Environment / Sustainable Development

 

 

.

 Worldview Mission

 

 http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=5656

 

 

.

———————————————————————–

.

GMS Monthly Environment Media Roundup–March 2016

Duncan Mcleod <Duncan@gms-eoc.org>

Date: April 7, 2016
To: “Sustainable Development Announcement List” <sdg@lists.iisd.ca>
Subject: GMS Monthly Environment Media Roundup–March 2016
Reply-To: Duncan Mcleod <Duncan@gms-eoc.org>
Dear Colleagues,

Every month the GMS Environment Operations Center compiles environment media coverage relating to the Greater Mekong Subregion, providing a snapshot of progress and setbacks for sustainable development in Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Viet Nam.

Please scroll below for the March roundup, featuring 64 news articles ordered by country.

View this email in your browser

.

————————————————————————

.

It Will Take 100 Years for the World’s Poorest People to Earn $1.25 a Day

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/30/it-will-take-100-years-for-the-worlds-poorest-people-to-earn-125-a-day

It will take 100 years for the world’s poorest people to earn $1.25 a day

The sustainable development goals will aim to eradicate poverty by 2030 but our current economic model, built on GDP, could never be inclusive or sustainable

GDP Occupy Wall Street protesters march down Broadway in 2012. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters

If you follow international news you will be accustomed to headlines announcing that world leaders have succeeded in cutting global poverty in half over the past couple of decades. Its sounds like brilliant news, but it’s just not true. The numbers have been furtively manipulated to make it seem as though our economic system is working for the majority of humanity when in fact it is not.

The sustainable development goals, to be decided in September, will take this dubious good-news story a step further. This time, the main goal is not just to further reduce extreme poverty, but to eradicate it entirely – and to do so by no later than 2030. This is a welcome move: it’s about time we finally got around to putting poverty eradication firmly on the agenda. But it also raises some tough questions. Is it possible to end poverty under our current economic system?

A few weeks ago economist David Woodward tackled this question in an articlepublished in the World Economic Review. His findings are shocking. He shows that, given our existing economic model, poverty eradication can’t happen. Not that it probably won’t happen, but that it physically can’t. It’s a structural impossibility.

Let’s assume that we can maintain the fastest rate of income growth that the poorest 10% of the world’s population have ever enjoyed over the past few decades. That was between 1993 and 2008 – after the debt crisis of the 1980s that crippled much of the developing world and before the banking collapse of 2008. During that period, their incomes increased at a rate of 1.29% each year.

So how long will it take to eradicate poverty if we extrapolate this trend? 100 years.

That’s what it will require to bring the world’s poorest above the standard poverty line of $1.25/day. Compare that with the SDGs’ 2030 target. And keep in mind that Woodward’s methodology is not able to capture the poorest 1% of the world’s population, who will still remain in poverty even at the end of this period. That’s 90 million people, more than the entire population of Germany today, who will remain in poverty forever. Whatever the SDGs will achieve, poverty “eradication” won’t be one of those things.

Even this extremely optimistic, best-possible scenario does not account for the slowdown in income growth since the financial crash. It doesn’t factor in thespikes in food prices that have effectively wiped out the incomes of the poor over the past few years, or the fact that climate change is already unravelling development gains across the global south. It imagines all of this away, and assumes that no further economic or ecological crises will happen in the next 100 years – which is a very big assumption indeed.

As if the 100-year timeline isn’t disappointing enough, it gets worse. A growing number of scholars are beginning to point out that $1.25/day – which is the official poverty line of the SDGs – is actually not adequate for people to survive on. In reality, if people are to meet their most basic needs and achieve normal human life expectancy, they need closer to $5/day. How long would it take to eradicate poverty at this more accurate line? 207 years.

Progress is woefully slow because to date the only strategy for reducing poverty is to increase global GDP growth. Politicians, economists and the development industry all have no other ideas. But GDP growth doesn’t really benefit the poor – or the majority of humanity, for that matter. Of all the income generated by global GDP growth between 1999 and 2008, the poorest 60% of humanity received only 5% of it. The richest 40%, by contrast, received the rest – a whopping 95%. So much for the trickle-down effect.

To eradicate poverty global GDP would have to increase to 175 times its present size if we go with $5/day. In other words, if we want to eradicate poverty with our current model of economic development, we need to extract, produce, and consume 175 times more commodities than we presently do. This is horrifying to contemplate. And even if such outlandish growth were possible, it would drive climate change to unimaginable levels and wipe out any gains in poverty reduction.

It’s a farcical proposition – a cruel joke played at the expense of the poor. And, as if to add insult to injury, to achieve this level of GDP growth, global per capita income would have to be no less than $1.3 million. In other words, the average income would have to be $1.3 million per year simply so that the poorest two-thirds of humanity could earn $5 per day. It’s completely absurd, but shows just how deeply inequality is hardwired into our economic system.

But it is in fact possible to eradicate poverty in fewer than 207 years, and to do so without destroying our ability to inhabit this planet. We need to abolish debts owed by developing countries, close down the tax havens, install a global minimum wage, place a moratorium on land grabs, and put an end to the structural adjustment programmes that allow rich countries to control the fates of poor countries. On top of all this, we need to dethrone the GDP measure and replace it with something more rational – like the Genuine Progress Indicator or the Happy Planet Index.

Unfortunately, the SDGs do not provide the answer, because they are not allowed to challenge dominant economic interests. Despite the fact that we’re already overshooting our planet’s total biocapacity by about 50% each year, growth, production, and consumption remain at the centre of their agenda. Yes, it’s all qualified by terms like “inclusive” and “sustainable”, but there are no clear commitments on what this is supposed to look like.

Of course, the corporations and rich-country governments that control the SDG process are very unlikely to adopt the change needed to truly eradicate poverty, because it would threaten the interests of the global 1%. But that’s exactly the point, and we need to be making it every chance we get.

Jason Hickel is an anthropologist at the London School of Economics. Follow@jasonhickel on Twitter

.

—————————————————————————-

.

NAMA for Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy in The Gambia

.

——————————————————————————–

.

Environmental Leader

.

MSDS to SDS Conversion Services

View this email in your browser

Our mailing address is:

Environmental Leader
323 West Drake Rd
Suite 224

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Add us to your address book

.

 

News from Environmental Leader: CRedit360, Urjanet Team Up to Help Reporting Companies Cut Costs

 

Environmental Leader

http://www.environmentalleader.com/

White Papers

Browse All Whitepapers

.

.

——————————————————————-

.

.

Energy Globe 63 newsletter

177 countries present eco-solutions on today’s World Environment Day

  Ashwani
     Vasishth         vasishth@ramapo.edu          (201) 684-6616
                http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth

           Associate Professor of Environmental Studies
         Director, Master of Arts In Sustainability Studies
                 http://ramapo.edu/sustainability

                     Ramapo College of New Jersey
           505 Ramapo Valley Road, SSHS, Mahwah, NJ 07430

Fri, 05 Jun 2015

Energy Globe Awards <contact@energyglobe.info>

contact@energyglobe.info

vasishth@ramapo.edu

177 countries present sustainable solutions on today’s United Nations World Environment Day
Click here if the page does not display correctly

.

———————————————————————-

.

.

wto-intl] 3 June 2015 EU TRADE roundtable debate Environmental Goods Agreement negotiations for an Environmental Goods Agreement to promote trade in green technologies.

greenwashing the WTO and the trade in “green technologies” of MNC

sprotected by IPR in the name of sustainable development and climate protection

wto-intl] 3 June 2015 EU TRADE roundtable debate Environmental Goods Agreement negotiations for an Environmental Goods Agreement to promote trade in green technologies.

Wed, 3 Jun 2015

Joyce Naar <joycenaar@gmail.com>

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1116

The ’Green Goods Initiative’: Liberalising trade in environmental goods and services

In July 2014 the EU and 13 other members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) launched negotiations to liberalise global trade in environmental goods. This ’green goods initiative’ aims to remove barriers to trade and investment in ’green’ goods, services and technologies.

Who is taking part?

Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Chinese Taipei, the European Union, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, United States, Israel, Turkey and Iceland.

Together, these countries account for around 86% of the world trade in green goods.

At this stage, only some WTO members have chosen to take part in the talks. This is why they are described as ‘plurilateral’. Once a critical mass is reached to get an agreement, the benefits of this plurilateral initiative will be applied to all WTO members using the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle. Ideally, the agreement would be made part of the package of WTO accords so other WTO members could and open up their own markets.

What is covered by the ‘green goods initiative’?

Products, services and technologies that contribute to green growth, environmental protection, climate action and sustainable development by:

  • helping clean the air and water
  • helping manage waste
  • being energy efficient
  • controlling air pollution
  • helping generate renewable energy like solar, wind, or hydroelectric

What will the initiative achieve?

At the first stage the talks will focus on removing tariffs on a list of 54 products on which the member countries of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) have agreed to reduce their tariffs to 5% or less by 2015, and a broad range of additional products.

The aim is to create a ‘living agreement’ which can respond to new technologies and add new products in the future. It should be possible to include environment-related services and tackle non-tariff barriers, such as local content requirements or restrictions on investment.

The EU will be pushing for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement in order to:

  • boost global trade in green goods and services
  • support green industry globally
  • help meet climate and energy targets to be agreed in the new Climate Agreement in 2015 in Paris
  • provide cheaper access to these technologies worldwide
  • help make rapidly growing cities greener and more sustainable
  • strengthen security of energy supply in the EU and reduce dependency on fossil fuels
  • create an impetus for talks on green goods and services in the World Trade Organization

Background

Green growth is part and parcel of the EU’s economic and environmental policies. Opening up trade in environmental goods and services can help develop green growth further. We are working to liberalise trade in environmental goods and services in:

  • multilateral talks
  • talks with groups of countries
  • bilateral talks, for example for our free trade agreements.

EU is also working to make sure existing rules are enforced.

On 24 January 2014 the EU, together with 13 other WTO members pledged to launch negotiations to liberalise global trade in environmental goods – the so called “green goods initiative”. See the link to the Davos statement, and EU press release.

Negotiations were formally launched in Geneva on 8 July 2014. See the joint statement by all countries involved in the green goods negotiations, the EU press release and listen to the press conference. The launch of the negotiations was accompanied by stakeholders’ event organised by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.

The first round of talks took place on 9-10 July 2014. They focussed on agreeing a timetable for the negotiations and the sort of targets and specific measures participants would like to achieve.

The European Commission negotiates on behalf of the EU. It bases its work on the instructions the EU’s Member States in the Council gave it in 2001 to negotiate the WTO talks on the Doha Development Agenda. On 8 May 2014 the Council gave the Commission additional instructions to negotiate the ‘green goods initiative’.

Environmental goods and services in the EU

The EU has technologically advanced and world-class companies providing environmental goods and services. Between 2002-2011 jobs in the ‘green sector’ in the EU rose from 3 to 4.2 million full-time equivalents. Even during the recession years (2007-2011), employment grew by 20%.
The EU is a world leader in exports and imports of environmental goods, followed by China and other Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries. Although environmental goods are a relatively small part of EU trade, the sector is very dynamic. In 2013 EU exports of the 54 APEC list products amounted to €71 billion, imports to €34 billion. If we include products an EU list of 165 green goods, exports rise to €146 billion (around 8% of the EU’s total) and imports to €70 billion.

For more information

On 5 June 2014 the Commission launched a public consultation on this initiative (deadline 31 July 2014).

The global industry support letter on the green goods initiative

2030 climate and energy goals for a competitive, secure and low-carbon EU economy, 22 January 2014 – Press release

Green Employment Initiative: Tapping into the job creation potential of the green economy, Brussels, 2 July 2014 – Communication from the Commission (COM(2014) 446 final)

On Wednesday 3 June 2015 DG Trade will hold a roundtable debate with focus on the ongoing Environmental Goods Agreement negotiations for an Environmental Goods Agreement that aim to promote trade in green technologies.

The green sector is of key importance for Europe: it contributes to environmental protection – clean water, air, soil, good waste management and lower greenhouse gas emissions – as well as jobs and growth in the EU. The EU is committed to achieve substantial progress in the negotiations by the end of 2015 in order to contribute to the UN climate negotiations in Paris and the 10th WTO Ministerial in Nairobi.The upcoming roundtable will offer European stakeholders an opportunity to exchange views on the initiative with the EU Commissioner for Trade, Cecilia Malmström, and EU Commissioner for Energy and Climate Action, Miguel Arias Cañete, as well as representatives of international organisations and EU partner countries involved in the talks.

Meeting details

  • Date: 3/06/2015
  • Time: 13:30 – 19:30
  • Location: Charlemagne building, Room Alcide de Gasperi, European Commission, 170 rue de la Loi, 1040 Brussels
  • Language: English – no translation will be provided

Registration, In order to attend the meeting, please fill in the registration form



Who can attend this event?

Primarily non-governmental organisations, consumers’ associations, workers/trade unions, professional organisations, industry and business associations, companies, regional/local representatives. Members of the European Parliament and representatives of the EU Member States will also be invited to attend.

 

Speakers

Ms Cecilia Malmström European Commissioner for Trade
Mr Miguel Arias Cañete, European Commissioner for Climate and Energy
Mr Matthias Fekl, French Minister for Foreign Trade
Mr Marc Vanheukelen, Director of DG TRADE – Directorate D responsible for Trade and Sustainable Development
Mr Aik Hoe Lim, Director, Trade and Environment Division, WTO
Mr Istvan Alfaro Solano, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the EU
Mr Zhang Kening, Minister, Economic and Commercial Counsellor’s Office, the Mission of China to the EU
Mr Jakob Brix Tange, Danish Ambassador for Trade Policy
Representatives of the European Parliament
Representatives of stakeholders

Programme EGA Stakeholders Event
THE ENVIRONMENTAL GOODS AGREEMENT -
PROMOTING EU ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES THROUGH TRADE
Wednesday 3 June 2015, Brussels
13:30 – 19:30h
Venue: EC, Charlemagne building, Room Alcide de Gasperi, 170 rue de la Loi, 1040 Brussels
***
13:30 – 14:00 Registration
14:00 – 14:15 Welcome remarks by Karl Falkenberg, Director General, DG ENV
14:15 – 14:30 Role of innovative environmentally friendly technologies in the EU climate policy Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the European Commission responsible for Climate Action and Energy
14:30 – 14:45 Introduction – state of play of the Environmental Goods Agreement negotiations by Marc Vanheukelen, Director of DG TRADE D responsible for Trade and Sustainable Development
14:45 – 15:00 How Environmental Goods Agreement can promote diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies? Cecilia Malmström, Member of the European Commission responsible for Trade
15:00 – 15:15 Questions and answers (Q&A) session
15:15 – 15:45 Coffee break
15:45 – 16:45 Panel discussion: How to increase deployment of environmentally friendly technologies?
Introduction and moderation by Marc Vanheukelen, Director of DG TRADE D
 Aik Hoe Lim, Director, Trade and Environment Division, WTO
 UNEP (tbc)
 Istvan Alfaro Solano, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the EU
 Zhang Kening, Minister, Economic & Commercial Counsellor’s Office, the Mission of China to the EU
 Jakob Brix Tange, Danish Ambassador for Trade Policy
16:45 – 18:15 Panel discussion: Environmental Goods Agreement – opportunities and challenges
Introduction and moderation by Bernd Lange, MEP Chair INTA Committee on International Trade
 Peter C. Brun, Managing Director of the SETI-alliance
 Hendrik Bourgeois, Vice President European Affairs & General Counsel at General Electric
 René van Sloten, CEFIC Executive Director Industrial Policy
 Pascal Kerneis, Managing Director, European Services Forum
 Mikael Karlsson, President, European Environmental Bureau
 Ingrid Jegou, Global Platform on Climate, Trade and Sustainable Energy, ICTSD
18:15 – 18:30 Closing remarks
Matthias Fekl, French Minister for Foreign Trade: “On the road to Paris and Nairobi – ambitious timetable ahead”
18:30 – 19:30 Reception

 

 

.

—————————————————————————

.

Blue Dot News: From environmental racism to environmental rights

David Suzuki Foundation

http://bluedot.ca/?utm_campaign=BlueDot&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Marketo&utm_content=Banner_DSF&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoiuq7LZKXonjHpfsX56u8sW6axlMI%252F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4HSsJjI%252BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFS7jNMbZkz7gOXRE%253D

.

.

——————————————————————-

.

Indonesia improving forest governance through informed policy-making

Dear colleagues,

With UN-REDD support, Indonesia’s Environment and Forestry Minister, Ibu Siti Nurbaya, launched two reports to improve forest governance as part of the country’s National REDD+ strategy in Jakarta 21st May. Efforts to guide and inform policy-making towards tangible policies and measures with a view to improve the overall forest and REDD+ governance will be emphasized in the continuation of this work.

