IISD-Worldbank 2016-2015

.

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=10318

 .

WORLDBANK GROUP SUSTAINABEL LOGO  IISD Logo image001

.

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=11061

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=9881

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=8429

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=10100

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=8455

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=2850

http://worldviewmission.nl/?page_id=7945

.

.

.——————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

.

UN 70 Year all flagsCelebrating the 70th year of the UN, 2015

Dear Friends and Colleagues,
2015 a very historical transition year for the UN and all the member States.  For those of us who have been to NY, we have seen the flags of each country, here is a colourful night time version.  Celebrating the 70th year of the UN.

.

—————————————————————-

.

IISD: Linkages Update

 Browser Version

.

ENB: 2016 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

Browser Version

.

IISD: SDGs – Towards Thematic Reviews for an Integrated Follow-Up & Review of the 2030 Agenda – Final Summary

 Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

ENB:2016 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

 Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Update – 6 July 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

 

.

our Browser Version. | Subscribe here to receive future issues of Linkages Update.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

 Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version. | Subscribe here

.

 Browser Version.

.

 Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

 Browser Version.

.

 Browser Version.

.

Browser Version

.

Browser Version.

.

——————————————————————

.

FW: ProSPER.Net Forum on Higher Education (Alliance leading universities of Asia-Pacific )and the SDGs (10 July 2016) in Tokyo – UNU

With best wishes,

Dr. Noman Fazal Qadir
PhD(UK), MSc(UK), BSc, DIC(UK), DQMC(UK), MAS(UK)
email :- (personal ) nfqadir@yahoo.com ; nfqadir@gmail.com

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world: Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”  - Margaret Mead
Benjamin Franklin said, “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail,”Please Think B4U Print
1 ream of paper = 6% of a tree and 5.4 kg CO2 in the atmosphere
3 sheets of A4 paper pollutes 1 litre of water’SAVE WATER J  ~  SAVE ENERGY~ ~ SAVE EARTH
From: Arima, Makiko [mailto:arima@unu.edu]
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:04
To: Sustainable Development Announcement List <sdg@lists.iisd.ca>
Subject: ProSPER.Net Forum on Higher Education and the SDGs (10 July 2016) in Tokyo
Dear SDG-L and ASIAPACIFICSD-L subscribers,
(Apologies for cross-posting)
On 10 July 2016, the ProSPER.Net Forum: Higher Education and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be held at UN University headquarters in Tokyo.
The United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) is actively contributing to policy relevant research related to the 2030 Development Agenda, with a focus on the effective and innovative implementation of the SDGs. The ProSPER.Net Forum will showcase some of the institute’s – specifically ProSPER.Net’s – contributions to the SDGs. It will highlight how higher education initiatives can be used as a mechanism for sustainable development, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Researchers will present on how their cross-institutional research projects address a number of SDGs, such as health and nutrition, climate change, urbanization, and energy.
ProSPER.Net, an alliance of leading universities in Asia-Pacific, is committed to integrating sustainable development into postgraduate courses and curricula. Founded in 2008, within the framework of a broader international agenda on education in sustainable development, ProSPER.Net is developing a new generation of leaders who can best tackle global sustainability challenges in the face of rapid environmental degradation.
This event is open to the public, but advanced registration is required. Please visit the UNU-IAS website (below) to access the online registration page.
—————————
“ProSPER.Net Forum: Higher Education and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)”
Date/Time: 10 July 2016, 13:30–17:30
Venue: Elizabeth Rose Hall, United Nations University Headquarters Building (5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo)
Fee: Free
[Programme]
13:45–14:00 Opening remarks
Yuji Suzuki (Board Chair for ProSPER.Net)
Kazuhiko Takemoto (UNU-IAS Director, ProSPER.Net Director)
14:00–14:30 Keynote: SDGs and Higher Education
Norichika Kanie (Senior Research Fellow, UNU-IAS / Professor, Keio University)
14:30–15:00 Curriculum for Sustainable Development in Higher Education
Chair: Philip Vaughter (Research Fellow, UNU-IAS)’
Panellists:
Tony Dalton (RMIT)
Eni Harmayani (Universitas Gadjah Mada)
15:00–15:10 Break
15:10–15:40 Research for Sustainable Development in Higher Education
Chair: Philip Vaughter (UNU-IAS)
Panellists:
Sivanappan Kumar (AIT)
Gopal Sarangi (TERI University)
15:40–16:10 Student Engagement with the SDGs – ProSPER.Net Young Researchers’ School
Chair: Christopher Doll (Research Fellow, UNU-IAS)
Panellists:
Ranaporn Tantiwechwuttikul (Phd Student, University of Tokyo)
Haitham Alkhalaf (Phd Student, Keio University)
16:10–16:15 Break
16:15–17:15 The Role of Higher Education in Implementing the SDGs
Chair: Mario Tabucanon (UNU-IAS)
Panellists:
Robert Didham (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies)
Wang Xin (Professor, Tongji University)
William Chen Wei Ning (Professor, Nanyang Technological University)
Michael Tan (Chancellor, University of the Philippines Diliman)
17:15–17:30 Wrap-up and closing – Ways Forward
Yuji Suzuki (Board Chair for ProSPER.Net)
————————————————————
Makiko ARIMA (Ms.)
United Nations University
Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS)
53-70, Jingumae 5-chome
Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150-8925, Japan

Twitter: twitter.com/UNUIAS

.

