed on how to upgrade the structure to facilitate their participation.

We understand that this is only a first draft. Normally, one starts with an ambitious text which decreases in ambition during the process. However, starting with a fairly weak text and building it to a stronger text is rather new to us, and we are eager to see how this develops.

Included below are links to and summaries of select reactions to the Zero Draft for Rio+20 from the Human Impacts Institute. The Human Impacts Institute is working on compiling these summaries and links to facilitate dialogue and knowledge-sharing among diverse groups for and effective Rio+20 process and beyond. If you are interested in including your group or organizations’ response, please send them ATT: Mariana Orozco to Info@HumanImpactsInstitute.org and please do feel free to distribute the information below. Read the full Rio+20 Zero Draft here.

Summaries below include reactions from:

• Stakeholder Forum, Analysis of Zero Draft Submissions
• Rio+20 Portal
• CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
• Green Economy Coalition
• European Economic and Social Committee
• Future Justice
• From the Bureau
• Natural Resource Defense Council
• Major Group of Children and Youth
• NGO’s
• Scientific and Technological Community
• Third World Network

A) Stakeholder Forum, Analysis of Zero Draft Submissions

http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/Rio%20Zero%20Draft%20Submission%20Analysis%20-%20FINAL.pdf

A thorough analysis that isolated the most common concepts and summarized the most relevant findings – a must-read. This document served as the basis for the Zero Draft, and helps find common interest among groups.

Pros: Health and Well-being had the most interest by a larger margin. Good health and well-being is a key outcome of sustainable development and fundamental to this aim is the second highest ranking term: Poverty Alleviation/Poverty reduction/Poverty Eradication.

Cons: The acknowledgement of our finite planet and its health are quite low. The other core element of sustainable development, social equity and justice, is also underrepresented in the Zero Draft submissions.

B) Rio+20 Portal

http://rio20.net/en/iniciativas/zero-draft-and-sustainable-development-goals

Includes comments from John Vidal, as published in the Guardian, and Tariq Banuri.

Pros:

- Quotes Ruth Davis, chief policy advisor at Greenpeace:

“There are certainly important and useful proposals here – not least, the plan to negotiate a new agreement on protecting oceans – which could see an end to the wild-west plundering of the high seas.”

A few innovative elements in the text:

• The provisions on access to information (WRI’s contribution),
• Sustainable development goals (SDGs),
• Voluntary initiatives and partnerships,
• Green GDP,
• Proposals on oceans

Cons:

• Demonstrates a dismal lack of urgency in tackling the issues.
• For Rio to be more than an elite talking shop, world leaders need to inject some ambition into the negotiation, right now;
• Several major weaknesses.
• It has abandoned all efforts to match rhetoric with intent. There is no indication of a recognition of the complex inter linkages between the different challenges highlighted here and there.
• There is no effort to link the proposals with progress made in other contexts.
• The word equity does not appear in the text.
• Energy has received very little attention–only 2 paragraphs, with no indication of what precisely needs to be done.

C) CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

https://www.civicus.org/news-and-resources/720-civicus-comments-on-the-first-draft-of-the-rio20-zero-draft-document

Emphasizes the importance of democratic freedoms to obtain Sustainable Development. Includes specific ‘Adds’ to each paragraph found lacking.

Cons

• Falls short in acknowledging civil society space and participation, democratic freedoms and specific commitments for engaging multi-stakeholders.
• Lacks urgency, commitment and legally binding agreement
• Lacks recognition of current economic policies that have exacerbated income inequality.

D) Green Economy Coalition

1. Grade B: Good Effort, but really MUST try harder

http://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/know-how/green-economy-coalition-gives-rio-2012-text-grade-b-good-effort-really-must-try-harder

2. Full Analysis of Zero Draft in terms of the Green Economy

http://www.greeneconomycoalition.org/document/green-economy-analysis-uncsd-submissions

Gives a grade to several areas of the Green Economy, points out shortcomings, and asks a series of questions to the UN to stimulate further reflection on the Zero Draft.

Pros:

• All governments have underscored the need for green economy to be nationally owned and defined, and view it as a means to achieve SD.
• Some popular practical global asks:
• Sustainable Development goals
• Alternative metrics to GDP
• Focus on job creation mechanisms
• Natural capital to be valued in economic decision making
• Renewed framework for sustainable consumption and production

Cons:

• Notable for their absence:
  • Natural capital management schemes
  • Global financial market reform
  • Explicit proposals to finance the transition
  • Few concrete proposals focused explicitly on the underlying causes of poverty rather than merely the symptoms.

E) Rio+20 – We need more flesh on the bones

Comment by Staffan Nilsson, president of the European Economic and Social Committee

http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.staffan-nilsson-comment.21774

Emphasizes the role of civil society in demanding big promises.

Pros

• A good starting point for subsequent negotiations.
• Recognizes the limitations of GDP as a measure of well-being.

Cons

• Still falls far short of the hopes and ambitions of organised civil society in Europe for what could and should be achieved by the Rio process
• Does not yet adequately address the social and equity agenda.
• Not much to say about strengthening the national machinery, or the crucial role of government, business, social partners and other sectors of civil society.

F) Future Justice

http://www.futurejustice.org/blog-road-to-rio-20/the-future-we-want/

Pros

• Reference to proposal with the ‘establishment of an Ombudsperson, or High Commissioner for Future Generations, to promote sustainable development’.
• Engaging Major Groups takes attention, as does access and involvement of civil society

Cons

• The wording of the document is weak and entirely ambiguous.
• This first draft continues to consider issues in isolation

G) From the Bureau

http://uncsd.iisd.org/news/bureau-members-respond-to-zero-draft/

Comments from the 21st meeting on January 9th, in New York.