·                  The 2014 Indonesian Forest Governance Index (FGI) is the second report of its kind, with the first report providing baseline data in 2013.  The follow-up work after the first report has resulted in actual changes in practice through informed policy-making and prioritized action towards improvements, such as revision of regulations, increased allocation of forest resources to local communities. The 2014 FGI is another important milestone, again providing robust governance data validated through stakeholder inputs and contributions, along with a set of recommendations stakeholders view as relevant and realistic to address the shortcomings found. The report provides information on certainty over forest areas; fairness over forest resources; forest management transparency and integrity; as well as law enforcement capacity.  All four governance issues take into account the following three cross-cutting dimensions: laws and policies; different actors’ capacity to implement REDD+; and forest governance performance (de facto conditions on the ground).
·                   Towards Better Forest Governance for REDD+ in Indonesia : an Evaluation of the Forest Licensing System (hyperlink: tinyurl.com/Indonesia-forest-license) Covering 52 million hectares of forest lands, forest licenses in Indonesia can play a role to regulate high forestry and land sector emissions and be a key element in strengthening forest governance for REDD+. The existing online licensing system at the central level has been a first step, yet concerns about its effectiveness and transparency have led to the need for an in-depth evaluation. The study was conducted at the request and under the guidance of the Ministry of Forestry as a recommendation from Indonesia’s first FGI, with the goal to identify and mitigate inefficiencies and corrupt practices in the process to apply and obtain forest licenses. The evaluation is based on quantitative and qualitative information gathered from 116 service users and 44 service providers. It examines 11 governance indicators and reveals that areas for needed improvement include 1) timeliness of the service 2) unofficial fees that service users have to pay  3) access to online information;  4) independence of service providers from their supervisors and 5) favorable treatments for better-connected large scale companies. Conversely, service users are more satisfied about the overall convenience of the facilities and the availability of the complaints mechanism, with reservations however on diligence in follow-up on complaints.
Best regards,
Abdul Situmorang, Kristin DeValue, Estelle Fach and Tina Sølvberg

.

——————————————————————–

 .

“Consensus and Global Environmental Governance” – A new book in the Earth System Governance Series

The Synthesis Report of the Secretary-General on the Post-2015 Agenda “The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet”, calls for effective governance for sustainable development which is participatory, and accountable to the people and enables free, active and meaningful engagement of civil society.
In a new book in the Earth System Governance series with The MIT Press: Consensus and Global Environmental Governance: Deliberative Democracy in Nature’s Regime, juristic democracy is presented as an approach to include citizens in deliberations and decision-making on global governance for sustainable development.
The book is authored by Prof. Walter F. Baber (California State University, Long Beach) and Prof. Robert V. Bartlett (University of Vermont), both members of the Earth System Governance Lead Faculty.
In this book, Professors Baber and Bartlett explore the practical and conceptual implications of a new approach to international environmental governance. Their proposed approach – juristic democracy – emphasizes the role of the citizen rather than the nation-state as the source of legitimacy in international environmental law. Their aim is to construct a global jurisprudence based on collective will formation.
Building on concepts presented in their previous book, the award-winning Global Democracy and Sustainable Jurisprudence, Baber and Bartlett examine in detail the challenges that consensus poses for a system of juristic democracy. They analyze the implications of deliberative consensus for rule-bounded behavior, for the accomplishment of basic governance tasks, and for diversity in a politically divided and culturally plural world. They assess social science findings about the potential of small-group citizen panels to contribute to rationalized consensus, drawing on the extensive research conducted on the use of juries in courts of law. Finally, they analyze the place of juristic democracy in a future “consensually federal” system for earth system governance.
Other recent books in the Earth System Governance series with The MIT Press include:

-       Frank Biermann. 2014. Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene.

-       Aarti Gupta and Michael Mason, editors. 2014. Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: Critical Perspectives.

-       Sikina Jinnah. 2014. Post-Treaty Politics: Secretariat Influence in Global Environmental Governance.

More about these new books and all our other publications can be found at earthsystemgovernance.org/publications

See also our policy briefs on governance ‘of’ and ‘for’ the Sustainable Development Goals at SDG.earthsystemgovernance.org.

Contact: Earth System Governance International Project Office, ipo@earthsystemgovernance.org

.

————————————————————–

.

Celebrating the International Day for Biodiversity

.

ICLEI Bio for sust flyer

The wildest and remotest places on Earth, the most imperiled species on Earth, the chain of life sustaining human life on Earth will be protected only if urban people care about nature.”- Ted Trzyna

Dear ICLEI Members, partners and friends

Today, as the world commemorates the International Day for Biological Diversity, ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center wishes to celebrate with its members the value and beauty of biodiversity: the foundation on which our economic and social development prospers. This year’s theme reflects the importance of efforts made at all levels of government to establish a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the United Nations Post-2015 Development Agenda for the period of 2015-2030 and the highlighted relevance of biodiversity and cities for the achievement of these goals.

Biodiversity is the bedrock of sustainable development and vital to improving the urban standard of living:

  • to our economies
  • for poverty alleviation
  • to the air we breathe and water we drink
  • to climate change adaptation and mitigation
  • to the provision of our food
  • to fortified infrastructure resilience
- and of course and perhaps most importantly, to the overall happiness, health and well-being of citizens.

Through its BiodiverCity Agenda and dedicated Cities Biodiversity Center, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability encourages, guides and provides technical support for its members to engage with, integrate and implement biodiversity issues in their local strategies, plans and processes. To this end, ICLEI also provides a networking forum for members to share experiences and showcase good practices and plays an integral role in influencing the global biodiversity agenda, providing a platform for all local governments and other subnational governments to make their voice heard in the international biodiversity negotiations. Today, we are especially proud of the giant leaps our cities and sub-national governments, as the level of government closest to the ground, have taken for biodiversity and of the substantial contributions they are making towards achieving national goals and targets.

To the change-makers, action-takers and biodiversity champions out there- to all our members, partners and friends- join ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center in venturing outside today and enjoying all the gifts that nature has to offer as we reflect on the progress made thus far, and the fact that there is so much more work yet to be done!

For more information and to get involved with ICLEI’s BiodiverCity agenda, please contact ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center (biodiversity@iclei.org)!

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability ● Africa Secretariat ● Cities Biodiversity Center

Street address: Heron Crescent, 3 Knowlegde Park, Century City, Cape Town, South Africa

www.cbc.iclei.org ● Follow CBC    

.

———————————————————————————————

  TWN Info on Sust Dev: Post-2015 Agenda Declaration (Part II): Deep North-South Differences

TWN Info on Sust Dev: Post-2015 Agenda Declaration (Part              II): Deep North-South Differences

Mon, 09 Mar 2015

TWN News <news@twnnews.net>

 

Title : TWN Info on Sust Dev: Post-2015 Agenda Declaration      (Part II): Deep North-South Differences Date : 09 March 2015
Contents:

TWN Info Service on UN Sustainable Development (Mar15/03)         9 March  2015         Third World Network www.twn.my

Dear friends and colleagues,

The second meeting of the Post-2015 Development Agenda process        took place on 16-20 February at the UN headquarters in New York.        The topic was the political Declaration that will be adopted at        the Development Summit in September of this year. Below is Part        II of a Third World Network report on the discussion.

Part I was on the “Elements Paper” circulated before the        February Session by the Co-facilitators of the negotiations        process, Ambassadors David Donoghue (Ireland) and Macharia Kamau        (Kenya). See TWN mailing dated 5 March: Post-2015          Development Agenda Declaration (Part I): One Step Forward, Two          Steps Backward?

Part II below reports on the “Discussion Document” that was an        attempt by the Co-facilitators to capture the views of Member        States expressed in the first half of the week.

The next meeting will be on 23-27 March where Member States        will discuss the Sustainable Development Goals and targets and        their integration into the post-2015 agenda.

With best wishes,

Third World Network   ___________

Post-2015 Agenda Declaration (Part II): Deep          North-South Differences

Delhi, 8 Mar (Ranja Sengupta) – The United Nations        negotiations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda in New York saw        Member States inching towards a political Declaration amidst        considerable differences.

The Declaration is to lay the broader framework on which the        more specific elements of the Agenda will rest in a separate        outcome document. These will be adopted at the UN Summit on        25-27 September tilted “Delivering on and Implementing a        Transformative Post–2015 Development Agenda”.

The Declaration was discussed at the second session of the        Post-2015 process on 16 – 20 February at the UN headquarters in        New York. The first session in January was a stock taking one.

The Co-facilitators of the negotiations, Ambassadors David        Donoghue (Ireland) and Macharia Kamau (Kenya), tabled a         “Discussion Document for Declaration” before the Member States        towards the middle of the week. This drew from comments to the        Elements Paper for the declaration, circulated earlier by the        Co-facilitators and which had received a round of comments        during the first part of the February session.

From the Member States’ views on the Elements Paper, major        differences were evident between the developed and the        developing countries in several aspects of what should be in the        Declaration, especially regarding the underlying principles. In        particular, the reference to common but differentiated        responsibilities (CBDR) was stressed by all developing countries        but rejected by the developed countries. (See Part I of this        article: “Post-2015 Development Agenda Declaration:  One Step        Forward, Two Steps Backward?” http://www.twn.my/title2/unsd/2015/unsd150302.htm)

Thus while a draft Declaration is still to come out of the        shadow of the Elements Paper, an agreement on approach and        content still seems far from close.

The Discussion Document contains 15 paragraphs. It does seem        to incorporate several of the suggestions offered by both the        developed and developing countries, and is therefore a list of        the suggestions, but not does not by any means represent a        consensus. At the very beginning the Co-facilitators state their        view that “to be effective, this Declaration should not exceed        three pages”.

The first paragraph declares that the Agenda will have a bold        and ambitious vision and include transformational goals and        targets. The second paragraph talks about the link and         “unfinished business” of the Millennium Development Goals        (MDGs). This issue had been raised by several Member States in        the first phase of the discussion. While this paragraph does        provide a link with the MDGs, it still falls short of the         ‘asks’.  Many Member States had asked for continuity and        integration between the MDGs and the Post-2015 Agenda, taking        forward and building on commitments made under the MDGs        including on MDG 8 (global partnership for development).

Paragraph 3 identifies the “major global challenges to        sustainable development, such as poverty and exclusion,        unemployment, climate change, conflict and humanitarian crises”.         Paragraph 4 mentions the underlying values of the UN.

Paragraph 5 is specifically about the importance of building        peaceful and inclusive societies, strengthening governance and        institutions, and promoting the rule of law. This was a major        point of contention during the discussion of the Open Working        Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) on Goal 16        related to this issue. Finally Goal 16 had been formulated on        the lines of “access to justice” to meet the concerns of all        Member States. However, this particular listing of issues was        brought up by several developed countries again during the        February discussion on the Declaration.

(The negotiated SDG 16 reads: “Promote peaceful and          inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide          access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and          inclusive institutions at all levels.”)

The document goes on to say that “poverty eradication is the        greatest global challenge facing our world”, that “no one will        be left behind”, and that “no target will be considered met        unless it is met for all economic and social groupings”         (paragraph 7). There is a specific mention of gender equality        and women’s empowerment as critical for sustainable development.        While the objective of poverty eradiation as the primary goal        has been agreed to by almost all, the standard set by the last        could raise some concerns among poorer Member States.

The document in paragraph 8 also acknowledges that the needs        of countries in special situations – least developed countries        (LDCs), land-locked developed countries (LLDCs), small island        developing states (SIDS), African countries – and, of countries        facing special challenges (conflict-affected countries and        middle income countries), have to be addressed. During the first        part of the session, the Group of 77 and China, LDCs, SIDS,        PSIDs, African Group had all called strongly for a specific        recognition of countries in special situations and to specific        commitments for addressing their needs.

Paragraph 9 says that the Agenda must be universal and        applicable to all countries, but “at the same time we take into        account different national realities, capacities and levels of        development”. It goes on to say that “national ownership is        critical”. This universality principle but with differentiation        taking into account national level situations was a major ask        from the developing countries.

The document also specifically mentions the need for action to        combat climate change, widest possible international cooperation        and the urgency of a universal climate agreement. This issue was        also raised by several Member States. (In the ongoing        negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate        Change, CBDR which is an underlying principle of the Convention        is also contested by developed countries.)

Under paragraph 11, there is the mention of SDGs        and targets as the basis of the new Agenda; and that “the six        essential elements in the Secretary General’s Synthesis report,        wholly or in part, important as a means of characterising        outcomes of global efforts.” The recognition that the SDGs form        the basis of the Post-2015 negotiations as agreed in the General        Assembly, was strongly put forward by the G-77 and China and        separately raised by many developing countries. It is important        to note that the Elements Paper actually had no clear mention of        the SDGs at all. The six elements discussed in the S-G Synthesis        Report had been advanced as the key framework in the Elements        Paper, and several developing countries had wanted further        discussions on it. Brazil had suggested using four of these        rather than six i.e. “people”, “prosperity”, “planet” and        “partnership”.

Paragraph 12 says that “implementation will require an        ambitious and effective global partnership which will deliver in        full on global goals”. While there is mention of an “ambitious        and effective” global partnership, there is no mention that this        has to be led by governments, with greater responsibility of        developed country governments at that. Multistakeholder        partnership is of course highlghted, and the paragraph talks of         “active engagement needed from governments as well as civil        society, the private Sector and the UN system”.  The        responsibility of governments in this global partnership for        development is again placed at par with all other partners        including the private sector, a concern repeatedly voiced by        many civil society organisations and some government        delegations.

Paragraph 12 also says (we) “welcome the agreement reached in        Addis Ababa on Means of Implementation” referring to the        upcoming Third International Conference on Financing for        Development (Ffd) in July. This seems quite in contrast to what        several developing countries have been articulating during both        the January and February Sessions. The latter clearly        articulated that while the Ffd process may have important        bearing for the Post-2015 process, means of implementation (MOI)        in the Post-2015 Agenda is in addition to and independent of the        Ffd outcome.

(It is noteworthy that the MOI components of the SDG document,        i.e. Goal 17 as well as the goal specific components of MOI for        Goals 1-16, have been intensely discussed and agreed to as part        of the OWG-SDG process and is included in its final report that        has been adopted by the General Assembly in 2014 as the basis        for the Post-2015 negotiations that are currently going on.)

Paragraph 14 delves into the principles underpinning the        declaration. It says the “agenda is guided by the purposes and        principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Grounded also        in the (UN Declaration on Human Rights) and other human rights        commitments, including the right to development. Inspired by the        Rio Declaration (including, inter alia, the principle of CBDR)        and by the Millennium Declaration. Based also on Rio+20 Outcome        Document, and on proposal of the Open Working Group on        Sustainable Development Goals. Informed by SG’s Synthesis        Report”.

It is curious that the principles underlying the Declaration        comes at the end rather than the beginning of the document as        this should be the major foundation of the Declaration as well        as the Post-2015 Development Agenda itself. The principles find        themselves in the penultimate paragraph in spite of specific        requests from certain Member States that this part be moved up        to the first section. It is also interesting that CBDR finds a        cursory mention within brackets considering this was the most        consistent ask across the developing countries. The dilution of        the principles perhaps is a clear indication of the battles that        are to come over the Declaration.

The last and 15th paragraph ends with a “final call        to action which could recall the foundation of the UN 70 years        ago and draw parallels with the scale of the challenge faced        today and the response now decided on by world leaders. Emphasis        on significance of new agenda for ordinary people around the        world”.

There is also a mention of the “vital contributions to be made        by governments, parliaments, private sector,  civil society etc”         again, as in paragraph 12, putting at par the role of government        and other actors.

At the end there is a clear mention of the timeline for ending        poverty and the last sentence says “we commit to achieving the        goal of ending poverty within fifteen years and of preserving        our planet for today’s young people and future generations”.

It is to be noted that this Discussion Document does not        provide final language and is just another step in the move        towards reaching an agreed Declaration.

Member States’ Response

Initial comments were made by Members States on the Discussion        Paper. Given the short time to respond, many country groupings        did not give inputs due presumably to lack of time for        coordination.

The G-77 and China at the very outset        suggested that comments on the length of the document should be        later determined according to the content (responding to the        Co-facilitators’ preference for no more than 3 pages).

The Group wanted a discussion document that “reflects a        balance of the SDGs as contained in the OWG-SDGs Report” and in        which “the transition from the MDGs to the SDGs and lessons        learnt should also be addressed”.  It also pointed out that “we        need to adhere to the agreed conceptual frameworks such as the        OWG on SDGs Report to ensure integration of the three dimensions        of Sustainable Development”. The Group wanted that “paragraphs        addressing the imperative poverty eradication must be        frontloaded as this imperative is the overarching goal of the        post-development agenda” and found the list of challenges to be        non-exhaustive and wanted future opportunities to ensure        inclusion of challenges afflicting developing countries.