———————————————————————-

.

@IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #STI Forum

1st annual Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (STI Forum)

6-7 June 2016 | UN Headquarters, New York

The first annual Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI Forum) for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) convened by the President of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), concluded its work on Tuesday at UN Headquarters in New York.

During the day, representatives of UN Member States and Major Groups and Other Stakeholders heard presentations from panelists and engaged in an interactive dialogue on four topics:

•Creating shared value: How do we make it work?
•Ministerial Dialogue: Towards a roadmap of effective science, technology and innovation policy frameworks
•The Experience of Youth in using Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development
•The Way Forward: Adding Value through the Science, Technology and Innovation Forum
In the closing session, Co-Chair Macharia Kamau (Kenya) said we will have to work harder over the next few months to maximize the potential of this Forum over the next 14 years, including through intersessional interactions, given the huge agenda ahead. He expressed hope that the Forum will be able to feed into the work of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF).
Co-Chair Vaughan Turekian (US) said that achieving the SDGs requires better integration of science, technology and innovation, involving a vast number of stakeholders. STI enabling environments are critical to achieve the SDGs over the next 14 years, he added. This STI Forum is “testable,” like scientific inquiry, and can be improved over time, he concluded.
ECOSOC President Oh Joon said it is time to make the Technology Facilitation Mechanism operational and beneficial for all, and called for everyone’s continued cooperation to mobilize great minds and build lasting partnerships. He said we need to strengthen STI capacity in every country, create innovative knowledge societies that use scientific evidence to inform policy, make advances that greatly facilitate technology transfer and diffusion, and support social technologies to change mindsets and behaviors.
ECOSOC President Oh Joon closed the Forum at 5:45 pm.
The Briefing Note of this meeting is now available in PDF format
 
The above excerpt, taken from the Briefing Note, was written by Faye Leonie and Ana-Maria Lebădă. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Union, the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)), Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2016 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for the coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree

Where:  NYC 4-8 June, 9-12 Vermont, 13-20 NYC, 21-24 Winnipeg, 25-18 July cycling Calif/Oregon/Montana

.

—————————————————————–

.

Announcing @IISDRS Summary of #TheAgora

The Inaugural Agora
Transforming the World Through Sustainable Energy for All: Leaving No One Behind

6 June 2016 | UN Headquarters, New York

The Inaugural Agora on ‘Transforming the World through Sustainable Energy for All: Leaving No One Behind’ took place on 6 June 2016 at UN Headquarters in New York, USA, in parallel with the first annual Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI Forum) for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Organized by the Royal Academy of Science International Trust (RASIT) and Eko Renewable Energy (EkoRE) in collaboration with the Permanent Mission of Honduras, the Agora was organized around two interactive panels that included representatives from UN Member States, the UN, the private sector, academia, scientists, entrepreneurs and local communities.
Participants discussed actions and initiatives to respond to current and emerging challenges of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with an emphasis on sustainable energy and energy systems as a platform for global change. They also considered the importance of partnerships to scale up energy efficiency and the deployment of renewable energy.
The meeting’s discussions are intended to contribute to the STI Forum and to the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF).
The Summary of this meeting is now available
Coverage of this meeting by IISD Reporting Services was funded by the Royal Academy of Science International Trust (RASIT) and Eko Renewable Energy (EkoRE).
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree

Where:  NYC 4-8 June, 9-12 Vermont, 13-20 NYC, 21-24 Winnipeg, 25-18 July cycling Calif/Oregon/Montana

.

——————————————————————-

.

Announcing @IISDRS Coverage of the Inaugural Agora #TheAgora

The Inaugural Agora
Transforming the World Through Sustainable Energy for All: Leaving No One Behind

6 June 2016 | UN Headquarters, New York

The Inaugural Agora will take place on 6 June 2016 at UN Headquarters in New York, USA, on the theme “Transforming the World Through Sustainable Energy for All: Leaving No One Behind.” The aim of the event is to consider the role of sustainable energy and energy systems in the implementation of the 2030 Development Agenda. The event will focus on: how the private sector is using sustainable energy to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); how science can interact with policy; and how to deploy existing knowledge and innovative renewable technologies to “leave no one behind.”
Organized by the Royal Academy of Science International Trust (RASIT) and Eko Renewable Energy (EkoRE) in collaboration with the UN Permanent Mission of Honduras, the event will take place back to back with the 1st annual Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (STI Forum) which will hold in New York from 6-7 June.
The Inaugural Agora will include two interactive, high-level panels that will explore the overall theme of The Agora, with a closing panel that will focus on the Challenges and Opportunities. RASIT and EkoRE will offer conclusions and recommendations for the road ahead, with a brief “Outcome Document” to be presented to the President of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as a contribution to the STI Forum and to the High-level Political Forum of ECOSOC in July 2016.
IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB+ Meeting Coverage, will provide digital coverage and a briefing note from the Inaugural Agora. Kindly return to this site on Monday, 6 June 2016, for more information.
Daily and summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/energy/agora/2016/.
Coverage of this meeting by IISD Reporting Services is funded by RASIT.
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree

Where:  NYC 4-8 June, 9-12 Vermont, 13-20 NYC, 21-24 Winnipeg, 25-18 July cycling Calif/Oregon/Montana

.