Pros:

• Kim Sook, Bureau Co-Chair: “the zero draft addresses the priorities of all member States and political groups.”

Cons:

• Needs stronger language
• More attention for:
  • The economic and social development pillars;
  • Foreign occupation;
  • International action regarding green economy;
  • Access to sustainable energy for all;
  • Resource efficiency;
  • Integration and implementation;
  • The Rio Principles;
  • The political will of developed countries;
  • Reforming the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
  • The added value of establishing a Sustainable Development Council (SDC);
  • Means of implementation, including the Green Climate Fund,
  • The role of the private sector;
  • Gender issues and the role of youth and education.

H) Natural Resource Defense Council – NRDC

1. The Greatest Challenge and 2012 – Jacob Scherr’s Blog

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jscherr/the_greatest_challenge_of_2012.html

2. Oceans and the Zero Draft – Lisa Speer’s Blog

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lspeer/ive_been_reviewing_the_oceans.html

3. Can the Earth Summit deliver an Action-oriented “Rio for twenty-somethings”? – Michael Davidson’s Blog

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mdavidson/can_the_earth_summit_deliver_a.html

Pros

• Indicates that presidents and prime ministers will be expected to come to Rio+20.
• The very last paragraph calls upon the Secretary General to create a registry of Rio+20 commitments as an “accountability framework.”
• The draft text would commit governments to negotiate a new treaty to protect almost 2/3rds of the world’s oceans, and half the planet’s surface – that is, the ocean beyond national jurisdiction,

Cons

• Provides little promise that the gathering of world leaders will fulfill the UN’s desire to generate political will.
• Already has too much jargon and repetition and too many abstract incremental promises and far off goals.
• The 9 short paragraphs comprising the oceans portion of the draft negotiating text are underwhelming.
• Few hard commitments to do something about the immense problems facing our oceans – overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, marine debris.

I) Children and Youth

If this is the Future we Want, we Need Stronger Actions

Ben Vanpeperstraete and Olimar Maisonet-Guzman on behalf of the UN-CSD Major Group of Children and Youth

http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/outreach2012zerodraft2/604-outreach2012zero2item10

Pros

• Tries to capture a diversity of views from Members States and civil society
• Recognizes the importance of including Major Groups in the deliberation process,

Cons

• It falls short in the proposal of solutions and a plan of action for sustainability challenges.
• Diagnoses existing problems, rather than putting forward concrete solutions for overcoming them.
• Still fails to propose integrated solutions. By addressing each sector individually, we will not facilitate the transition to a green economy.
• Weak language for the need for a specialized UN agency and the Ombudsperson for Future Generations

J) NGO’s

1. Zero Draft – Zero Ambitions, from the Newsletter of the NGO Major Group

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=19d3da1852472c315fcece5dd&id=25264f7691

2. iisd – NGO’s respond to Zero Draft

http://uncsd.iisd.org/news/ngos-respond-to-zero-draft/

Includes observations from Greenpeace, Third World Network, Green Economy Coalition, Stakeholder forum.

3. Euro NGO’s on Sexual and Reproductive Health

http://www.eurongos.org/Default.aspx?ID=1473&M=News&PID=138939&NewsID=3731

Cons

• Lacks any sense of urgency, any capacity of analysis, any idea how to solve the problems, no targets, no concrete actions, no glimpse of leadership.
• The word “equity” is not even mentioned in the text.
• The text is neither consistent nor coherent. You cannot ask continuous growth, and in the same time recognize ecological limits.
• The document contains no reference to reproductive health and rights, and very limited focus on population and gender dynamics.

K) Scientific and Technological Community

Scientists scrutinize first draft of Rio+20 agreement, from SciDev.net

http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/science-at-rio-20/news/scientists-scrutinise-first-draft-of-rio-20-agreement.html

Pros

• Contains more references to science than was expected by the scientific community.
• Calls for “the scientific basis for decision-making to be strengthened across the UN system and that the interface between science and policy-making should be enhanced”.
• Recognizes the importance of S&T and innovation in promoting sustainable development.
• Proposes to strengthen international cooperation to ease “investment and technology transfer development and diffusion”.
• Proposes that governments should

• “Facilitate international collaborative research on green technologies involving developing countries”;
• “Support developing countries’ scientists and engineers, and scientific and engineering institutions; and foster their efforts to develop green local technologies and use traditional knowledge”,
• Encourage the creation of centres of research and development excellence.

Cons

• Falls short on the specifics and avoids mentioning some critical, science-related issues.
• Absence of emerging new technologies, such as synthetic biology or geoengineering, and their regulation.
• Fails to mention an intergovernmental panel on science that would help make decisions.
• A major limitation is its focus on green economic growth without discussion of the concept of the natural limits of the planet.

L) Third World Network

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/sdc2012/sdc2012.120101.htm

Pros

• The main outcomes of the internationally agreed sustainable development agenda under the UN auspices are reaffirmed throughout the document

Cons

• The implementation aspect of the zero draft is weak.
• The priority areas identified in para.107 are environment-heavy and do not adequately address the human rights aspects and socio-economic sustainability.
• If the Sustainable Development Goals are to be comprehensive then the systemic economic issues need to be addressed.
• Does not directly deal with the structural flaws and instabilities of the current international economic system.
• Suffers from the same lack of common understanding of a “green economy.”
• The private sector has been instrumental in unduely influencing domestic policies and laws, but the zero draft looks to the private sector as a key player in achieving sustainable development.
• Silent on technology assessment, an issue that is gaining concern around nuclear power, genetically modified organisms, geo-engineering etc.