The G-77 and China also noted that, “the declaration makes no        mention of important agreed concepts and principles such as        sovereignty, territorial integrity, self-determination, cultural        diversity, equality, social inclusion and Sustainable        Consumption and Production (SCP) patterns”. Instead of “common        fundamental values” it called for adherence to the agreed        formulation namely, “purposes and principles of the UN charter”.

The Group pointed out two major lacunae with respect to policy        space and CBDR. “Most importantly, the Group notes that there is        no reflection of ‘policy space’ in the declaration to ensure        national ownership and alignment with national development plans        and programs”. On CBDR the statement said, “while the notion of        differentiation is acknowledged in the document the Group would        have preferred to see clear reference to the principle of Common        but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). The Group reiterates        its view that the seminal principle of CBDR cannot be        re-negotiated”.

The statement also suggested that any reference to the rule of        law should be qualified with “national and international        levels.”

Reiterating the importance of the SDG and the OWG process,        theG-77 and China said “the OWG on SDGs will serve as the main        basis for the integration of the SDGs into the post-2015        development agenda while other inputs will also be considered.        The Group reiterates its view that the use of other inputs        should in no way tamper with the substance and political balance        of the OWG on SDGs Report”.

The statement also highlighted the comprehensive nature of MOI        required for the Agenda. “While we recognize that mention of the        means of implementation was made in the discussion document we        wish to emphasize that the means of implementation in the form        of financial assistance, technology transfer and development,        and capacity building remain of critical importance to the Group        of 77 and China”, it pointed out.

Brazil said that, “the discussion document        needs to reflect an appropriate balance in regards to the SDGs        that were negotiated in the Open Working Group, and to provide a        vision for the future. Issues that are really transformative,        such as promoting equality and changing unsustainable        consumption and production patterns should not be downplayed, as        they currently are, while Goal 16 is being selectively        overemphasized. In fact, it is the only goal out of 17 to        deserve a single paragraph in your short and concise document.        We can appreciate brevity. However, let’s not be brief at the        expense of positions that are supported by many, if not a        majority of Member States”.

On paragraph 3 Brazil said that it misses the interlinkage        between the 3 pillars of sustainable development.

On paragraph 4, it said that, “the concept of shared        responsibility contradicts CBDR. It does not take into account        the idea of differentiation. If responsibility for sustainable        development were now to be shared, we would be providing        countries who most exploited resources and other countries in        the past (colonialism and war) a clean slate, and basically        relieving them of their commitments and obligations in terms of        development assistance and special and differential treatment        for developing countries…Simultaneously, we would be making poor        developing countries equally responsible, alongside rich        developed ones, for achieving sustainable development, no matter        how different or asymmetric their respective capacities to do        so.” Brazil added that, “we cannot speak of shared        responsibility in a context in which power; resources and        representation continue to be unevenly distributed, particularly        between developed and developing countries.”

It also stressed that “(SDG) Goal 16 is inadequately mentioned        in isolation in paragraph 5, causing grave distortion in our        understanding of the SDG set.”

Agreeing with the idea in paragraph 7 of prioritizing the most        vulnerable, Brazil disagreed with the suggestions of “no target        will be considered met unless it is met for all economic and        social groupings” and “leave none behind” arguing that the        latter in particular does not address issues of inequity. It is        better to adhere to agreed language on “poverty eradication and        combating inequality” which implies “no one is left behind and        no one receives a blank check”.

Brazil asked that the conclusion of “Doha Round of        multilateral trade negotiations in a manner that delivers on its        development mandate, fundamentally linked to the elimination of        trade distorting agricultural subsidies” be added to paragraph        10. “We also need to mention the importance of reforming        institutions of global governance and international financial        institutions,” it added. On paragraph 12 “the importance of        technology facilitation for the achievement of the new agenda        should be highlighted”. On paragraph 14, Brazil was emphatic        that “The SG’s synthesis report should be recognized as a        valuable input. However, it is different in nature from agreed        outcomes of intergovernmental processes, and therefore should        not be mentioned alongside them on an equal footing.”

India in its comments said that,         “generally, while we are happy that the Discussion draft does        capture many of the issues, it does so in manner that is        selective and somehow disturbs the balance of the SDGs” and also        cautioned against over simplification of the Declaration.         “Communicability cannot be at the cost of substance,” it        stressed.

Repeating its earlier concern, India said that, “the chapeau        of the SDGs is of considerable importance, but this has somehow        been relegated to the background of our discussion. The chapeau        in itself contains a political balance and in addition some        important understandings and guidance, which cannot be separated        from the SDGs themselves. The chapeau should therefore be        integrated into the Declaration.”

India added that “we feel it extremely important that the Rio        principles, in particular the principle of common but        differentiated responsibilities, must be explicitly and        unequivocally reaffirmed in an early part of the Declaration …We        do not agree with those who feel that this principle applies to        a bygone era and nor too with their claim that it is somehow        inconsistent with the notion of universality.”

India refuted the claim of inconsistency of CBDR with        universality. “Universality is dear to us too, because it means        that for the first time, developed countries would also be held        to account for their actions.”

Like the G-77 and Brazil, India also expressed its        dissatisfaction with the listing of today’s challenges, adding        that, “while the ideal of no target to be considered        met unless it is  met for all  economic  and  social         groupingsis an important one, this should not be at the cost of        recognizing progress. We need to ensure that all progress will        nevertheless be duly measured and accounted for.”

India also pointed out “the lack of a strong reference to        technology, which holds the golden key to the problem of        sustainability, is jarring by its absence”. “In paragraph 12, we        should talk not only strengthening the UN but also reforming it,        including its primary organs,” it said. “Paragraph 15 should        recall the linkage between the Bretton Woods institutions, the        WTO and the United Nations and the failure of the institutional        framework created 70 years ago evident in absence of reform of        global governance institutions.”

India argued that “the six elements proposed by the SG cannot        be considered a basis for framing without adequate discussion.        There is a lot of disagreement on the number and nature of        elements required. We clearly need to also agree on whether we        need such elements or that they would provide value-addition to        the Declaration.”

On a reference to the Ffd Conference Outcome, India        categorically stated, “the reference to Addis Ababa is factually        incorrect. While it would certainly complement and support the        post-2015 Development Agenda, we would not at this stage like to        prejudge the nature and outcome of this fundamentally important        conference.”

Egypt in its statement supported the G-77        position on limiting the number of pages and suggested the        Declaration should focus on quality rather than quantity. On        paragraph 1 when a bold vision, transformative goals are        addressed, MOIs also need to be addressed.

On paragraph 2 on MDGs, Egypt pointed to the “need to include        the lessons learnt and the gap in implementing MDG 8 which is        the MOIs.”  It also suggested that paragraph 3 be replaced with        paragraph 7 “which recognizes poverty eradication as the        greatest challenge to Sustainable Development” to which other        threats as well as inequalities within and between countries        could be added. On paragraph 4, Egypt suggested replacement of        the word “Common Fundamental Values” with reference to the        principles of the UN charter.

On paragraph 5 Egypt cautioned against an over emphasis on        Goal 16. While it could be included it must be at both “national        and international levels” and it also suggested the addition of        language “recognizing the rights of people under occupation to        self-determination and the increasing threats of Terrorism to        achieving sustainable development.”

On paragraph 10 it suggested the addition of a fair trading        system, and systemic issues related to reform of international        economic and financial institutions, along with climate change.

On paragraph 11, Egypt reiterated that the OWG Report should        be the main basis for integrating sustainable development into        the Post-2015 Development Agenda.  On paragraph 12 it was very        clear that “the agreement in Addis Abba does not deal with MOIs        in post-2015. FfD and post-2015 are two processes with inter        linkages, but this stops here, FfD is a follow up to Monterrey        and deals with issues that are larger in scope and different in        tenor than the post-2015.”

On paragraph 14, Egypt said that the Post-2015 Agenda should        be stemming directly from the Rio+20 and also that “CBDR is an        agreed principle that we request it is moved to the forefront of        the document”.

Bangladesh, in its statement said that,         “People” should be at the heart of this Agenda, and that “the        Agenda and the Declaration has to be a ‘Compact’ among all        actors, all States – to lead our peoples towards a life of        prosperity, well-being and dignity. And the Compact should aim        at mobilizing our individual and collective actions for        sustainable development.”

Bangladesh suggested a cogent and brief narrative at the        beginning of the Declaration and wanted mention of “some of the        elements that has transformative potential during the next 15        years period and beyond … For instance, population dynamics and        mobility; connectivity of movement of goods, services, energy,        finance, investment, people, ideas, culture; deepening regional        economic integration; ICT for Development.” On shared        responsibility’, while ‘sharing’ is absolutely desired, it has        to be in terms of ‘shared commitment’ and ‘shared        responsibility’ for ‘shared prosperity’, Bangladesh said.        Paragraphs 3 and 7 should be viewed together and references to        addressing “poverty-exclusion-inequality” within and among        countries should be added.

Bangladesh went on to add that “Paragraphs 9, 12, 13 of the        text relates to ‘implementation’ issues. We would however need        further clarity on the ‘elements’ and their ‘inter-linkages’         over the coming weeks – on enabling environment, institutions,        (national) policy space, national ownership, mainstreaming        across national processes, partnerships. This is crucial to        ensure balance at global and national levels, with required        transparency.” The statement also suggested that “ ‘mutual        accountability’ would need to be de-configured and at the        national level; and also judged about their applicability in        context of diverse level of development of countries.”

Finally, Bangladesh added that “it should be useful to revert        to the chapeau of OWG report and have a concise form of it…That        chapeau was wrapped up with most of the elements in a balanced        manner, capturing both substance and underlying political        underpinning rather cautiously.”

The statements of the developed countries were in stark        contrast to those of the developing countries.

The European Union applauded the “brevity”         of the paper and the inclusion of “building peaceful and        inclusive societies, strengthening institutions, promoting the        rule of law and good governance.” It also agreed strongly “with        recalling the fundamental values, including solidarity and        shared responsibility.” The EU also found positive the inclusion        of the six essential elements put forward by the UN SG in his        Synthesis Report that “could be used to facilitate communication        of the agenda and galvanise collective action.”

The EU mentioned areas where it had “difficulties”. First, in        the context of the new global partnership, there is a need to        promote enabling policy frameworks and policy coherence for        sustainable development. The EU then said that the new Global        Partnership must mobilise all actors and resources, at all        levels. It also argued that the “agreement in Addis should then        be integrated into the September outcome and result in one        single framework.”

The EU also had difficulty with the paper singling out Rio        Principle 7 on CBDR, which was designed in the context of global        environmental degradation, and as such cannot apply to the        entire agenda.

The United Kingdom also agreed with the        length of the document and said that “all the key ideas are in        there – and to name check them – finishing the job of the MDGs,        eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable development,        achieving gender equality, combating climate change, delivering        shared prosperity, strengthening governance/ institutions, rule        of law and build peaceful societies and leaving no one behind.”

But the UK wanted the Declaration to be braver and upfront,        possibly in the first paragraph, with a framing concept that        could be something like the six essential elements of the SG        Report perhaps framed as actions or outcomes. It wanted a        stronger articulation of the principle of universality and also        supported the strong reference to climate change in the text.

In reviewing the Member States’ responses, it is clear that        the differences over the Declaration, and in fact, probably over        the entire agenda itself, are as large as ever. The differences        over CBDR, MOI, global partnership, global systemic issues,        which had been somewhat settled in the OWG Report, are again        back on the table in this tough battle. In fact even the        sanctity of the SDGs themselves as the basis for the Post-2015        Agenda is being challenged and new formulations and frameworks        that have not even been discussed by Member States or were        actually rejected are being persistently advanced. In spite of        all the talk of an ambitious and a transformational agenda, the        Post-2015 framework will remain weak and meaningless unless        Member States show a strong political resolve to deliver on this        agenda including on the implementation issues.+

——————————

——————————

——————————

  Third World Network -     www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved   To unsubscribe, please CLICK  HERE!

 

—————————————————————————————————-

 

Sustainabi​lity and Environmen​tal Education:  The Nantucket Project:  Footprint Value Propositio​n – What’s the Nature of the Problem

Dear Community of Educators,

An excellent,  rich film to engage colleagues and students in a conversation, efficiently or effectively protecting the environment, human and natural health.  What is the value proposition?
http://www.nantucketproject.com/bill-mcdonough-re
Please share with your colleagues and networks.

All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UN SD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change
 
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA

——————————————————————————————————

SEA (Strategic Environmen​tal Assessment​) in the Greater Mekong Subregion – resources from a regional forum

Dear colleagues,
From 30 to 31 October, more than 90 GMS and international Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) practitioners and policymakers attended a forum in Siem Reap, Cambodia, to take stock of SEA progress in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS), and identify priorities to scale up its contribution to sustainable development.
Presentations and other forum materials are now available for download here: http://www.gms-eoc.org/events/greater-mekong-subregion-strategic-environmental-assessment-knowledge-sharing-forum
Learning from the forum will help shape messages for an SEA policy brief, which will be presented  to environment leaders at theFourth GMS Environment Ministers’ Meeting in January 2015. The forum will also inform a lessons learned publication on SEA in the GMS, which will be published during the first half of 2015.
The GMS Strategic Environmental Assessment Knowledge Sharing Forum was organized by the GMS Core Environment Program, hosted by Cambodia’s Ministry of Environment, with funding and technical support from the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD.
Kind regards
Duncan
Duncan McLeod Outreach Specialist Description: Description: http://clients.quo-global.com/gms/esig/spacer.gif
duncan@gms-eoc.org Tel: 66 2 207 4428    Skype: omaranui
GMS Environment Operations Center Asian Development Bank, 23rd Floor, The Offices at Central World 999/9 Rama I Road, Pathumwan Bangkok 10330 Thailand
Description: Description: http://clients.quo-global.com/gms/esig/logo.jpg

——————————————————————————————————-

 

  SDSN Newsletter – October 2014

http://unsdsn.org/?utm_source=SDSN&utm_campaign=3cf2f88037-SDSN_October14_Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2302100059-3cf2f88037-177808657

 

—————————————————————————————————–

 

flyer environment edu

 

Hello everybody!

The web-site of the European Days on Environmental Education is now on-line and active!

www.europe.environmental-education.org/index.html

You will find on the web-site the initial program as well as the registration form, documents related to the event and information regarding accommodation.

The international organizing committee of the European Days has been defining different subject suggestions for the workshops, based on three major matters:

Göteborg’s themes: the subjects that will be proposed in the 8th edition of the World Environmental Education Congress WEEC 2015 (http://weec2015.org ) have been integrated with the international commitee’s proposals.

Building a Network: The need to build not only a European network but also a worldwide network led us to propose this workshop in order to discuss a Political Document on EESD in Europe and to continue creating a European area for consultation on environmental education.

European programs: introduce and discuss different European and worldwide programs with the participation of experts such as European functionaries in order to give the participants the opportunity to deepen their knowledge of a specific program and begin to identify partners and themes for European projects.

But this is not all: we also want your point of view. Therefore, in the registration form you will be able to give us your opinion and suggest us new themes for the workshops, as well as propositions for the development of the program and ideas for the event.

We thank you for your collaboration!

Kind regards

Bonjour à tous/toutes,

Le site des Journées Européennes pour l’Education à l’Enviornnement est maintenant en ligne et active!

www.europe.environmental-education.org/index.html

Sur le site vous trouverez le programme initial ainsi que le formulaire d’inscription, les documents sur l’evenment et informations sur l’accomodation.

Le comité d’organisation internationale de ces Journées Européennes a identifiés diffèrent propositions de sujets pour les ateliers, en se basant sur trois questions principales:

Les thèmes de Göteborg: les thèmes qui seront proposés pendant la 8ème édition du Congrès mondial d’éducation environnementale WEEC 2015 (http://weec2015.org ) ont été intégrés aux propositions du Comité international.

 Construction du réseau: la nécessité de construire non seulement un réseau européen, mais également un réseau mondial nous a conduit à proposer cet atelier afin de discuter sur un Document Politique sur l’EE en Europe et de continuer à créer un espace européen de concertation sur l’éducation environnementale.

Programmes européens: présenter et discuter différents programmes Européens (et mondiales) avec la participation d’experts comme fonctionnaires européens, afin de donner aux participants l’occasion d’approfondir leur connaissance sur un programme spécifique et de commencer à identifier des partenaires et des thèmes pour de projets européens qui seront présentées.

Mais nous voulons aussi votre point de vue. A cet égard, vous pourriez, à travers le formulaire d’inscription, nous donner  vos suggestions sur les thèmes pour les ateliers, vos propositions pour le développement du programme et des idées pour l’événement.

 Nous vous remercions pour votre collaboration et votre patience.