———————————————————————-

.

Announcing @IISDRS coverage of the Habitat III Informal Hearings with Stakeholders #Habitat3 @Habitat3UN

Habitat III Informal Hearings with Stakeholders
6-7 June 2016 | UN Headquarters, New York
The Habitat III Informal Hearings with Stakeholders will take place from 6 to 7 June 2016 as part of the preparatory process for the Habitat III Conference taking place in Quito, Ecuador, from 17-20 October 2016. The meeting was mandated by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2015 (A/RES/70/210), which invites Stakeholders to exchange views with countries on the zero draft of the Habitat III outcome document during “informal hearings.”
IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB+ Meeting Coverage, will provide daily web updates and a summary report from the Habitat III Informal Hearings with Stakeholders. Kindly follow the link above for more information.
Funding for coverage of this meeting provided by the Government of Ecuador
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree

Where:  NYC 4-8 June, 9-12 Vermont, 13-20 NYC, 21-24 Winnipeg, 25-18 July cycling Calif/Oregon/Montana

.

——————————————————————

.

Join the Action for Sustainable Development Platform!

Action for Sustainable Development

Dear Colleagues,

With successful meetings in Istanbul and Bogotá, and interactive discussions online, we are excited to invite you to officially join the Action for Sustainable Development Initiative! Please register your official participation here.

By joining the platform you will be able to work within global, regional, and national networks to collaborate, mobilize, share knowledge, and work cohesively towards sustainable development. As a radically inclusive platform, we invite you to share this link with your networks. Please note that before registering, you need to agree with the mission statement. You are able to register as an organisation member, or as an individual supporter.

The Action for Sustainable Development website is now live athttp://action4sd.org/ where you will be able to find updated information about the platform. To read about the outcomes from the kick-off meeting last month in Bogotá, please find further information here.

We will send further information and next steps for each of the working groups in coming weeks.

Best regards,

Action for Sustainable Development Team

P.S: Freedoms of expression and association are under attack at the United Nations and we need to defend them. Learn more and consider signing a joint letter to express your concern

.

——————————————————————-

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

 
Note the last report from the UN DPI/NGLS on SDG4 and global citizenship.  The UNSD Education Caucus was a partner with Soka Gakkai International (SGI) on Global Citizenship and peace. To learn more regarding the Conference, http://sd.iisd.org/news/dpingo-conference-adopts-action-agenda-for-sdg-4/
 
1 June 2016: Cultivating empathy, a scientific appreciation for the natural world and responsibility towards future generations must be at the core of education for global citizenship, agreed 4,400 representatives of 700 NGOs and universities attending the 66th Department of Public Information/Non-Governmental Organization (DPI/NGO) Conference to create and strengthen partnerships on education for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The Conference ‘Education for Global Citizenship: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Together’ took place in Gyeongju, South Korea, from 29 May-1 June 2016. The Conference included five roundtables, 45 workshops, 69 exhibitions and a series of youth-related events.
Participants adopted a global education action agenda that affirms the importance of SDG 4 (Ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong opportunities for all). The Gyeongju Action Plan provides concrete guidance for NGOs around the world to enhance their ability to lobby governments to commitment to implementing the SDGs and mobilize NGOs in communities on the ground.
 
To read the Gyeongju Action Plan “Education for Global Citizenship: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Together”, visit
 
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UNSD 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:  1-734-352-7429

.

——————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

Linkages Update – April 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Having trouble viewing this email? Please try our Browser Version. | Subscribe here to receive future issues of Linkages Update.

.

ENB: @IISDRS Briefing Note from High Level Thematic Debate on Achieving the #SDGs

High Level Thematic Debate on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

21 April 2016 | UN Headquarters, New York

The High-level Thematic Debate on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) took place on Thursday, 21 April 2016, at UN Headquarters in New York. Following opening keynote speeches, plenary convened throughout the day for national statements on the theme “Action at All Levels: National Implementation.” In the morning, two panels took place on the theme “Financing poverty eradication and sustainable development,” addressing successful frameworks and strategies for financing SDGs and the paradigm shift towards low carbon societies, and enhancing international cooperation in tax and financial matters.
A high-level lunch discussed partnerships for SDG implementation. In the afternoon, two panels took place under the theme “Technology and data for SDGs,” on enhancing technology development and cooperation for SDGs and harnessing the data revolution for SDGs. In the evening, a high-level reception addressed climate action in the context of sustainable development.
The  Briefing Note of this meeting is now available in PDF format

.

——————————————————————-

.

@IISDRS Briefing Note from Signing Ceremony for the #ParisAgreement on #ClimateChange

High-Level Signature Ceremony for the Paris Agreement on Climate Change

22 April 2016 | UN Headquarters, New York

http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/signing-ceremony/

On Friday, 22 April 2016, the signing ceremony for the Paris Agreement on Climate Change took place at UN Headquarters in New York. Following an opening ceremony, 175 countries signed the Paris Agreement, the largest number of countries to ever sign a multilateral agreement on the day on which it opens for signature. After signing the Agreement, Heads of State and Government delivered national statements, addressing their intention to ratify and/or outlining their national climate change policies and actions.
In the afternoon, a high-level special event addressed the theme “Taking climate action to the next level: Realizing the vision of the Paris Agreement.” The day ended with delegates hearing statements from past, present and future presidents of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP), and an address by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The  Briefing Note of this meeting is now available in PDF format
at  http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12665e.pdf  and in HTML format at
 
This Briefing Note of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Anna Schulz, LL.M., Tallash Kantai, Ana Maria Lebada, Faye Leone, and Keith Ripley. The Digital Editor is Francis Dejon. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Union, the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2016 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where:  NYC 8-23 April, Tokyo 25- 26, 28 Bangkok, 30 – 5 May Persian Gulf

.

——————————————————————-

.

ENB: – 17th Meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

IISD: 3rd Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals of the Committee on World Food Security – Briefing Note

 Browser Version

.

ENB: 1st Meeting of the UNFF AHEG on the International Arrangement on Forests Strategic Plan – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

ENB Vol. 13 No. 200 – 1st Meeting of the UNFF AHEG on the International Arrangement on Forests Strategic Plan – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

ENB: Convention on Biological Diversity: SBSTTA 20 & SBI 1 – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

Bonn Climate Change Conference – May 2016

 Browser Version

.

IISD/ENB+ Video Coverage of UNEA-2 – 22 May 2016

Browser Version.

.

@IISDRS Briefing Note from #GMGSF16 #UNEA2

16th Global Major Groups and Stakeholder Forum (GMGSF)

21-22 May 2016 | UNEP headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya

http://www.iisd.ca/unep/unea2/

.

Bonn Climate Change Conference – May 2016

  Browser Version

.

ENB: 2nd Session of the UN Environment Assembly of the UN Environment Programme

 Browser Version

.

IISD/ENB+ Video Coverage of UNEA-2 – Wrap-Up

 Browser Version.

.

@IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #UNEA2

16th Global Major Groups and Stakeholder Forum (GMGSF) and 2nd Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – Delivering on the Environmental Dimension of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

21-22 and 23-27 May 2016 | UNEP headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya

http://www.iisd.ca/unep/unea2/

.

@IISDRS announcing the report and summary video of the 50th meeting of the GEF Council @theGEF

Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council Consultation Meeting with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), 50th GEF Council Meeting and 20th Meeting of the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund (LDCF/SCCF) Council
6-9 June 2016 | Washington, DC, US

Click here to download the report of this meeting in HTML format: http://www.iisd.ca/gef/council50/html/enbplus192num15e.html or here to download it as a PDF: http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/sd/enbplus192num15e.pdf

.

2nd Session of the UN Environment Assembly of the UN Environment Programme – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

.

17th Meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

2nd Session of the UN Environment Assembly of the UN Environment Programme – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

—————————————————————

.

ENB: @IISDRS Coverage of the High Level Thematic Debate on Achieving the #SDGs

High Level Thematic Debate on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
 
                                                 21 April 2016 | UN Headquarters, New York
In September 2015, world leaders at Sustainable Development Summit adopted a new sustainable development agenda for the next fifteen years: “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This global agenda comprises several elements: a preamble; a declaration; 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets; means of implementation and a new global partnership; and a framework for follow-up and review of implementation.
A major priority of the 70th President of the General Assembly, Mogens Lykketoft (Denmark),is to support prompt and inclusive implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Given the framework of the 2030 Agenda and its interlinkages with the Paris Climate Agreement, which was adopted in December 2015 in Paris and will be signed in New York on 22 April 2016, the President of the General Assembly will convene a High Level Thematic Debate on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals on 21 April 2016.
This event is aimed to increase international awareness and political momentum around the implementation of the SDGs. It will bring together global political, business and civil society leaders in New York to focus on kick-starting SDG implementation. It will also be a unique opportunity to address the synergies between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda.
IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, will provide web coverage and a briefing note of the High Level Thematic Debate on Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Kindly return to this site on Wednesday, 21 April 2016, for more information.
IISD RS will also provide web coverage and a briefing note of the High-Level Signature Ceremony for the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, scheduled for Thursday 22 April 2016.  Please visit our site for this event for more information.
Coverage of the debate be available at http://www.iisd.ca/sdgs/hltd/
Specific funding for coverage of High Level Thematic Debate on Sustainable Development
is provided by the European Union.

EU FlagIISD Reporting Services is grateful to the many donors of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and recognizes the following as core contributors to the ENB: the European Union, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, SWAN International, Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree

Where:  NYC 8-23 April, Tokyo 25- 26, 28 Bangkok, 30 – 5 May Persian Gulf

Sust GoalsParis Climate  Agreement Logo.

.

——————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

.

37th Meeting of the Open-ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

1st Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

.

1st Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction

 Browser Version

.

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

1st Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction

For those of you interested in food security and Oceans issues, ENB has provided a policy analysis  and summary of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction.
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UNSD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change

 Browser Version

.

.

Sustainable Development Policy and Practice

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version

.

Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

Linkages Update

Browser Version

..

IISD: Climate Change Policy & Practice – UN Secretary-General Calls for “One Set” of Principles to Support 2030 Agenda

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

As you read  this summary, note the change in language:  ”citizen participation” now reads CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT.
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:  1-734-352-7429

http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/un-secretary-general-calls-for-one-set-of-principles-to-support-2030-agenda/

.

.

ENB: 1st Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction

Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Update – 28 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 23 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 22 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 21 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

 IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

—————————————————————-

.