 Bien Cordialement

————————————————————————————————–

Hola a todos/todas!

La página web de las Jornadas Europeas para la Educación Ambiental esta ahora en línea y activa!

www.europe.environmental-education.org/index.html

Encontrarán en el sitio web el programa inicial, como también el formulario de inscripción, los documentos relacionados con el evento y la información sobre el alojamiento.

El comité organizador internacional de las Jornadas Europeas ha estado delineando diferentes sugerencias para las temáticas de los talleres, basándose sobre tres cuestiones principales:

Temas de Gotemburgo: los temas que se propondrán en la octava edición del Congreso Mundial de Educación Ambiental WEEC 2015 (http://weec2015.org ) se han integrado con las propuestas del comité.

La constitución de una red: La necesidad de construir no sólo una red europea, sino también una red mundial nos llevó a sugerir este taller con el fin de discutir sobre un documento de política sobre el ambiente y desarrollo sustentable en Europa y continuar con la creación de un espacio europeo de concertación sobre la educación ambiental.

Programas europeos: introducir y discutir diferentes programas europeos (y mundiales) con la participación de expertos tales como funcionarios europeos, con el fin de dar a los participantes la oportunidad de profundizar  el conocimiento de un programa específico y comenzar a identificar socios y temas para proyectos europeos o mundiales.

Pero queremos también vuestro punto de vista. Por lo tanto, en el formulario de inscripción podrán darnos vuestra opinión sugerencias sobre nuevos temas para los talleres, como también propuestas para el desarrollo del programa y ideas para el evento.

Agradecemos vuestra colaboración y vuestra paciencia

Saludos cordiales

——————————————————————————————————

 

OECD’s Development Co-operation Report 2014: Mobilising Resources for Sustainable Development

 

The OECD launched  its Development Co-operation Report 2014: Mobilising Resources for Sustainable Development.
At the Development Assistance Committee’s High-Level Meeting (HLM) in December 2012, DAC Ministers called for modernizing the DAC statistical system and devising a new, broader measure of total official support for development. In the context of the challenges of funding the post-2015 Sustainable Developemnt Goals, the Development Co-operation Report (DCR) 2014 complements this mandate by:
• providing an overview of the sources of finance available to developing countries, including – among others – official development assistance (ODA), foreign direct investment, resources from institutional investors, domestic revenues, philanthropy, resources raised by civil society, and remittances
• making recommendations on how to mobilise further resources, as for example through smart use of ODA to leverage additional resources and mitigate risks; policy reform to improve the environment for investment in developing countries to mobilise domestic resources and to combat illicit flows; and innovative mechanisms such as a levy on airline tickets or a financial transaction tax.
• exploring how to finance the provision of global public goods, for example by combatting climate change, promoting peace and security, and creating a fair and equal trading system.
The report brings together expertise and lessons for sustainable development from diverse communities of practice and policy. It finds that official development assistance (ODA) will reamin an important instrument in the post-2015 framework, but only if it is made “smart”with relation to the other considerable resources that will be required.
For instance, to help mobilise the many resources beyond ODA that could help to finance sustainable development and global public goods, ODA can provide incentives and help to reduce risk. It can also be used to promote policy reform in developing countries, for example to strengthen tax policies and create an enabling environment for investment. And finally, it can be targeted to countries that have few other financing sources to rely on.
The Development Co-operation Report is the yearly flagship publication of the Chair of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). It addresses important challenges for the international development community and also reports the profiles and performance of DAC development co-operation providers. Finally, it presents DAC statistics on official and private resource flows.
The DCR 2014 is the second report in a trilogy (2013-15) focusing on “Global Development Co-operation Post-2015: Managing Interdependence”. The DCR 2013 looked at Ending Poverty by 2030; next year’s report will analyse how to enable effective partnerships through Coalitions of Action.
The DCR 2014 will be launched on 7 October in the context of the DAC Senior Level Meeting, in Paris. Further launch events will take place in London, in co-operation with the Overseas Development Institute  (9 October) and in Washington D.C., hoseted by the Center for Global Development (10 October).
Follow #DCR 2014 on Twitter for live coverage.
More information: 
oe.cd/DCR

Ibrahim SIDIBE

Coordinator of the Initiative for Agricultural and Rural de Development in Mali (ARD)

Country Representative Young Professionals’ Platform for Agricultural Research for Development in Mali (YPARD)

BP-E: 4630 Bamako, Mali

Kalaban coura Ext South Street 325 Door 69

Phone: (00223) 20284223  /  Mobile: (00223) 76312529

Skype: sidhibe  /  E-mail: ibrahimsidhibe@gmail.com  /  Site: www.ypard.net.

 

——————————————————————————————————

 

  ”Call For Input” Public Consultation on the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development – Deadline October 15th

Dear colleagues,  

This summer UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon established the Independent Expert Advisory Group (IAEG) to provide concrete recommendations on how to achieve a Data Revolution for sustainable development. The IEAG report – due in early November – will be a crucial opportunity to explain how better quality and more timely data can transform development. The group is also looking for innovative approaches to data collection, publication, and use.
To solicit input from all communities of practice – particularly academia – the IAEG is hosting a public consultation at undatarevolution.org to solicit input into its work until October 15, 2015. In spite of the short notice, we strongly encourage you to submit your ideas and suggestions for the data revolution. Please share this message widely and provide your comments on the IEAG website.
Let me take this opportunity to let you know that we will issue an updated and revised SDSN Indicator Report towards the end of the month. The revised report will update the proposed indicator framework for the SDGs and explore how high-quality data can become available annually. If you have comments on the existing draft or would like more information you can visit unsdsn.org/data or contact us directly at info@unsdsn.org.

Best regards,
Guido Schmidt-Traub
SDSN Executive Director

http://unsdsn.org/resources/towards-a-data-revolution/?utm_source=SDSN&utm_campaign=9cd0f23464-data_rev_public_consul_10_10_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2302100059-9cd0f23464-177770913

 

——————————————————————————————————–

 

 

SADC Regional News WM Wessa Flyer image012

 

   wm flyer gender water image014

WEEC2015_callrevised

 

The web-site of the European Days is now on-line; Le site des Journées Européenne​s est maintenant en ligne; La página web de las Jornadas Europeas esta ahora en linea

Volume14 Number 5 (September 2014) 

Monthly Environmental Education (EE) News Flash of the SADC Regional Environmental Education Programme 

CONTENTS

1. NEWS         2. TRAINING      3. EVENTS/OPPORTUNITIES

4. PUBLICATIONS 5. NETWORKING

 Please note:  Kindly address any emails to

sadc-reec@wessa.co.za 

1.    NEWS 

1.1   New UN CC:Learn Resource Guides Promote Advanced Learning on Climate Change & Health and on Climate Change Education

The UN CC: Learn Secretariat has launched two new Resource Guides providing a tour of the best and most relevant resources, mostly drawn from within the UN System, on climate change & health and on climate change education.

The Resource Guide for Advanced Learning on Understanding the Climate Change and Health Interface, which was developed with technical advice of the World Health organization (WHO), has been developed for those interested in gaining a more advanced understanding of the linkages between climate change and health. 

The Resource Guide for Advanced Learning on Integrating Climate Change in Education at Primary and Secondary Level, which was developed with technical advice of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), provides resources relevant for learning about both formal and informal education on climate change at primary and secondary level.  

The guides are part of a series facilitating access to state-of-the-art materials relevant for climate change learning. Other two Resource Guides have been issued on the Fundamentals of Climate Change Science and on Predicting and Projecting Climate Change.

Read the full news article here: http://uncclearn.org/news/resource_guides_health_education 

About UN CC: Learn

UN CC: Learn is a partnership of 33 multilateral organizations which supports Member States in designing and implementing results-oriented and sustainable learning to address climate change. The Secretariat for UN CC: Learn is provided by the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). One of the objectives of UN CC: Learn is to facilitate access to existing climate change learning materials and to support the development of complementary learning resources, as appropriate. Funding for UN CC: Learn is provided by the Swiss Government. For further information please contact: uncclearn@unitar.org.

2   TRAINING

2.1     Forthcoming training:

2.1.1. Environmental Educators NQF Level 5 Course, 10-14 November 2014

3    EVENTS/OPPORTUNITIES

3.1. Call for Expressions of Interest: The Sanitation Innovation Challenge – deadline 30 September 2014!

 Dear colleagues and comrades in the water and sanitation family

The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), in partnership with the Water Research Commission (WRC), is launching an exciting new programme – the Sanitation Innovation Challenge (SanIC). Attached, please find more information on SanIC, inviting Expressions of Interest (EOIs) as well as the proposal should you be interested in applying.

The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) invites Expressions of Interest (EOI) from innovators, suppliers and specialists to theSanitation Innovation Challenge (SanIC). The objectives of the challenge are to mobilise innovative sanitation technologies and solutions towards providing more appropriate solutions to South Africa’s sanitation challenge. Sanitation innovations are regarded as those systems or solutions which are alternative to conventional waterborne sewerage and onsite ventilated improved pit latrines. The proposed technologies should provide sustainable sanitation services to urban, peri-urban and rural areas and take into account effectiveness, social preferences, water resource availability, and affordability, possible beneficiation of waste products, economic development and cost reduction in the sanitation delivery chain.

The Challenge will provide a vehicle for evaluation and demonstration of the technology. The outcomes of the evaluations will be used to provide strong recommendations to national and local government on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the assessed technologies.

Requirements

The proposer should demonstrate the underlying scientific principles behind the technology, demonstrate the rationale behind design features, fabrication and implementation cost, O&M requirements, level of readiness, number of units installed, target location (rural, peri-urban and/or urban), and detail any previous demonstrations (location, scale, partners, outputs). Preference will be given to those solutions that are demonstration ready. The EOI should be concise (not more than 20 pages) and include diagrams and photos. Brochures can be added as additional information.  Contact

Requirements for the EOI can be obtained from the Water Research Commission (WRC). Expressions of Interest (EOI’s) must be emailed to the WRC by no later than Tuesday, 30 September 2014.

Project Coordinator: Jay Bhagwan

Email Subject Title: Sanitation Innovation Challenge

Email: challenge@wrc.org.za

Queries: Stuart Woolley / Sudhir Pillay / Jay Bhagwan

Phone: 012 330 9057 / 9007

All applications welcome! Please also distribute to your networks.

Kind regards,

Dr. Inga Jacobs (PhD, MA)

Executive Manager

Business Development, Marketing and Communications

Water Research Commission

Private Bag X03, Gezina, 0031, South Africa

Email: ingaj@wrc.org.za

Tel:  +27 12 330 9014  /  Fax: +27 12 331 2565  /  Cell: +27 83 401 7625

www.global-water-conference1.com

3.2 8th International World Environmental Education Congress Gothenburg, Sweden, June 29-July 2, 2015 http://weec2015.org   Call for Abstract Submissions   About the WEEC 2015 Congress .

The 8th World Environmental Education Congress (WEEC2015), “PLANET & PEOPLE”, is an international congress addressing education for environment and sustainable development. The congress is directed towards everyone working on environmental and sustainability education in different contexts. The congress will take place in Gothenburg, Sweden between the 29th of June and 2nd of July 2015. The Centre for Environment and Sustainability will be hosting the conference together with the WEEC Permanent Secretariat. We are expecting around 1200 participants from a wide range of countries.  

WEEC2015 is an opportunity to learn more about the latest in environmental and sustainability education, to discuss with people from all over the world, to share your own work and to learn from others.  

Invitation for Abstract Submissions:

The congress will discuss 11 themes, of which you can read more on the website: http://weec2015.org/congress-themes;    

Abstracts written in English, Spanish or French, should be no longer than 3000 characters. The authors of the selected abstracts are invited to present their work through one of the following presentation formats:  

  • · Oral
  • · Poster
  • · Workshop
  • · Roundtable

For further instructions, please consult the WEEC 2015 website http://weec2015.org/

The abstract submission will be open between September 15 and November 15, 2014. The abstract will be reviewed by the National Scientific Committee and the International Scientific Committee. The authors will get information of the acceptance status of their abstract(s) on February 15, 2015. 

Accepted abstracts will be published in the Congress Abstract Book or/and made available on the website. To submit an abstract, please go to the congress website.  

We look forward to seeing you in Gothenburg at WEEC 2015!  

Sincerely,

Professor Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson National Program Chair, WEEC 2015,  

Professor Arjen Wals  International Program Chair, WEEC 2015 

Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us: 

Centre for Environment and Sustainability (for content):  Rebecka Hallén, rebecka.hallen@gu.se  

Conference Secretariat (for practicalities):  MCI Scandinavia, info@weec2015.org, +46(0)8-54651500

4.    PUBLICATIONS

4.1. ONLINE EDUCA BERLIN Newsletter – September 2014

The edition of the ONLINE EDUCA BERLIN Newsletter takes you on an e-learning journey across the globe. It introduces you to the Norwegians pioneering mobile micro learning; how Ireland’s early school leavers are re-engaging with education; capacity building in emerging markets; open innovation in German universities and more. All this plus the latest commentary from this year’s ONLINE EDUCA BERLIN speakers on industry trends and developments, as well as other OEB 2014 programme highlights. Keep an eye out over the coming weeks for more OEB news and announcements!

To read more on the news visit: (www.online-educa.com)

5.    NETWORKING

An experience from the 32nd EEASA Conference, by Phindile Sithole

This year I had the opportunity to participate in the 32nd EEASA Conference in Windhoek, Namibia. It was my first time out of the country (South Africa) and I was very excited to attend a conference outside my country for the first time ever. I have always heard about EEASA but had little understanding of what EEASA was all about, however this has changed since I have attended the conference.

The EEASA conference is about members supporting environmental and sustainability education processes coming together for information sharing, exchanging ideas, and sharing their experiences and showcasing their work in environmental and sustainability education. It was also an opportunity to develop a strong professional network. Personally I am not a born networker, however the conference gave me an opportunity to gain networking skills which I will be able to refine and use throughout my career. The EEASA conference was my starting point of initiating, developing and maintaining a strong regional and international network of connections.

There was so much to learn, I was like a sponge absorbing all the information and what I can say is even today I am still reflecting and using some of the information I have received to strengthen my professional work. The presentations by the EEASA members motivated me to present my own professional work at the next EEASA conference and show case my work and contribution to environmental education.

There was change and shift on my way of thinking and how I view the world. I had opportunity to see other peoples’ views and perspectives of the environment, the kind of work being done out there by various people and institutions for a common purpose. The conference gave me an opportunity to see diversity in unity and also to see the role I can play in environmental education.

The conference exposed me to the work, contributions and challenges in environmental education facing people from various countries and backgrounds. I also had an opportunity to meet colleagues in the SADC REEP and wider EE and ESD communities of practice whom I have been communicating with via emails, telephone, and Skype for the first time in person. 

I must say that I enjoyed the conference as much as I was learning. I also had chance to have some Namibian fun, with people whom I have never met before; I enjoyed the excursion to the Habitat Research and Development Centre where they address issues of housing by applying new methods and ideas of science and technology for sustainable development of the Namibian housing centre. This excursion exposed me to a range of simple sustainable technologies I have never thought of, and motivated me to try out a mini project of one of the sustainable technologies.

 I must say there is a gradual change in me due to the learning and knowledge I have acquired during the EEASA conference. What I learnt there I wouldn’t have learnt elsewhere, it was a once off opportunity to learn from various disciplines, institutions and people in just a few days.

Compiled by Phindile Sithole

Please submit other relevant EE/ESD activities to the SADC REEP Monthly News Flash and feel free to forward this message to people who might be interested.

Please inform us if you do not wish to receive this EE News Flash.

SADC Regional Environmental Education Centre
E-mail: 
sadc-reec@wessa.co.za

Web Site: www.sadc-reep.org.za
Tel: 
+27-33-330 3931, Fax: +27-33-330 4576;

PO Box 394, Howick 3290, South Africa

 

—————————————————————————————————–

TWN Info Service on UN Sust Dev.:United Nations: Rights Council condemns activities of vulture funds

TWN Info Service on UN Sustainable Development (Sept14/05)
30 September 2014
Third World Network
www.twn.my

United Nations: Rights Council condemns activities of vulture funds
Published in SUNS #7884 dated 30 September 2014


Geneva, 29 Sep (Kanaga Raja) — The UN Human Rights Council on Friday condemned the activities of vulture funds “for the direct negative effect that the debt repayment to those funds, under predatory conditions, has on the capacity of Governments to fulfil their human rights obligations, particularly economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development.”
In a resolution (A/HRC/27/L. 26) adopted by a vote, the Council requested its Advisory Committee, composed of 18 experts, to prepare a research-based report on the activities of vulture funds and the impact on human rights, and to present a progress report of that research to the Human Rights Council for its consideration at its thirty- first session.
The Human Rights Council held its regular twenty-seventh session from 8-26 September.
The resolution on the activities of vulture funds was adopted by a vote of 33 in favour, five against and nine abstentions.
Those that voted in favour were Algeria, Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela and Viet Nam.
The Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and the United States voted against the resolution, while Austria, Estonia, France, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Republic of Korea, Romania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia abstained.
The draft resolution was introduced at the Human Rights Council by Argentine Foreign Affairs Minister Hector Timerman on behalf of Argentina, Algeria, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Pointing out that a total of 74 co-sponsors have supported this draft resolution, the Argentine Minister told the Council on Friday that the issue of foreign debt and its effects on the enjoyment of human rights has been on the agenda of various UN human rights bodies for over two decades.