1st Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction

Browser Version

.

Multilateral Environmental Agreement: @IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #Mercury INC7

7th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Mercury (INC 7)

10-15 March 2016 | Jordan

The seventh session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to Prepare a Global Legally Binding Instrument on Mercury (INC7) convened from 10-15 March 2016 in Jordan. Over 300 participants attended the session, representing 103 governments, in addition to many non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations.
Following regional group consultations and technical briefings on Wednesday, 9 March, delegates resumed negotiations on work to prepare for entry into force of the Minamata Convention and the first meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP1). Issues under consideration at INC7 included, inter alia: procedures for export and import of mercury; operation of the financial mechanism; and draft rules of procedure and draft financial rules for the COP. Delegates also considered guidance on a range of issues, including on identification of stocks of mercury and mercury compounds and sources of supply, and best available techniques and best environmental practice for controlling emissions.
INC7 was the second of two negotiating sessions planned for the interim period between the adoption of the Minamata Convention and COP1. Key outcomes from the meeting include provisional adoption of technical guidance documents related to emissions and on the identification of individual stocks of mercury and mercury compounds. INC7 also forwarded to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council a Memorandum of Understanding between the Minamata Convention and the GEF Council, as well as its proposed guidance to the GEF on financing and activities related to implementation of the Convention.
The  Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF INC7
While adopting a new treaty or convention can be a celebratory event, it does not merely commemorate the conclusion of negotiations. In fact, it marks the beginning of a new process that develops an effective operational and administrative framework to facilitate the work of the Convention. In the case of the Minamata Convention, these post-agreement negotiations must strike a delicate balance that upholds the careful compromises struck when negotiating the Convention, but also facilitates action to achieve the Convention’s aim of protecting human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds. At INC7, the second such meeting since the 2013 adoption of the Minamata Convention, after a week at the Dead Sea in Jordan delegates ultimately floated, neither sinking nor swimming, toward this goal.
This brief analysis considers the extent to which INC7 fulfilled the mandate outlined by the Diplomatic Conference of the Plenipotentiaries on the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
THE MINAMATA MANDATE FOR THE INC
The Diplomatic Conference outlined a detailed programme of work for the INC to complete before the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. This work included intersessional consultations toward creating the administrative basis for effective implementation of the Convention, such as rules of procedure and financial rules. The Conference required the INC to prepare draft guidance for countries in important areas, including guidance documents on: artisanal and small-scale gold mining; identification of stocks of mercury and mercury compounds; procedures for the export and import of mercury; and best available techniques and best environmental practices for controlling emissions and determining emission limits.
While INC6 made some headway in many of these areas in 2014, INC7 was expected to complete the mandate on several fronts, from agreement on the operation of the financial mechanism to substantive guidance documents and secretariat arrangements. INC7 made progress by completing the prescribed import-export forms, agreeing on draft guidance documents on ASGM, identifying mercury stocks and sources of supply, and finalizing the memorandum of understanding with the GEF. Nevertheless, by the end of INC7, much work remained, leaving countries little choice but to empower the Bureau to consider the need for an eighth meeting of the INC, which some expect to be a one-day meeting that will be held immediately before COP1.
In the final hours of the meeting, there were several attempts to make up ground on issues of particular importance to many countries. For example, the African Group joined with 25 other states to propose that the Secretariat develop guidance on contaminated sites, and, with Switzerland, submitted a second proposal that parties to the Basel Convention apply its mercury waste technical guidelines and encouraged countries that are not a party to the Basel Convention to apply the guidelines as guidance. The latter suggestion fell flat because delegates lacked the time necessary to reach consensus. The former proposal on contaminated sites also failed to gain traction due to the objections of the EU and US, who expressed concern about the workload of the Secretariat ahead of COP1. The compromise ultimately reached, that the Secretariat would compile submissions and propose an outline and roadmap for the guidance on contaminated sites, disappointed many who see urgent action on contaminated sites as crucial to protecting human health and the environment in their countries. One delegate expressed regret about the lack of decisive action, underscoring that cleaning up contaminated sites “is necessary to do justice” to the Convention.
DEFINING THE LETTER OF THE LAW
Implementation of some aspects of the Convention will require precise technical guidance, and the mechanisms for facilitating implementation, including technical guidance documents and reporting forms, need to accurately reflect future parties’ obligations. As one delegate noted, “We created some ambiguities years ago to reach consensus, and now we must sort through them.” In this process of elaboration, many delegates took a cautious approach.
In the technical issues contact group, many participants were wary of reinterpreting the Convention, and said they were playing a watchdog role to guard against “mission creep.” For example, an illustrative list of mercury supply sources was ultimately deleted, because some countries feared including certain references would open the way for the Convention to seek rules related to natural gas as a potential source of mercury. Some felt this was unfair, since INC3 in Nairobi had already debated the issue and agreed that natural gas would not be listed in the annexes to the Convention.
On finance, countries could not agree on the duration, governance arrangements, and resources for the specific international programme. These are key issues that will require careful negotiation in order not to upset the balance enshrined by the Convention, in what one called “the made for Minamata solution.” This solution addresses the preferences of both donor countries who, in the early negotiations, favored the GEF as the sole financial mechanism, and those who called for funding that is predictable, accessible, and directly under the control of parties to the Minamata Convention.