Since 1990, the Human Rights Commission and subsequently the Human Rights Council, in various resolutions and decisions, highlighted the challenges represented by the burden of foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, he said.
Along these lines, he noted, the independent expert on foreign debt, Mr Cephas Lumina, had referred to vulture funds, describing their activities as those that managed to divert a country’s financial resources that was saved from debt cancellation, thereby undermining the capacity of governments to guarantee the human rights of their people.
For the most part this has happened in Africa, where the activities of vulture funds have endangered or even removed the capacity of these states to carry out their development and poverty reduction programmes.
The Argentine Minister highlighted the need for financial reform along ethical lines that would produce in its turn economic reform to benefit everyone.
It is not only developing countries that have highlighted the threat of vulture funds to the full enjoyment of human rights. As far back as 2002, the then finance minister (Chancellor of the Exchequer) of the United Kingdom, and subsequently Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, had referred to the severity of the problem in a special session of the UN General Assembly.
According to Mr Timerman, a legal vacuum exists in terms of debt restructuring and it leaves sovereign states vulnerable to the abuse of speculators.
In some general comments before the vote, Algeria, referring to a report of the independent expert Mr Lumina, said that vulture funds have negative effects on debt relief measures that have been adopted by the international community and these funds have a destabilising effect on the economies of countries that are the victims of these vulture funds.
Algeria said that among the main messages of the draft resolution are the fact that the international financial system is inadequate today and therefore needs to be reformed; that the debt burden has a major impact on developing countries and their development; and that there is need to shed an objective light on the activities of vulture funds and their impact on the right to development.
Cuba said that the draft resolution brings before the Council a subject of vital importance to developing countries, namely, the negative effect of vulture funds on the enjoyment of human rights.
Venezuela said that for many years it has been hearing in international fora, in particular in the Human Rights Council about the negative effects on the enjoyment of human rights of the excessive and unjust debt burden. Today, this is exacerbated by the global crisis of capitalism, it added.
Pakistan said that all countries have a sovereign right with regards to their debt restructuring. Highlighting for this to not be influenced by political and extraneous pressure tactics, it said that these tactics undermine the capacity of states particularly developing countries to fulfil their human rights obligations and to achieve sustainable development.
Pakistan further said that vulture funds reflect the inherent flaws in the current financial system and could be used to challenge the sovereignty of indebted countries through economic pressure and huge financial implications.
In an explanation of the vote before the vote, the United States said that it will call for a vote and will vote ‘no’ on the resolution.
It said that it remains committed to the stability of the international financial system. It however said that this resolution raises serious concerns.
Discussions on mechanisms to advance orderly debt restructuring are technical in nature and if not handled appropriately, risk creating uncertainties which could drive up borrowing costs or even choke off financing for developing countries, it maintained.
There are already active discussions underway in other more appropriate fora that take these complex technical considerations into account, it said, adding that the issue that this resolution purports to address falls outside of the scope and mandate of the Human Rights Council and does not belong in this forum.
Italy, on behalf of the European Union members of the Human Rights Council, said that there should be no doubt over its solidarity with countries that have faced or are still facing economic and financial crisis. However, in its view, the Human Rights Council is not the appropriate forum for discussing issues related to financial policy.
France, announcing its intention to abstain on the vote, said that the effectiveness of international mechanisms for the restructuring of sovereign debt is a core concern of France. It said its stance and position of amicus curiae in the dispute between Argentina against litigious creditors before the US Supreme Court clearly demonstrates France’s commitment.
However, it considers that the issue of restructuring of sovereign debt does not fall within the mandate of the Human Rights Council. The issue of sovereign debt restructuring should be discussed within the competent international bodies, which is already the case, it said, citing as examples the International Monetary Fund and the Paris Club.
In the resolution adopted on Friday, the Human Rights Council noted the concern expressed in the declaration that Heads of State and Government of the Group of 77 and China issued on the occasion of the summit entitled “For a New World Order for Living Well”, held in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, on 14 and 15 June 2014, that reiterates the importance of not allowing vulture funds to paralyse the debt restructuring efforts of developing countries, and that these funds should not supersede the State’s right to protect its people under international law.
It affirmed that debt burden contributes to extreme poverty and hunger and is an obstacle to sustainable human development, to the realization of the Millennium Development Goals and to the right to development, and is thus a serious impediment to the realization of all human rights.
The Council also noted that “the international financial system does not have a sound legal framework for the orderly and predictable restructuring of sovereign debt, which further increases the economic and social cost of non-compliance.”
It expressed its concern about the voluntary nature of international debt relief schemes which has created opportunities for vulture funds to acquire defaulted sovereign debt at vastly reduced prices and then seek repayment of the full value of the debt through litigation, seizure of assets or political pressure.
Condemning the activities of vulture funds, the Council reaffirmed, in this context, that “the activities of vulture funds highlight some of the problems in the global financial system and are indicative of the unjust nature of the current system, which directly affects the enjoyment of human rights in debtor States.”
It called upon States to consider implementing legal frameworks “to curtail predatory vulture fund activities within their jurisdictions”.
The Council encouraged all States to participate in the negotiations aimed at establishing a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes, as referred to in General Assembly resolution 68/304, and invited States participating in the negotiations to ensure that such a multilateral legal framework will be compatible with existing international human rights obligations and standards.

——————————————————————————————————

Info Service on UN Sust Dev.: Greater flexibilit​ies, policy space needed to meet post-2015 goals

Title : TWN Info Service on UN Sust Dev.: Greater flexibilities, policy space needed to meet post-2015 goals
Date : 22 September 2014

Contents:

TWN Info Service on UN Sustainable Development (Sept14/04)
22 September 2014
Third World Network
www.twn.my

Greater flexibilities, policy space needed to meet post-2015 goals
Published in SUNS #7878 dated 22 September 2014

Geneva, 19 Sep (Kanaga Raja) — Meeting the global development goals of a post-2015 development agenda will not be feasible without the availability of greater flexibilities in policymaking, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said.

In the chapters of its Trade and Development Report 2014 (TDR) focusing on the key theme of policy space and global governance, UNCTAD underscored that in order to pursue rapid and inclusive economic growth and meet future global development goals, developing countries will need sufficient policy space at the national level to undertake the necessary structural transformation of their economies.

“At the international level, the multilateral governance framework will need to be more permissive and coherent if it is to facilitate such structural transformation,” it said.

According to the TDR, the discussions now under way on a post-2015 development agenda are aiming for an ambitious narrative that goes beyond “business as usual” to establish a more universal, transformative and sustainable approach than the one advanced through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). As such, it will play a key role in setting new goals and targets for policymakers, both at the national and international levels.

The international community faces three principal challenges in fashioning this new approach, said UNCTAD.

The first challenge is aligning goals and targets to a policy paradigm that can help raise productivity and per capita incomes everywhere, generate decent jobs on a scale needed to meet a rapidly growing and urbanizing global labour force, establish a stable international financial system that boosts productive investment, and deliver reliable public services that leave no one behind, particularly in the most vulnerable communities.

The TDR said that the second challenge facing any new development agenda is the massive rise in inequality, which has accompanied the spread of market liberalism. This is important because, in addition to ethical considerations, and unlike the simple textbook trade-off between growth and equality, growing inequality can threaten economic progress and social stability, and undermine political cohesion.

The third challenge is to ensure that effective policy instruments, and the space to use them, are available to countries to enable them to achieve the agreed goals and advance the development agenda.

According to UNCTAD, addressing these three challenges would be a formidable task even under ideal circumstances, but it is all the more daunting now because of changes to the global economic environment resulting from the financial crisis in 2008-2009.

The new development agenda is likely to face a harsher external environment in the years ahead. The financial crisis also revealed a set of persistent and highly interrelated economic and social imbalances that will inevitably have a strong bearing on efforts to design new development strategies aimed at tackling issues relating to a growing urban-rural divide, formal and informal livelihoods, access to affordable energy sources that minimize environmental damage, and food and water security.

“Rebalancing on these many fronts will require an integrated policy framework encompassing more viable and inclusive national development strategies, along with changes in the governance of the global economic system to accommodate and support them,” said UNCTAD, noting that its report of last year had argued that mobilizing greater domestic resources and building markets at the national and regional levels were likely to be key to sustained growth in many developing countries in the years ahead.

Maximizing the contribution of national resources for achieving the economic and social goals envisaged in the post-2015 agenda will certainly require a more assertive macroeconomic policy agenda. Such an agenda would need to include the use of a broad array of fiscal, financial and regulatory instruments in support of capital accumulation, proactive labour market and incomes policies to generate more decent jobs, and effective control of the capital account to limit potential damage from external shocks and crises.

Building more competitive firms, moving resources into higher value-added sectors and strengthening national technological capabilities cannot rely on market forces alone; effective industrial policies and dedicated efforts to support and coordinate private- and public-sector activities will also be crucial, the report underlined.

Restoring a development model that favours the real economy – and the constituencies that depend on it for their livelihoods and security – over financial interests, will almost certainly require adding more instruments to the policy toolkit than is currently contemplated by economic orthodoxy.

“There are valid concerns that the various legal obligations emerging from multilateral, regional and bilateral agreements have reduced national policy autonomy by restricting both the available range and the efficacy of particular policy instruments. At the same time, multilateral disciplines can operate to reduce the inherent bias of international economic relations in favour of countries that have greater economic or political power.”

Those disciplines can simultaneously restrict (particularly de jure) and ease (particularly de facto) policy space, said the report. It found that for the more developed countries, globalization a la carte has been the practice to date, as it has been for the more successful developing countries over the past 20 years. By contrast, many developing countries have had to contend with a more rigid and structured approach to economic liberalization.

This one size-fits-all approach to development policy has, for the most part, been conducted by or through the Bretton Woods institutions – the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) – whose surveillance and influence over domestic policymakers following the debt crises of the 1980s were considerably extended giving them greater authority to demand changes to what they deemed to be “unsound” policies.

Countries seeking financial assistance or debt rescheduling from the Bank or the IMF had to adopt approved macroeconomic stability programmes and agree to “structural” and political reforms, which extended the influence of markets – via liberalization, privatization and deregulation, among others – and substantially reduced the economic and developmental roles of the State.

Similarly, said UNCTAD, the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations extended the authority of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to embrace services, agriculture, intellectual property and trade-related investment measures, thereby restricting, to varying degrees, the policy space available to developing countries to manage their integration into the global economy.

“Emphasizing the role of policy, and of the international economic institutions in promoting one set of policies over another, is an important correction to the view that globalization is an autonomous, irresistible and irreversible process driven by impersonal market and technological forces. Such forces are undoubtedly important, but essentially they are instigated by specific policy choices and shaped by existing institutions.”

The report further said that the system that has evolved under finance-led globalization has led to a multiplicity of rules and regulations on international trade and investment that tend to excessively constrain national policy options. At the same time it lacks an effective multilateral framework of rules and institutions for ensuring international financial stability and for overseeing extra-territorial fiscal matters.

“Within this imperfect system, policymakers in developed countries are aiming to tackle a series of interrelated macroeconomic and structural challenges, while those from developing countries are trying to consolidate recent gains and enter a new phase of inclusive development. It is therefore more important than ever before for national policy space to be made a central issue on the global development agenda.”

Looking at the origins of the post-Second World War multilateral system and, in particular, at efforts to ensure that the space for a new State-led policy consensus that avoided the mistakes of the inter-war years would be consistent with multilateral arrangements and disciplines in support of a more open, stable and interdependent world economy, the TDR contended that the partial efforts to internationalize the New Deal in the 1940s eventually gave rise to a more inclusive multilateral agenda that was championed by the developing world.

“As the international community rethinks its goals for a post-2015 development agenda to succeed the Millennium Development Goals, it is imperative to ensure that effective policy instruments are available to countries to enable them to achieve the agreed goals and advance the agenda.”

UNCTAD argued that recent experience, historical evidence and theoretical insights all point to the role that proactive trade and industrial policies must play in that agenda.

It noted that developed countries adopted a variety of industrial policies during their period of industrialization, and continued to do so after the Second World War in their pursuit of sustained economic growth, full employment and accelerated technological progress. Subsequently, industrial policy was also high on the agenda of many developing-country governments that saw industrialization as key to unlocking under-utilized resources, addressing long-standing structural weaknesses and social deficits, and closing the technological gap with the developed economies.

This post-war policy consensus on the utility of proactive trade and industrial policies also informed the debates about reforming the multilateral trade and financial systems in a way that would allow developing countries the policy space to adopt the measures and instruments they deemed necessary to foster rapid productivity growth and industrial development.

From the early 1980s, industrial policy largely disappeared from the development agenda of many countries, particularly in Africa and Latin America. This was partly a reaction to evidence of specific policy mistakes and abuses, but it was also due to a more ideologically driven debate that blamed government failures much more than market failures for slow economic development and emphasized the need for market liberalization.

Just as important, in several developing economies the debt crisis eroded the ability of States to pursue proactive policies. Not only did they suffer from macroeconomic and fiscal constraints, but they also had to submit to the growing policy conditionality attached to loans extended to them by the Bretton Woods institutions.

According to the TDR, many countries reduced or abandoned proactive trade and industrial policies and began to favour unfettered markets and transnational firms, as endorsed by the so-called “Washington Consensus”.

Interest in proactive trade and industrial policies has revived since around the turn of the millennium, for a variety of reasons. First, and probably most important, was the accumulation of overwhelming evidence that the most successful developing countries – notably the newly industrializing economies in East Asia followed by China – were the ones that had systematically followed a pragmatic approach to promoting industrial development through a combination of macroeconomic and structural policies as well as measured protectionism while gradually opening up to trade and investment, and effective collaboration between the private and public sectors.

Second, it was increasingly recognized that the policies associated with the Washington Consensus were doing little to support economic upgrading and diversification, which meant that countries would risk falling into a “middle-income trap”.

Third, mainstream economists started to accept some of the insights into economic development from classical economics, such as the recognition that economic development has a “structural” dimension, the importance of linkages and learning for accelerating productivity growth, and the key role of demand.

“It is clear that specific policy measures adopted by some of the successful industrializing countries cannot easily be replicated by other countries. This is not only because individual countries’ success stories are invariably linked to special economic and institutional conditions that are unlikely to exist in other countries; it is also because changes in the external economic environment affect both the availability and effectiveness of specific policy instruments.”

It is well known that export-led industrialization strategies must sooner or later reach their limits when many countries pursue them simultaneously, as competition among economies based on low unit labour costs and taxes faces a fallacy of composition that leads to a race to the bottom.

At the present juncture, said UNCTAD, when developing countries’ opportunities to increase exports of manufactures to developed countries are likely to remain weak for some time, the limitations of such a growth strategy are becoming even more obvious. A re-balancing of developing countries’ growth strategies towards a greater emphasis on domestic and regional demand could reduce this risk.

The TDR went on to discuss the impacts of the various trade, investment and comprehensive economic partnership agreements on national trade and industrial policy space, highlighting in this regard areas where provisions in Uruguay Round (UR) Agreements and RTAs (Regional Trade Agreements) have constrained such policy space for developing countries, as well as areas where flexibilities remain intact.

It examined the constraints faced by developing countries in adopting the trade and investment policies they deem to be the most suitable for structural transformation, focusing in particular on the multiplicity of trade agreements (multilateral, bilateral and regional) and how they restrict national policy space.

“Multilateral agreements maintain some flexibilities and incorporate some special and differential treatment (SDT) for least developed countries (LDCs); however, they typically limit or forbid the kinds of policies that played an important role in successful processes of structural transformation in the past,” it said, noting that this process of limiting national policy space began with the UR Agreements, which included several rules that were not directly related to trade flows.

Subsequent bilateral and regional trade agreements have increasingly included rules that can be important for the design of comprehensive national development strategies, such as government procurement, capital flows, trade in services, and environmental and labour issues. Many of them have also included disciplines concerning IPRs and investment-related measures that are more stringent than those already incorporated in multilateral agreements.

Analysing several UR Agreements such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM), the TDR argued that the UR Agreements have reduced the policy space available to WTO member States, even as the multilateral trade regime has preserved policy space in some areas.