As delegates worked through these complex issues at INC7, they continued to build a shared interpretation of the Convention that is reflected in several areas of the operational framework. For example, delegates designing the reporting format engaged in numerous discussions of what, specifically, the Convention would require of parties. For several delegates, discussions of “this is what I take this provision to mean” provided a valuable opportunity to build a collective institutional memory of how to interpret the Convention as they move from institutional design to implementation.
UPHOLDING THE SPIRIT OF THE CONVENTION
Operational rules can create incentives that promote or hinder efforts to implement the provisions of the Convention and, in turn, achieve its objectives. Several delegates noted that defining rules involves difficult fundamental choices about how the Minamata Convention will function.
For example, providing support through the GEF for ratification can expand the number of parties engaged in tracking the transboundary movement of mercury. Such support can help developing countries undertake projects and regulations that will put them in a stronger position to ratify and implement the Convention. However, as one delegate pointed out, this provision could create a disincentive for ratification and enable “cherry-picking,” as countries can access funds for projects they want to complete while avoiding the obligation to take action on more fraught issues such as ASGM.
Other guidance documents, such as the BAT/BEP guidance for emissions, seek to empower countries to undertake an ambitious level of implementation, in line with their national capabilities. Yet, some worried that some guidance could impose burdensome, technology-dependent solutions that lie exclusively in the hands of developed countries. One delegate worried that if the BAT/BEP guidance was the standard, her country would be out of compliance as soon as the Convention enters into force for her country. Others dismissed such concerns, arguing that the guidance is not legally binding and only provides information.
Similarly, reporting requirements can help parties understand if the Convention is effective, but can also alienate parties that lack the capacity to provide detailed reports. In the end, delegates agreed some questions were “supplemental,” to allow for those not able to gather the information to leave the question blank without repercussion. While there may be no formal requirement for all countries to complete every aspect of the form, one observer hoped to see an informal expectation arise for those with capacity to provide information, such that developed countries would provide what he called “fully complete and robust” reports.
DIFFERENT VISIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Some view the Minamata Convention as naturally connected to the work of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions, and thus want to strengthen the ties among the four conventions to facilitate cooperation and coordination among what one delegate characterized as “sister agreements.” Others are less enthusiastic about tying the Minamata Convention too closely to the BRS Conventions, and instead envision a standalone convention with its own experts working on mercury-specific issues.
Many countries that expressed a preference for a standalone Convention highlighted the importance of ongoing input from technical experts who specialize in issues related to mercury, and they called for the establishment of a subsidiary body to provide scientific and other technical advice to the Conference of the Parties. Several delegates in this camp cited the BAT/BEP guidance as an example, noting that it is a “living document” that will need to be updated at regular intervals. Others also pointed to the need for experts to support work on other core issues, such as contaminated sites and interim storage, with one observer saying that an expert group process would support implementation in part by making it difficult for countries who may not want to fund the cleanup of contaminated sites to avoid taking action on this issue.
One veteran observer cited the value of the intersessional work on BAT/BEP, and other technical issues would have gone more smoothly at INC7 with face-to-face expert meetings. Such a consensus-building process would address not only the technical details but also provide greater transparency. This, she suggested, would be preferable to “compiling all submissions and unveiling the whole Frankenstein only at the INC,” and alluded to the value of intersessional work to facilitate future COPs’ consideration of technical issues.
However, several developed countries called for expanding the BRS synergies process to include the Minamata Convention, saying this would help leverage expertise and promote efficiencies. One delegate pointed out that many of the experts who would serve as technical experts for the Minamata Convention are the same people who already sit on the expert committees of the Basel and Stockholm Conventions. Several proponents for integrating the Minamata Convention into the “BRS family” underscored it would be an administrative arrangement, and, sharing concerns over a workload of a “quadruple COP,” were open to other COP arrangements.
Others acknowledged the unspoken, yet obvious, fact that the US is a party only to the Minamata Convention, and is wary of any attempt to introduce the rules or guidelines of the BRS Conventions into mercury governance. Suggestions to use the technical guidelines of the Basel Convention in guidance documents of the Minamata Convention creates policy coherence for countries that are, or will be, parties to both Conventions. For the US, such substantive synergies could import obligations from a Convention for which they currently have no legally-binding obligation and had no formal role in agreeing to those technical guidelines.
Many noted that there is overlap on some substantive issues, but did not welcome the perceived conditionalities in the Swiss offer to host the permanent secretariat of the Minamata Convention. Since no other country has put forward a proposal to host, despite the Bureau’s decision to extend the deadline, some delegates said they are now considering how, and not whether, synergies will unfold.
REALIZING THE CONVENTION’S PROMISE
INC7 showed that negotiating the operational details of a Convention is as difficult as agreeing to the Convention text itself. For some countries, INC7 was their last chance to influence the future of the Minamata Convention, because once the Convention enters into force, decision-making will lie with the Conference of the Parties. Some countries will not have ratified in time to participate in COP1 as parties, and others are wondering whether they will ratify at all. With the 25th ratification occurring during INC7, and the EU’s work toward ratification in progress, entry into force of the Minamata Convention is on the horizon. At COP1, which is expected to take place in 2017, parties will celebrate their achievements in establishing a global instrument to address mercury, and will continue their work to find common ground in their work to protect human health and the environment from mercury pollution.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin ©enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Jessica Templeton, Ph.D., Jennifer Allan, Tallash Kantai, Delia Paul and Brett Wertz. The Digital Editor is Kiara Worth. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Union, the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2016 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
 .
.