In terms of constraints, the UR Agreements have placed restrictions on the imposition on foreign investors of performance requirements on exports, on domestic content and on technology transfer, all of which have historically been very important in promoting late industrialization. They also make it more difficult or costly for domestic producers to undertake reverse engineering and imitation through access to technology that is covered by patent or copyright protection, said the TDR.

However, the TDR added, WTO members retain the possibility of using tariffs to protect certain sectors, and have some flexibility in the use of both IP and regulatory measures concerning FDI. Perhaps most importantly, WTO members can continue to use certain kinds of subsidies and standards aimed at fostering structural transformation that involves the generation of new productive capacity by helping to promote R&D and innovation activities.

Turning to RTAs, the TDR said that since the early 1990s, a wave of RTAs (i. e. regional trade agreements with reciprocal commitments between two or more partners) has eroded a considerable degree of policy space that was preserved under the multilateral trade regime. This has happened by strengthening enforcement, eliminating exceptions or demanding commitments not included in the UR Agreements. RTAs also have increasingly incorporated investment provisions, which, traditionally, were dealt with in separate bilateral investment treaties (BITs).

Regarding the scope of RTA provisions, the TDR said that the evidence shows that they have become more comprehensive over the past 20 years, and many are now formally described as comprehensive economic partnership agreements.

It also seems that North-South agreements generally contain a larger number of both WTO-plus (i. e. more stringent provisions than those already covered by the multilateral trade regime) and WTO-extra (i. e. deal with provisions that go beyond current multilateral trade agreements) provisions than either North-North or South- South agreements.

Regarding TRIPS-plus commitments, the TDR noted that RTAs generally include more stringent enforcement requirements or provide fewer exemptions (such as allowing compulsory licensing only for emergency situations). They also prohibit parallel imports, and extend obligations to cover additional IP issues (such as life forms, counterfeiting and piracy) or exclusive rights to test data (such as those relating to pharmaceuticals). Furthermore, they may contain more detailed and prescriptive IP provisions, and reduce the possibility for States to tailor their IP laws to their specific domestic environments or adapt them to changing circumstances.

Turning to industrial policy, the TDR said that in recent years there has been a global revival of interest in such policies. A number of developing countries, including the largest ones, have reassessed the benefits of industrial policy for structural transformation and economic growth.

Reassessments of the potential benefits of industrial policy have not been limited to developing countries only. Many developed countries have begun to explicitly acknowledge the important role that industrial policy can play in maintaining a robust manufacturing sector, with the associated benefits in terms of productivity growth, innovation and employment creation.

The wide variation across countries in the pace and scale of development of their manufacturing activities indicates that country-specific factors – such as resource endowments, size of the domestic market, geographical location and institutional development – are likely to have a strong bearing on the timing and extent to which labour shifts towards more productive activities, both across and within economic sectors.

According to the TDR, evidence shows that the impact of developed economies’ GDP growth on their imports is becoming smaller, and that the positive effect of their income growth on developing-country exports is also weakening. The challenges that developing countries face in achieving structural transformation under favourable global demand conditions are even greater when they are unable to rely as much as before on growing manufactured exports to developed countries to support such transformation.

“This may require a rebalancing of their growth strategies by according greater importance to domestic and regional demand, with the ensuing need to align their production structure more closely with their demand structure, as discussed in TDR 2013. In other words, the current global economic situation increases the policy challenges facing developing countries and necessitates the deployment of creative industrial policies.”

Addressing the issue of production networks and the role of industrial policies, the report said that taken together, international production networks may provide opportunities for countries at an early stage of structural transformation to accelerate industrial development in some sectors. But participating in such networks should not, in most cases, be seen as the only element in a country’s industrial development strategy.

“Developing countries that have achieved some degree of industrial development will need to weigh very carefully the costs and benefits associated with renouncing remaining policy flexibility when participating in international production networks, particularly in terms of the extent to which this contributes to economic and social upgrading.”

Moreover, the importance of international production networks may well shrink to the extent that there is a prolonged period of slow growth in developed countries and/or a decline in the positive effects from their income growth on developing-country exports. This is more than a transitory phenomenon, said the TDR.

The benefits that developed-country enterprises reaped from off-shoring have declined as a result of higher transportation costs following the rising price of oil since the early 2000s. This may reinforce tendencies towards re-shoring manufacturing activities back to developed countries and efforts in those countries to strengthen their own manufacturing sectors.

On the other hand, said the TDR, the importance of South-South production networks, which are currently poorly developed in most developing regions, will increase if developing countries rebalance their growth strategies by giving greater importance to domestic and regional demand. The main point is that none of these shifts provides a rationale for renouncing policy space to the benefit of developed-country firms.

“Implementation of effective policy strategies with a view to meeting the global development goals that are likely to emerge from discussions on a post-2015 development agenda will not be feasible without the availability of greater flexibilities in policymaking,” UNCTAD underlined.

Building sustainable and inclusive growth paths will certainly require devising a more effective macroeconomic policy mix and addressing the major systemic issues in the financial system. However, improving the governance of global trade will need to be part of a more comprehensive and integrated package to help preserve the policy space for proactive trade and industrial policies, and should complement the macroeconomic and financial reform agenda.

On the steps that could be taken towards strengthening global trade governance in support of development, the TDR suggests that the most important would be a strengthening of multilateral mechanisms. Multilateral rules provide a compass for national policymakers to ensure the consistency of rules across countries.

Capitalizing on the new momentum from the WTO’s Bali Ministerial Conference in December 2013, the Doha Round negotiations should progress in a manner that would justify its being dubbed a “development round”.

The TDR said that steps in this direction would include an emphasis on implementation issues (paragraph 12 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration). They would also need to maintain the principle of a single undertaking (as stated in paragraph 47 of the Doha Declaration), rather than moving towards a variable geometry whereby a range of mandatory core commitments is supplemented by plurilateral agreements among only some members.

“The most important benefit from all this may well be simply maintaining the public good character of multilateral rules and precluding powerful countries from coercing others into competitive liberalization that may be ill-suited to their development prospects.”

Second, said UNCTAD, refocusing trade negotiations on multilateral agreements would imply a reconsideration of WTO-plus and WTO-extra provisions, as well as allowing greater flexibility in the application of the UR Agreements. This could respond to a number of recent developments. In the area of IPR protection, for example, the role of patents in promoting innovation (i. e. the commonly cited basic rationale for the adoption of strict rules on such protection) has increasingly been challenged.

According to the TDR, it may be advisable for developing countries to maintain a flexible system of IPR protection while being given appropriate technical support to make full use of the available flexibilities in order to support technology adoption and innovation at all stages of structural transformation.

A reconsideration of WTO-plus and WTO-extra provisions would also imply renouncing investment provisions that go beyond the TRIMs Agreement. Arguments that international production networks provide a rapid path to structural transformation, and that joining such networks requires a hands-off approach to international business, have recently given new impetus to making such provisions more restrictive.

“Yet, for countries at early stages of structural transformation, it is far from clear how adopting far-reaching investment provisions would allow, or even foster, the developmental gains to be had from their industries joining such networks, particularly beyond the benefits of increased low-skill employment and initial experience in producing manufactures.”

The risk of being trapped in some low-level niche of the value chain, and not being able to upgrade, may be too high for countries to give up the possibility of using instruments that in the past have proved to be effective in supporting industrialization and overall production, UNCTAD concluded. +

—————————————————————————————————–

 

WMG response to Report of the Sust. Development Financing Committee

WMG response to Report of the Sus. Development Financing Committee

Dear all,

I’m happy to share with you our collective analysis of the Report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing, which was published in August. 

We hope that you’ll find this to be a useful tool in your analysis and advocacy during the upcoming GA session and beyond (including in relation to the next global Financing for Development Conference to be held in July 2015).

Many thanks to all who contributed. 

Warmest wishes, 

Tessa Khan Programme Officer Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD) Ph:+66 53 284 527 Skype:apwldsec

http://youtu.be/1I2cEDbIW04

WMG ICESDF Report analysis FINAL      

 

—————————————————————————————————-

New SDG-forest publicatio​n

Dear colleague

New IIED briefing on forests and SDGs now available for use by negotiators and policy makers: ‘Sustainable Development Goals: a forest module for a transformative agenda

At a glance : 

  • Recommends working towards a transformative ‘forest module’ that addresses outcomes and enablers, moving beyond a limited focus on sustainable forest management, deforestation and reforestation
  • The UN Open Working Group’s zero draft finds a strong set of goals and targets, yet with several potentially serious trade-offs and missing issues
  • To ensure policy coherence, there must be resolution of trade-offs for forests and people arising from elements of goals on food security and agriculture (goal 2) and economic growth and industrialisation (goals 8, 9 and 10)
  • Enabling transformative change requires the inclusion of watershed ecosystem restoration, participatory and negotiated land-use planning, mention of both individual and collective forest rights, emphasis on strengthening forest and farm producer organisations, and redistributive justice in forest land allocation
  • Application of our modular approach can help negotiators seek coherent outcomes across the Goal framework and enable integrated implementation at the national level

Read more: http://pubs.iied.org/17248IIED.html

Best wishes

Kate Wilson

Publications and marketing manager

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London, WC1X 8NH | T: +44 (0) 20 3463 7399

D: +44(0)20 3463 1546 |

www.iied.org | twitter:@iied  | IIED newsletters: www.iied.org/sign-up

Engaging for change: read IIED’s plans for the next five years and tell us what you think – www.iied.org/strategy

IIED is a company limited by a guarantee and incorporated in England. Reg. No 2188452. Registered office: 80-86 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8NH, UK. VAT Reg. No. GB 440 4948 50. Charity No. 800066. OSCR No 039864 www.iied.org

——————————————————————————————————-

Critique articles_N​ew Land Use Policy Manipur & Paddy Land Conservati​on Bill 2014

Dear Friends,
 Glad to share critique articles of the New Land Use Policy 2014  and the Manipur Paddy Land Conservation Bill 2014, both of which will facilitate commercial agriculture in Manipur and undermine indigenous agriculture and food sovereignty of Manipur. The articles published recently in Sangai Express and Hueiyen Lanpao dailies, also questions the unjust and unsustainable development paradigm in Manipur.
Best wishes,
Jiten Yumnam
Secy, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur
Co-Convenor, Committee on the Protection of Natural Resources in Manipur
Keisamthong Hodam Leirak Imphal Manipur 795001
Ph:91 9774328712

———————————————————————————————————

4th Structured Dialogue on Technology Facilitati​on – Wed, 23 July

Subject: 4th Structured Dialogue on Technology Facilitation – Wed, 23 July To: Laise Copolillo Ayres <copolilloayres@un.org>

Dear Colleagues,

The 4th Structured Dialogue on possible arrangements for a technology facilitation mechanism to promote the development, transfer and dissemination of clean and environmentally sound technologies will be held this Wednesday, 23 July at UNHQs in the Trusteeship Council Chamber at the UN Conference Building, with access through the 3rd floor.

All relevant documents can be accessed at the following web page: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1822

You can also find attached the PGA letter that has been sent to all Member States and posted on our website listed above and on the PGA’s website, which intends to guide the discussions on Wednesday.

The seating will be free, this way MGoS can seat either in the Chamber’s upper level or in the Gallerie. Regarding the MGoS entry points they are still being finalized and I will be happy to provide this information to you as soon as it becomes available.

We look forward to the participation of MGoS with an annual ground pass.

Kind regards,
Laise Copolillo Ayres  Major Groups Programme  Division for Sustainable Development  United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs  Email: copolilloayres@un.org

——————————————————————————————————-

TWN Info on UN Sust Dev: SDGs – Developing Countries concerned over outcome and future of SDGs process

Title : TWN Info on UN Sust Dev: SDGs – Developing      Countries concerned over outcome and future of SDGs process Date : 18 July 2014
Contents:

TWN Info Service on UN Sustainable Development (July14/02)         18 July  2014         Third World Network www.twn.my

Developing Countries concerned over outcome and          future of SDGs process

New York 18 July (Ranja Sengupta) – The final session of the        Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals on 14 to 18        July in New York reveal that the fault lines between the North        and the South have become sharper.

The OWG, during its one and a half years of work is no        stranger to these conflicting positions. But standing at the        concluding week of negotiations, the conflict over means of        Implementation seems strong enough to topple the entire process        at the beginning of the week. A parallel concern of developing        countries is that the outcome on SDGs coming out of the OWG        process may be tinkered with or tweaked in its movement towards        the General Assembly discussions in September.

[The Thirteenth Session of the OWG is mandated by the Rio+20        Outcome Document “The Future We Want” to come up with a set of        Sustainable Development Goals. These are expected to feed into        the General Assembly negotiations on the Post-2015 Development        Agenda. The OWG is co-chaired by Ambassador Macharia Kamau of        Kenya and Ambassador Csaba Korosi of Hungary.]

DIFFERENCES OVER THE COURSE OF THE OWG

Differences are not new to the OWG. As expected, there have        been major differences between the developed and developing        countries over the inclusion of specific goals and the substance        of the targets under the goals. The debate over the “stand-alone        goal” as opposed to “mainstreaming” of targets is one that has        continued for quite some time. For example, the goals on “reduce        inequality within and between countries” (currently Goal 10),         “promote sustainable infrastructure and industrialization and        foster innovation” (Goal 9), “promote sustainable consumption        and production patterns” (Goal 12), “tackle climate change and        its impacts” (Goal 13), and “achieve peaceful and inclusive        societies, access to justice for all, and effective and capable        institutions” (Goal 16) have seen major debates over their        inclusion as stand-alone goals.

While the first three were resisted by the developed        countries, the last two have seen serious concerns from several        developing countries, and these last two continue to be a major        area of divide as the OWG inches towards the finish line on        Friday 18 July. During the morning session on Wednesday, some of        the developed countries threatened to bring back issues related        to inclusion of Goals 9 and 11 as a cross cutting rather than a        stand-alone goal if the list of goals is reopened (implying if        Goals 13 and 16 are dropped at the insistence of developing        countries).

Targets under many other goals, for example, the ones on         “conserve and promote sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine        resources” (Goal 14), “ensure sustainable energy for all” (Goal        7), and in particular Sexual and reproductive health and rights        (SRHR) related targets under Goals 3 and 5 (on health and gender        equality respectively) have continued to witness major debates.

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION: A DEAL BREAKER? 

However the battle over Means of Implementation (MOI) has been        the longest and hardest of them all. Informal discussions on MOI        took place from mid-week, and it is clear from several delegates        that most developing countries expect the developed countries to        not commit to MOI. It seems several finance ministries of the        developed countries are unhappy with the MOI targets as they        stood.

At a meeting called by Bolivia and Brazil to interact with        civil society groups on Monday 14 July, these and other        apprehensions were expressed by the delegates. Since the G-77        and China have repeatedly said that they cannot be expected to        commit to the other SDGs in the absence of concrete commitments        from the developed countries on MOI and a strengthened global        partnership for development, the talks looked to many as on the        verge of a collapse unless a solution appeared to what looked        like an insurmountable problem.

During the last OWG session in June (the 12th        session), the developed countries had made it clear that they        will generally not support goal specific MOI and wanted only a        stand-alone Goal (No. 17). As a result of their demands, the        revised Zero Draft released on 30 June, saw stand alone goal        components on trade, finance, technology, capacity building,        policy and institutional coherence, data, monitoring and        accountability and a segment on multi stakeholder partnerships.        While the first few areas were much generalized and diluted, the        segment on partnerships emerged stronger with a major emphasis        on the role of the private sector. However, the goal specific        components of MOI, though much weakened, also remained in this        revised draft and have remained a hotbed of opposition from the        developed countries.

Reportedly, during the informal sessions in the week before        the current session and around the OWG 12 last month, most        developed countries had repeatedly made proposals to shift the        goal specific MOI to goal 17 under a stand-alone goal. During        the OWG 13, developed countries reportedly continued in the same        manner and while they proposed changes to the goal specific MOI,        they continued to first demand that these be either deleted or        moved to Goal 17. According to some sources, this may be one of        red lines for the developed countries.

As opposed to the reluctance by developed countries to pursue        and commit to MOI, the developing countries want MOI on both        goal specific components and the stand-alone Goal 17 to be        resolved this week. They want faster negotiations on this as        well as the entire set of SDGs which, they claim, developed        countries do not seem to want. The G-77 and China seem to be        worried that the developed countries will want to discard the        SDGs on the excuse that there is no agreement and go for fresh        and full negotiations on a Post-2015 global development agenda.

SANCTITY OF PROCESS FOLLOWING THE OWG

As the OWG 13 began its session on Monday, an apprehension was        also expressed repeatedly by the developing countries that the        process going into the Post-2015 negotiations following the OWG        should respect the OWG outcomes and the text jointly negotiated        by the Member States. There should not be any tweaking or        changing of the SDGs coming out from this process.

In this context it is important to keep in mind that the UN        Secretary-General is supposed to come out with a synthesis        report based on the OWG outcome report as well as reports from        other processes that will feed into the Post-2015 negotiations        in the General Assembly. The Post-2015 intergovernmental        discussions at the General Assembly will be launched in        September though actual negotiations are expected to take place        in December or later.

Reiterating this concern at the meeting with civil society        groups, Brazil and Bolivia asked for civil society’s support in        facilitating an agreed outcome to the OWG and if needed also a        freeze of the document until it is opened up at General Assembly        for further negotiations. Several civil society representatives        expressed serious misgivings as they did not feel they could        support the document as it stood at the beginning of the week.        In response, Brazil and Bolivia explained they were not asking        them to support the content but rather for a fair and open        follow up process leading to an intergovernmental process where        the SDGs arrived at or in process will not be reduced or changed        in any way.

Another apprehension expressed by several delegations was that        the SDG targets may undermine some of the commitments made at        other international fora. Co-chair Ambassador Kamau assured them        this was not so.

THE 13th SESSION

After opening on Monday and some initial statements on        process, the 13th session moved to the informal        format until Tuesday with the objective of covering discussions        on goals 12 to 17. Ambassador Kamau suggested that while there        were worries about the limited time left to reach an agreement        the beginning is not bad and they already had a comprehensive        document to work with. The revised texts on goals 1-11 was        circulated by Tuesday morning. The co-chairs promised to        circulate the revised goals 12-15 by Wednesday. The format        suggested for Wednesday-Friday was to go through the goal titles        first, reach an agreement and then to take up each goal and go        through the targets. If they ran into difficulties with any        specific goal, they will move on after giving it some time and        then come back to it at a later point of time.

In the interest of time he encouraged countries to talk among        themselves and speak in bigger groups. For example Mexico, Peru,        Colombia and Guatemala have combined voices and are making        single interventions. This will also help in resolving conflicts        over difficult issues, he suggested, and urged countries to talk        bilaterally or in groups to resolve these conflicts.

Referring to the concerns expressed earlier about OWG targets        conflicting with agreed international commitments, he said that        while it is impossible to correlate every single target with        every single legal instrument or treaties or international        agreement, they will do their best to keep an eye out for such        conflicts and asked the UN agencies to assist in this process.

Ambassador Kamau expressed optimism that they will reach an        agreement, by affirmation, by the end of this session.

Notably, in a break from earlier tradition, the 13th        session has no organized interactions between the co-chairs and        civil society. However a combined set of recommendations across        the 17 goals by Major Groups and other stakeholders were sent to        the Co-Chairs and Member States by UN DESA on Tuesday. Civil        society organizations continued their hectic lobbying with        Member States. Following Bolivia and Brazil’s meeting with civil        society the United Kingdom and the European Union held meetings        with civil society respectively on Tuesday and Thursday.

So while the last Session of the Open Working Group moves        towards the end of its 1.5-year tenure, uncertainties still loom        large over the outcomes. While many developing countries want a        conclusion, and if not, a freezing of the document and further        negotiations on its basis at the General Assembly, the developed        countries may set up red lines with regard to MOI that may put        the process back to square one. While the content of the SDGs as        it stands now suffers from major shortcomings, it has been a        long and hard process that needs to show some results. For it to        contribute to sustainable development it requires the commitment        and honesty from all Member States as it tumbles into the larger        post 2015 process.+

Copyright Third World Network -           www.twnnews.net All Rights Reserved

——————————————————————————————————

No Sustainabl​e Developmen​t Goals without Sustainabl​e Developmen​t Budgets [New GPF Report]

Dear colleagues,

Global Policy Forum is pleased to share our new report, No Sustainable Development Goals without Sustainable Development Budgets

As the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals finishes its last session this week as a key input into the post-2015 sustainable development agenda, this report examines the primary responsibility of governments ​in implementing the new agenda, including through fiscal policies and the allocation of public resources. Governments will have to formulate Sustainable Development Budgets in order to implement Sustainable Development Goals, facing the challenge of interdependencies between environmental and social policy goals. A consistent integration of different perspectives in budget policy and analysis will be needed to implement SDGs and avoid unwanted side-effects. The new GPF publication describes possible entry points for shaping fiscal policy in accordance with sustainability criteria and shows how to use them in order to achieve environmental-social budgets. It uses the budget cycle as a tool in identifying such entry points, from the drafting of the budget to policy implementation and monitoring of the results. Download the guide here

Thank you for reading. To sign up for the Global Policy Forum listserv, please click here Best regards,Kathryn (Katie) Tobin kathryntobin@globalpolicy.org www.globalpolicy.org @globalpolicy @uncharteredKT

————————————————————————————————–

 

WM diseno-boletin

Open Letter Of Bolivian Chancellor on SDGs – Carta Abierta Canciller de Bolivia sobre ODS

Having trouble reading this email? View it in your browser.   /     Problemas para leer el correo electrónico? Véalo en su navegador.

From: Silvia Ribeiro <silvia@etcgroup.org>     To: Women Major Group Listserve <women_major_group@googlegroups.com>

Subject: {Women_Major_Group} Open Letter Of Bolivian Chancellor on SDGs – Carta Abierta Canciller de Bolivia sobre ODS

I am forwarding the letter sent by Bolivia demanding to integrate respect for Mother Earth and harmony with Nature in the SDGs.
They are asking organizations for support signatures: adhesion.madretierra@gmail.com
The letter is in Spanish and English
Greetings,
Silvia
CALLE MÉNDEZ ARCOS # 776 ZONA SOPOCACHI.TELEF: +(591)-2-2148365  LA PAZ – BOLIVIA WWW.UCORDILLERA.EDU.BO
————————————————————————————————————————————

Population Reference Bureau WebUpdate

 

arrowBrowse PRB’s Interactive Maps: 2013 World Population Data SheetThe Status of Young People in Sub-Saharan Africa, and DataFinder.

arrow PRB

Help us continue all our good work by contributing to PRB. Go to https://www.e-noah.net/prb/MakeADonation.aspx.

arrowShare This PRB WebUpdate on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn

Click to view this email in a browser

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with “Unsubscribe” in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe

 Click here to forward this email to a friend

 Population Reference Bureau
1875 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 520
Washington, District of Columbia 20009
USA

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

————————————————————————————————————————————

 

Multi-year Campaign to Guarantee Tight to Healthy Environmen​t – Case Study Canada

David Suzuki Foundation

There’s a problem in Canada’s heartland

Dear Community of Educators,

“Broken Ground” marks the launch of a multi-year campaign to guarantee the right to a healthy environment for every Canadian by every level of government. Read the stories, share them with your friends and become part of a growing movement of Canadians who are standing up for the people and places they love.

Visit www.brokenground.ca now.

All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UN SD Education Caucus Co-Chairs

—————————————————————————————

Internatio​nal Politics and environmen​tal disasters

For those of you who are interested in how international politics, war, and environmental disasters are linked here is a current dramatic case reported by a number of German and English speaking newspapers: The destruction of Syrian chemical weapons which is beginning now in the Mediterranean Sea between South Italy and Crete:   
 
 
 
What are the implications and learnings, “take home” messages for our Community of Educators and our work on educating for sustainability?
Best wishes,
Herta

—————————————————————————————-

“Call for hosting” the 9th WEEC in 2017–Appel à candidatur​es pour l’organisa​tion du congrès mondial WEEC en 2017–Convo​catoria de candidatur​as para la organizaci​ón del 9° Congreso Mundial WEEC en el 2017

http://a6c6b.s28.it/f/rnl.aspx/?fie=sxn/xxy:&x=pv&fj=vxcf:=pwwz0&x=pv&1&x=pv&&x=pv&=f&akaj&x=pp&rwk.&x=pv&48579gNCLM

 —————————————————————————————-

A participat​ory approach for tracking community-​based adaptation​: Introducin​g the revised PMERL Manual

Dear colleagues,
Community-based adaptation to climate change involves learning at all stages – learning about how climate change affects people and their livelihoods and environment, learning how to adapt to these changes, measuring progress, and then reflecting on how to improve all of the above. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, Reflection and Learning, or PMERL for short, aims to facilitate this process, providing guidance on how to develop a participatory process that supports monitoring and evaluation, reflection and learning in community-based adaptation (CBA) projects, as well as projects integrating CBA.
CARE is pleased to introduce a revised PMERL Manual, now available online at http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/CARE_PMERL_a_revised_manual.pdf. This manual is intended for use by project managers and field staff, communities and local partners engaged in designing and implementing community-based adaptation projects. It is based on the original PMERL manual which CARE developed in 2011/12 with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Please feel free to share this revised manual widely!
Finally, do let us know if you have any queries or comments.
Best wishes,
Agnes
CARE’s Poverty, Environment and Climate Change Network
(On behalf of CARE International UK who commissioned this revised manual with generous funding from the UK Department for International Development).

—————————————————————————————————

MEA negotiatio​ns: issue briefs template

Dear Community of Educators,

The Global Climate Change Treaty is expected to be implemented in 2020 with the “Climate Agreement” to be put into place in 2015, FIELD has suggested some interesting questions to think about that might serve as a useful template for Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements (MEA).  Through consultations with experienced negotiators within the sustainable development and climate change venues, from a civil society perspective we have learned a 1-pager, lots of “white” space, using the language of policy-makers, brief text – that can be read within a minute or so and the reader understands, takes it to their delegation to discuss in terms of timing in the negotiations process and the current language being used  -  we have enjoyed many successful interventions.
This legal template may also be useful to you in your work.
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UN SD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change
__________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  (734) 330-0238
Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612

————–

 MEA negotiations: issue briefs template
Writing an issue brief, for example for a senior government official, before an MEA meeting can be challenging. FIELD
has prepared suggestions and an example template, available at:
FIELD – Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development
Twitter: @FIELDLegal         /     Facebook

Third Floor

Cityside House
40 Adler Street
London E1 1EE

Tel: + 44 (0)20 7096 0277

Registered charity no. 802 934

Company Limited by Guarantee and Incorporated in England and Wales Reg. No. 2463462

—————————————————————————————-

World Environmen​tal Education Congress -  2nd Pan-Europe​an Days of Environmen​tal Education toward Sustainabi​lity “Call For Input”

Hello everybody!

The web-site of the European Days on Environmental Education is now on-line and active!

www.europe.environmental-education.org/index.html

You will find on the web-site the initial program as well as the registration form, documents related to the event and information regarding accommodation.

The international organizing committee of the European Days has been defining different subject suggestions for the workshops, based on three major matters:

Göteborg’s themes: the subjects that will be proposed in the 8th edition of the World Environmental Education Congress WEEC 2015 (http://weec2015.org ) have been integrated with the international commitee’s proposals

Building a Network: The need to build not only a European network but also a worldwide network led us to propose this workshop in order to discuss a Political Document on EESD in Europe and to continue creating a European area for consultation on environmental education.

European programs: introduce and discuss different European and worldwide programs with the participation of experts such as European functionaries in order to give the participants the opportunity to deepen their knowledge of a specific program and begin to identify partners and themes for European projects.

But this is not all: we also want your point of view. Therefore, in the registration form you will be able to give us your opinion and suggest us new themes for the workshops, as well as propositions for the development of the program and ideas for the event.

We thank you for your collaboration!

Kind regards

This email is sent from newsletter@environmental-education.org

—————————————————————————————–

Worldwide Environmen​tal Impact – What are the Challenges Facing African Communitie​s?

Dear Community of Educators,

 

FYI…

 

Having the ability and innate willingness to help others is a unique gift. Some come by the opportunity by chance, while others take a step further and reach out to help wherever possible. Morris Koffa, is a special individual who did just that. He helped establish a non-profit organization, Africa Environmental Watch, whose purpose is to educate African citizens on environmental issues such as solid waste, toxic waste, community school awareness, hygiene and more. His group also works with the local governments in Africa to provide better education for its citizens through curriculum’s, some that he helped to create, as well as helping to look for ways to improve conditions on drinking water.  

http://apus-stream.com/worldwide-environmental-impact/

 

             Worldwide Environmental Impact

Morris Koffa established a non-profit organization, Africa Environmental Watch, to educate African citizens on environmental issues. By working with local governments, he provides better education and improved conditions on drinking water. He accomplishes these while studying at American Public University.
Learn more in this podcast.

 

FYI…  Please share with your colleagues and networks.
 
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  (734) 330-0238
Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612

==============

Dear all -
you might have seen this already but it’s worth to double up: The developing partners/donors of the Global Environment Facility yesterday in Geneva pledged a record sum of 4.433 billion USD for the next four years, the sixth replenishment period of the GEF.
See our press release here:http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/10428 and videos and pics of the event on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheGEF1
Regards
Christian

—————————————————————————————-

Dear colleague

 

We are pleased to share IIED’s new strategy [http://pubs.iied.org/G03759.html] for the period 2014-2019, which outlines our ambitious plans for change.  We want to push the boundaries of research, build partnerships and engage people and organisations at local, national and global levels, to achieve our mission of building a fairer, more sustainable world. Solutions must come from the bottom up, grounded in local context, local evidence and owned and driven by local people — but that local action can and must shape the global policy too.  See our Director Camilla Toulmin speaking about what are new strategy means for us: http://www.iied.org/iied-director-offers-strategic-view

 

We have planned our path to 2019 and know the direction we want to take for five years beyond that. Our long-term strategic engagement with processes and people aims to redress power imbalances, tackle inequalities, and create fairer access to resources and services. This is how we will contribute to change.

 

We would welcome any feedback you have, you can share your ideas and leave comments here: www.iied.org/strategy

 

We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

Best wishes

 

Kate
 
Kate Wilson
Publications and marketing manager
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
80-86 Gray’s Inn Road, London, WC1X 8NH | T: +44 (0) 20 3463 7399
www.iied.org | twitter:@iied  | IIED newsletters: www.iied.org/sign-up

 

Engaging for change: read IIED’s plans for the next five years and tell us what you think – www.iied.org/strategy

—————————————————————————————-

2014 Internatio​nal Year of Small Island Developing States (SIDS

Dear Community of Educators,
When SIDS held an informal negotiations meeting to create the draft strategic plan for the Barbados meeting, environmental education was position in all but the more specific financial mechanisms regarding loans.  They moved quickly and impressively beyond vague agreements to secure their future into concrete responsive strategies and commitments to actions at all levels.
Here is a blog posting re Small Island Nations and the up-coming fall meeting.  What is exciting, they are the epicenter for visioning and implementing Environmental Education for Sustainability and working towards sustainable societies.  This short piece is from NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council - based in Washington DC]   http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bguy/small_island_nations_embrace_partnerships.html
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UN SD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change
__________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  (734) 330-0238
Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612

——————————————————————————————-

Dear Community of Educators,

In 2012, the Rio+20 Conference agreed upon launching negotiations for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the Post-2015 era. While the MDGs’ targets were aimed at poverty reduction, several southern countries aimed at formulating and implementing concrete goals for a new agenda for sustainability and development. In a new publication German environmental and development organizations have therefore engaged in the discussion and present a set of ecological sustainability goals to be included in the Post-2015 Agenda and to put the ecology in the focus of the future SDGs.
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UN SD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change
__________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  (734) 330-0238
Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612

——————————————————————————————

Dear Colleague,
FAO welcomes everyone interested in climate-smart agriculture and equity to join the online learning event. The event takes place from 30/1 to 18/2 2014.
Online learning event  Gender and Climate-Smart Agriculture  Webinars: 1) Thursday 30 January; 2) Wednesday 5 February; and 3) Tuesday 18 February 2014 
The event consists of 3 webinars of 90 minutes, combined with online discussions on the linkages between gender, agriculture and climate change. The event is organized within the Community of Practice for Climate Change Mitigation in Agriculture of the MICCA Programme in collaboration with colleagues and partners. Enrolled participants will receive invitations to the webinars and more details prior to the event.
2 weeks to have a look at the recommended background reading
Training Guide for Gender and Climate Change Research in Agriculture and Food Security for Rural Development (available in EnglishFrench and Spanish) bit.ly/1aNC58R
Thank you for sharing this invitation with your networks!
PS. Please spread the word by sharing this email, through LinkedIn or tweeting. Here’s our proposal for a social media message:
“Join Gender and Climate-Smart Agriculture online learning event 30/1–18/2 2014
– Enrol today bit.ly/1gj8AUs to webinars and online discussions @FAOclimate”
Kind regards,
Maria, Claudia and Sibyl
Maria Nuutinen & Claudia Garcia
MICCA Programme
Sibyl Nelson
Gender Officer
Cross-cutting theme on gender, FAO

——————————————————————————————————

http://post2015.iisd.org/post2015-update/2013-02-27/

 

http://www.un.org/en/events/observances/days.shtml

http://climate-l.iisd.org/daily-feed/2013-02-27/

 

 

 

Dr. P. J. Puntenney

Environmental & Human Systems Management

1989 West Liberty

Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA

 

E-mail:  pjpunt@umich.edu

Cell:  (734) 330-0238

Voice/Fax: (734) 994-3612

 

============

 

 

 

Dear Ed. Colleagues,

 

For those of you interested in a very useful human rights & environment civil society & classroom tool, I call your attention to an International Rivers (with Oxfam Australia support) guidebook launched today. Titled “Dam Standards: A Rights-based approach” – content and resources include a nuanced discussion of legal mandates, policy, culpability gaps, and strategies to secure justice and are broadly applicable to an array of human rights/environment contexts.

 

http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/intlrivers_dam_standards_final.pdf

 

Barbara Rose Johnston

 

———————————————————————————————-

 

Side Event

Achieving Sustainable Development  through the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste

Date:                 Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 1:15-2:30 PM

Venue:         Trusteeship Council Chamber, Conference Building

Organized by:        Switzerland, Sweden and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

 

Jim Sniffen Programme Officer UN Environment Programme

 

New York tel: +1-212-963-8094 sniffenj at un.org/jsniffen88 at gmail.com www.unep.org

Flyer for chemicals and waste side event 7th OWG

 

————————————————————————————————

 

Climate Forum

http://climate-l.iisd.org/

 

https://lists.iisd.ca/read/?forum=climate-l

african-permaculture-network@googlegroups.com

general@africa.ecovillage.org;  

worldview-mission-country-coordinators@googlegroups.com;    

yve-ghana-members@googlegroups.com;

ghana-alliance-for-clean-cookstoves@googlegroups.com

 

– Severin Koffi APEDJAGBO

Climate  Change Officer

Risks management & Community Based Adaptation

ONG Jeunes Volontaires pour l’Environnement 131,rue Ofé,Tokoin Casablanca

08 BP: 8823, Lome,Togo, skype : sevekoff

www.jve-international.org

Tel : +228-22 20 01 12 / Cel: +228-90 84 58 27

 

 Vous recevez ce message, car vous êtes abonné au groupe Google Groupes JVE International coordinators. Pour vous désabonner de ce groupe et ne plus recevoir d’e-mails le concernant, envoyez un e-mail à l’adresse jve-international-coordinators+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. Pour plus d’options, visitez le site https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .

– You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Worldview Mission Country Coordinators” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to worldview-mission-country-coordinators+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to worldview-mission-country-coordinators@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/worldview-mission-country-coordinators?hl=en-US.

 

————————————————————————————

 

The Belgrade Charter

A Global Framework for Environmental Education

—————————————————————————————

 

—————————————————————————————

 

                         

ISO 31000:2009

Risk management – Principles and guidelines

Risk management – Principles and guidelines

World We Want pdf Water Consultation Invitation

 

  •  Risk management – Principles and guidelines   ISO 31000:2009   provides principles

 

http://www.theirm.org/publications/documents/rm_standard_nl_15.11.04.pdf

 

http://www.theirm.org/publications/PUstandard.html

 

Risk management – Principles and guidelines   ISO 31000:2009 provides principles and

generic guidelines on risk management.

ISO 31000:2009 can be used by any public, private or community enterprise, association,

group or individual. Therefore, ISO 31000:2009 is not specific to any industry or sector.

ISO 31000:2009 can be applied throughout the life of an organization, and to a wide range

of activities, including strategies and decisions, operations, processes, functions, projects,

products, services and assets.

ISO 31000:2009 can be applied to any type of risk, whatever its nature, whether having

positive or negative consequences.

Although ISO 31000:2009 provides generic guidelines, it is not intended to promote

uniformity of risk management across organizations. The design and implementation of

risk management plans and frameworks will need to take into account the varying needs of

a specific organization, its particular objectives, context, structure, operations, processes,

functions, projects, products, services, or assets and specific practices employed.

It is intended that ISO 31000:2009 be utilized to harmonize risk management processes in

existing and future standards. It provides a common approach in support of standards

dealing with specific risks and/or sectors, and does not replace those standards.

ISO 31000:2009 is not intended for the purpose of certification

 

Global Institutue for Risk Managements Standards G31000 Brochure 24 Jan 2013

Please Join !!

The conferences,   Get 10% discount,

Using Worldview Mission Unique code nr: MPFSPB

Fore more please contact Mrs. Madeleine Leblanc: Madeleine.leblanc@G31000.org

 

ISO 31000 DAY ONE-DALI-Riskconference-Istambul-version1

 

 

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Invitation-Second-International-Conference-on-1834592.S.214632672?qid=b9cb0a11-b251-44e9-97fa-b1d4c1d1a795&trk=group_most_popular-mc-rr-ttl&goback=.gmp_1834592

 

 

http://www.cvent.com/events/second-international-conference-on-iso-31000-standard/invitation-7e97ce339ac7448c9930a5a0e12cf62a.aspx

 

————————————————————————————————————

 

Dear All,

THE 22 ND INTERNATIONAL  CHILDREN’S  PAINTING  COMPETITION  ON THE  ENVIRONMENT

UNEP has launched the 22nd International children’s painting competition. The Competition is organized annually by the UNEP and the Japan-based Foundation for Global Peace and Environment (FGPE), Bayer and Nikon Corporation.

The theme of the 22nd  painting competition will be ” Water” and participants will have until 29th  February, 2013 to submit their entries.

Sub themes of the competition are:

Water: Where does it  come from? Water : Source  of  life

The selection process will be in two stages; the regional selection which will be done by UNEP Regional Offices and their partners, and the global selection which will be done by UNEP and its partners, Foundation for Global peace and Environment (FGPE), Bayer and Nikon Corporation.

For more details on the Competition please visit :

http://unep.org/tunza/children/int_comp.aspx

For more information, send an email to    children.youth@unep.org.

——————————————————————————————-

Taiwan Institute for Sustainable Energy (TAISE):

http://taiseen.org.tw/en/active_areashow.php?cid=202

———————————————————————————————————–

tvebiomovies team

www.tvebiomovies.org

46 Bloomsbury Street

London WC1B 3QJ UK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7147 7420

————————————————————————————————————-

http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/articles/869/1/Wings-for-Earth-Charter-in-Amsterdam/Page1.html

————————————————————————————————————

Dear All,

Due to the hard work and efforts put in your various projects for the past years in preparation for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development   otherwise called Earth Summit and beyond  to ensure a sustainable future, we at The ENERGY GLOBE Foundation would be very pleased to have your project submitted for competition in the ENERGY GLOBE Award.

The ENERGY GLOBE Award is today’s most prominent environmental award worldwide. It is awarded on a local, national and international level every year. The international award under the title ENERGY GLOBE World Award for Sustainability is awarded in the 5 categories Earth, Fire, Water, Air and Youth where each of the winners receive 10,000 euro in prize money.

In addition, the national awards annually distinguish the best projects in each of more than 100 participating nations. Under patronage of UNESCO, Energy Globe presented winners from 151 countries this year on 5 June 2012 which marks the  World Environment Day . Have a look at those outstanding projects and get inspired! www.energyglobe.info

The submitted projects are reported worldwide via television and internet. International award presentations took place in the realm of ceremonies recently held  in Japan, Canada, Rwanda, Czech Republic, Belgium (at the European Parliament), Austria etc. Prominent Award presenters included Kofi Annan, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Presidents of EU Commission and EU Parliament, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner as well as show stars and actors like Martin Sheen, Aamir Khan, Alanis Morissette,  and many others. Currently talks are been held with the UN  to ensure that ,  next International ENERGY GLOBE Award ceremony takes place  at  the UN  headquarters in New York.

Join the global Energy Community and bring your project to a global public attention! Any sustainable project is welcome. No project is too large or too small.

We are attaching the submission documents, which you will also find at www.energyglobe.info.

Please submit your project online under http://www.energyglobe.info/participation or send yourproject documents by  October 12,2012 to: contact@energyglobe.infoor via snail mail to: EnergyGlobe, Muehlbach 7,  4801 Traunkirchen, Austria

We look forward to your participation! Please feel free to contact the Energy Globe office in Austria, if you have any questions

(+43 7617 2090-31; contact@energyglobe.info).

—————————————————————                                       

 

World Water Day 22 March 2012

http://www.undppc.org.fj/pages.cfm/events/ http://www.unric.org/nl/links-in-belgie-en-nederland

 

The Climate for Change

OWS Young Girl HAS MORAL Silences the UN 1992 Brazil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf-cFKS4V_4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

http://rioplussocial.com.br/en/

Keynote: Severn Cullis-Suzuki address: Climate Change and Water issues at the United Nations giving her message out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F26UqJaOUEQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf-cFKS4V_4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKbnZT8Z6HU&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Severn Cullis-Suzuki on Earth Summit 2012 – We Canada Champion

about the upcoming Earth Summit 2012 and how can Canadians get involved.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=tbbSDmjBWi4

 Climate Crisis

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/

http://hqweb.unep.org/GreenEconomy/InformationMaterials/News/PressRelease/tabid/4612/language/en-US/Default.aspx?DocumentId=2661&ArticleId=8990

———————————————————————————————————

Dear all,
Struggling with what the Warsaw International  “loss and damage” mechanism is all about? Where exactly are we with REDD+?
IRIN is the humanitarian news and analysis service of UN OCHA : www.irinnews.org
Here are some of our stories out of the UN climate change talks out of Warsaw that might help you unpack these terms and issues:
The climate loss and damage mechanism: whys and why nots?
Africa must be bolder in climate talks
Will private finance be available for climate adaptation?
Help the people, save the trees
Generally anyone may use the text and images from our website for free and for non-commercial purposes, provided it is attributed to IRIN. Our terms and conditions are available at this link : http://www.irinnews.org/copyright.aspx
Many thanks,
Jaspreet
Jaspreet Kindra
Journalist/focal point climate change coverage UN OCHA IRIN

——————————————————————————————————-

http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=fa9cf38799136b5660f367ba6&id=899befa7ea&e=1e33eb2f1a

——————————————————————————————————–

Side Event

Achieving Sustainable Development  through the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste

Date:                 Wednesday, 8 January 2014, 1:15-2:30 PM

Venue:         Trusteeship Council Chamber, Conference Building

Organized by:        Switzerland, Sweden and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

***********************************

 

Jim Sniffen Programme Officer UN Environment Programme

 

New York tel: +1-212-963-8094 sniffenj at un.org/jsniffen88 at gmail.com www.unep.org

 

 

 

 Flyer for chemicals and waste side event 7th OWG

 

————————————————————————————————

 

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jscherr/2014_the_year_of_glocalization.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                           The Kindom Of The Netherlands  (NL) 

                                           https://www.agentschapnl.nl/

Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

 

 

 

—————————————————————————————

          Doha Cop 18 South Centre Bulletin

—————————————————————————————

The formal Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers Holland Co-founder

of The Earth Charter UN High Commissioner for Refugees

 

 

—————————————————————————————-

 

 

ISO 31000:2009

Risk management – Principles and guide Lines

P. Point Press  ISO 31000 DAY ONE-DALI-OpRiskconference-Istambul-version1

 

http://www.theirm.org/publications/documents/rm_standard_nl_15.11.04.pdf

 

http://www.theirm.org/publications/PUstandard.html

Risk management – Principles and guidelines   ISO 31000:2009 provides principles and

generic guidelines on risk management.

ISO 31000:2009 can be used by any public, private or community enterprise, association,

group or individual. Therefore, ISO 31000:2009 is not specific to any industry or sector.

ISO 31000:2009 can be applied throughout the life of an organization, and to a wide range

of activities, including strategies and decisions, operations, processes, functions, projects,

products, services and assets.

ISO 31000:2009 can be applied to any type of risk, whatever its nature, whether having

positive or negative consequences.

Although ISO 31000:2009 provides generic guidelines, it is not intended to promote

uniformity of risk management across organizations. The design and implementation of

risk management plans and frameworks will need to take into account the varying needs of

a specific organization, its particular objectives, context, structure, operations, processes,

functions, projects, products, services, or assets and specific practices employed.

It is intended that ISO 31000:2009 be utilized to harmonize risk management processes in

existing and future standards. It provides a common approach in support of standards

dealing with specific risks and/or sectors, and does not replace those standards.

ISO 31000:2009 is not intended for the purpose of certification

—————————————————————————————-

 

Dear All,

THE 22 ND INTERNATIONAL  CHILDREN’S  PAINTING  COMPETITION  ON THE  ENVIRONMENT

UNEP has launched the 22nd International children’s painting competition. The Competition is organized annually by the UNEP and the Japan-based Foundation for Global Peace and Environment (FGPE), Bayer and Nikon Corporation.

The theme of the 22nd  painting competition will be ” Water” and participants will have until 29th  February, 2013 to submit their entries.

Sub themes of the competition are:

Water: Where does it  come from? Water : Source  of  life

The selection process will be in two stages; the regional selection which will be done by UNEP Regional Offices and their partners, and the global selection which will be done by UNEP and its partners, Foundation for Global peace and Environment (FGPE), Bayer and Nikon Corporation.

For more details on the Competition please visit :

http://unep.org/tunza/children/int_comp.aspx

For more information, send an email to    children.youth@unep.org.

——————————————————————————————-

Taiwan Institute for Sustainable Energy (TAISE):

http://taiseen.org.tw/en/active_areashow.php?cid=202

————————————————————————————-

tvebiomovies team

www.tvebiomovies.org

46 Bloomsbury Street

London WC1B 3QJ UK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7147 7420

——————————————————————————————

http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/articles/869/1/Wings-for-Earth-Charter-in-Amsterdam/Page1.html

——————————————————————————————-

Dear All,

Due to the hard work and efforts put in your various projects for the past years in preparation for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development   otherwise called Earth Summit and beyond  to ensure a sustainable future, we at The ENERGY GLOBE Foundation would be very pleased to have your project submitted for competition in the ENERGY GLOBE Award.

The ENERGY GLOBE Award is today’s most prominent environmental award worldwide. It is awarded on a local, national and international level every year. The international award under the title ENERGY GLOBE World Award for Sustainability is awarded in the 5 categories Earth, Fire, Water, Air and Youth where each of the winners receive 10,000 euro in prize money.

In addition, the national awards annually distinguish the best projects in each of more than 100 participating nations. Under patronage of UNESCO, Energy Globe presented winners from 151 countries this year on 5 June 2012 which marks the  World Environment Day . Have a look at those outstanding projects and get inspired! www.energyglobe.info

The submitted projects are reported worldwide via television and internet. International award presentations took place in the realm of ceremonies recently held  in Japan, Canada, Rwanda, Czech Republic, Belgium (at the European Parliament), Austria etc. Prominent Award presenters included Kofi Annan, Mikhail Gorbachev, the Presidents of EU Commission and EU Parliament, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner as well as show stars and actors like Martin Sheen, Aamir Khan, Alanis Morissette,  and many others. Currently talks are been held with the UN  to ensure that ,  next International ENERGY GLOBE Award ceremony takes place  at  the UN  headquarters in New York.

Join the global Energy Community and bring your project to a global public attention! Any sustainable project is welcome. No project is too large or too small.

We are attaching the submission documents, which you will also find at www.energyglobe.info.

Please submit your project online under http://www.energyglobe.info/participation or send yourproject documents by  October 12,2012 to: contact@energyglobe.infoor via snail mail to: EnergyGlobe, Muehlbach 7,  4801 Traunkirchen, Austria

We look forward to your participation! Please feel free to contact the Energy Globe office in Austria, if you have any questions

(+43 7617 2090-31contact@energyglobe.info).

—————————————————————————————————             

                                                   World Water Day 22 March 2012

http://www.undppc.org.fj/pages.cfm/events/
http://www.unric.org/nl/links-in-belgie-en-nederland

 

                       The Climate for Change

OWS Young Girl HAS MORAL Silences the UN 1992 Brazil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf-cFKS4V_4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

http://rioplussocial.com.br/en/

Keynote: Severn Cullis-Suzuki address: Climate Change and Water issues at the United Nations giving her message out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F26UqJaOUEQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf-cFKS4V_4&NR=1&feature=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKbnZT8Z6HU&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Severn Cullis-Suzuki on Earth Summit 2012 – We Canada Champion

about the upcoming Earth Summit 2012 and how can Canadians get involved.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=tbbSDmjBWi4

                            

                                     Climate Crisis

http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/

http://hqweb.unep.org/GreenEconomy/InformationMaterials/News/PressRelease/tabid/4612/language/en-US/Default.aspx?DocumentId=2661&ArticleId=8990

 

 

 

*Worldview Mission is Standing Up ,* Taking Action* , **Making Noise for the UN MDGL’s !!!**

 

Comments are closed.