——————————————————————————

.

Sustainable Development Update – 17 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 16 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 15 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 14 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 11 March 2016 – Sustainable Development Policy & Practice – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 10 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 9 March 2016 – IISD Reporting

Services

 Browser Version.

.

IISD: Climate Change

Browser Version.

.

ENB: 7th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Mercury

.

Browser Version

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy and Practice

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

ENB: 7th session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Mercury

Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Update – 8 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Briefing Note on the Symposium and Workshop on Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals

Browser Version

 .

Sustainable Development Update – 7 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 3 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 2 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 1 March 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 29 February 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Update – 25 February 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 23 February 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

ENB: 4th Session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

 Browser Version

.

4th Session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – Issue #6

  Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

.

  Browser Version.

.

Browser Version

.

Browser Version

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

—————————————————————————

.

Sustainable Development Update – 22 February 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Sustainable Development Update – 18 February 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Update – 17 February 2016 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

.

Welcome to sdg – IISD Reporting Services

WELCOME TO THE sdg MAILING LIST
[ PLEASE RETAIN THIS EMAIL FOR YOUR RECORDS ]
Welcome to our online community of practice. We look forward to learning about your organization’s sustainable development activities, and hope your work will benefit from learning about other list members’ activities.
sdg is a moderated list, which means that our staff members will review all posts before they are sent to the full list. We know you are busy, so we strive to keep the list as focused as possible. Approval may take up to 24 hours on business days, depending on time zones and work loads, so plan ahead if the information you want to share requires distribution by a specific time.
This list is owned by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). For more information, please visit: http://www.iisd.ca/email/
GUIDELINES FOR POSTING
All subscribers can post messages to this list, as long as the message conforms to the list guidelines. Please review the guidelines at: http://www.iisd.ca/email/sdg/.
Postings should be sent to the following email address: sdg@lists.iisd.ca. The moderator will review all messages prior to approving them, but cannot edit messages. Please send your message in the same format that you would like it to be sent to the entire list.
If you want to know more about someone else’s post, please reply directly to the list member, and not to “reply to all.”
ACCOUNT/SUBSCRIPTION OPTIONS
Here are some quick email links to help you manage your subscription:
Frequency/Format of message reception from sdg
• To receive messages from sdg once-a-day, where all member postings to the list are sent out in one daily message:

• as email attachments, click here to enable Mime-Digest

• displayed in the email body, click here to enable Digest• To receive messages from sdg as each message is approved by the moderator, click here to enable Regular Mail• To pause messages (ie: while on vacation), click here to Pause messages temporarilyTo resume receiving messages, re-select a Frequency Option preference above.Problems receiving messages from sdg• If you have not received messages from sdg RECENTLY, click here to try to Unhold your account• If you have NEVER received messages from sdg, click here to try to Activate your accountThese issues can occur if your mail server’s filters have strict settings. Your mail administrator would be able to trace messages that you may have sent to (or that may not have reached you from): @lists.iisd.ca, @iisd.ca, or @iisd.org addresses.Additional features for posting messages to sdg• Receive delivery acknowledgement of your message? [ Yes | No ]• Receive copy of your own posting? [ Yes | No ]Manage your account via web interface [ Login | Reset Password | Unsubscribe ]Upon login, in the left hand menu provides a number of options, including:•  Messages – lists all IISD mailing lists, allows you to subscribe or read messages posted to them
•  Search – find all related messages based on your search criteria
•  My Account – adjust your membership account/status and message frequency options
•  My Forums – lists all IISD mailing lists you are subscribed to and offers an option to adjust related subscription options If you have any questions about IISD’s mailing lists, please contact us at: owner-sdg@lists.iisd.ca

Thank you for joining the sdg Mailing List


sdg | IISD Reporting Services


 

.

—————————————————————-

.

ENB – 2nd Open-ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to UNEP – Issue #2

Browser Version

.

—————————————————————————

.

ENB Vol. 16 No. 123 – 2nd Open-ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives to UNEP – Issue #1

Browser Version

.

@IISDRS Coverage of UNEP #OECPR2

Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Preparatory Meetings and
2nd Open-ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR)
to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

 14 and 15-19 February 2016 | UNEP headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya

The second Open-Ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR-2) will take place from 15-19 February 2016 in Nairobi, Kenya. The meeting will prepare the draft resolutions to be discussed and adopted at the second UN Environment Assembly of the UN Environment Programme (UNEA-2), taking place from 23-27 May 2016, on the theme, “Delivering on the Environmental Dimension of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.”
In preparation for UNEA-2, OECPR-2 will discuss a concept note on the conference theme and a global thematic report on “Healthy Environment, Healthy People.” OECPR-2 will consider the draft UNEP Medium-term Strategy for 2018-21, the budget and Programme of Work for 2018-19, and the UNEP stakeholder engagement policy. The meeting will provide advice on a wide range of policy matters, including, inter alia: illegal trade in wildlife, marine plastic debris and microplastics, chemicals and waste, and air quality. The meeting will also report on the deliberations of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR) since UNEA-1, and the review of UNEP programme performance from 2014-15.
The UN Environment Assembly of UNEP represents the highest level of governance of international environmental affairs in the UN system. UNEA-1 took place in June 2014. In February 2013, the former UNEP Governing Council took a decision to convene an open-ended meeting of the CPR to enable the participation of capital-based delegates and stakeholders (UNEP GC decision 27/2, paragraph 10).
IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, will cover the Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Preparatory Meetings on Sunday, 14 February 2016. In addition, IISD Reporting Services will provide daily web coverage, daily reports and a summary and analysis from OECPR 2 which will take place from 15 to 19 February 2016. Kindly return to this site on Sunday, 14 February 2016, for more information.
Daily and Summary coverage will be available at
The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Union, the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2016 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC).
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree

Where: :  16-19 Feb Nairobi, 20-8 March Cape Town, 2016

.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

—————————————————————-

.

New IISD Report Tracks Progress Towards SDG 12

View this email in your browser

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

 Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice, 2016

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

.

 Browser Version.

.

.

————————————————————————

 .

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

CFS Bulletin – 1st Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group on SDGs

Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Click here to visit the Sustainable Development Policy & Practice knowledgebase.

.

IISD: Sustainable Deveopment Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

IISD Linkages Update

 Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

ENB on the Side COP21

Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

Africa Pavilion @ COP 21 – Issue #8

Browser Version

.

Rio Conventions Pavilion – Issue #7

Browser Version

.

ENB on the Side – Paris Climate Change Conference – November 2015 – Issue #8

 Browser Version

.

ENB – Paris Climate Change Conference – November 2015 – Issue #9

Browser Version

.

SLCP Focus Day Bulletin – Lima-Paris Action Agenda Focus Day on Short-Lived Climate Pollutants – Summary

Browser Version

.

ENB: – Paris Climate Change Conference – November 2015 – Issue #7

 Browser Version

.

IISD: Rio Conventions Pavilion – Issue #3

Browser Version

.

Rio Conventions Pavilion Bulletin – Issue #2

Browser Version

.

Africa Pavilion @ COP 21 Bulletin – Issue #1

Browser Version

.

ENB on the Side COP21

Browser Version

.

————————————————————————-

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

—————————————————————————

.

News! Coverage, ENB and IISD – Paris COP21 Climate Agreement

Dear Friends and Colleagues,
Here is an update from the co-founder and director of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin [ENB] and the International Institute for Sustainable Developmen [IISD] to links to stay abreast of what is happening.

Kimo Goree
12 hrs ·

We are in full production mode here in Paris at COP21! Our outputs for last night include:
1) ENB Webpage from negotiations (sorry, no pictures from ADP since we are not allowed in the room… only overflow)http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/enb/
2) ENB in English http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12654e.pdf , French http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12654f.pdf and Arabichttp://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12654a.pdf
3) Coverage of side events http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/enbots/
4) Side events videos: http://www.iisd.ca/videos/climate/unfccc-cop21/
5) Coverage of the Rio Conventions Pavilionhttp://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/cbd-rcp/
6) Coverage of the Africa Pavilionhttp://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop21/cdafrica-ap/

We’re cranking out info round-the-clock. Also check out our Twitter feedhttps://twitter.com/iisdrs

All the best,
UNSD Education Caucus C-Chairs
Co-Coordinators Climate Change
__________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell: +1-(734) 352•7429
Landline: +1-(734) 994•3612

.

—————————————–

.

ENB – Paris Climate Change Conference – November 2015 – Issue #3

 Browser Version

.

ENB – Paris Climate Change Conference – November 2015 – Issue #2

Browser Version

.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

.

Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

 Browser Version.

.

Browser Version.

.

 Browser Version.

.

Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

.

IISD: Group on Earth Observations: 12th Plenary Session & Mexico City Ministerial Summit – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

————————————————————————–

.

CINCS – Climate I.Q. Tracker

Figures You Need To Know 

PARIS The Nationa Climate PlanIn This Issue:

Paris Climate Summit:’ The world is ready for change’ (The Guardian)

Upcoming Events

Welcome to the new Climate.IQ Tracker! This tracker is developed by CINCS, the sister company to Carbon Credit Capital. The Climate.IQ Tracker is going to bring you the latest news in climate risk management.

If you would like to continue receiving emails from both CINCS and Carbon Credit Capital, enjoy. If not, please manage your subscriptions here

Climate Risk

This Years Ozone Hole is the Fourth-Largest on Record (Climate Central)
The ozone hole, an environmental problem often associated with the 1980s, is still a clear and present issue more than 30 years later. Despite efforts to clean up the stratosphere of ozone-depleting chemicals, this year’s ozone hole minimum bottomed out at the fourth lowest on record.
Delta Cities, Wealthy or not, Face Rising Risk from Sinking Land (TheConversation)
The world’s deltas are home to over 340 million people, a population greater than that of the United States. These delta communities are highly at risk from flooding, and future sea-level rise will make these risks worse. Sea-level rise associated with climate change is rightly considered a major threat to all coastal communities around the world, but deltas face additional challenges due to their unique geological characteristics.
Climate Change Could Have a Significant Impact on Our Economy (Arstechnica)
Climate change may have many economic impacts, including loss of crops, changes in water supply, increased incidence of natural disaster, and spikes in health care costs related to infectious diseases and temperature-related illnesses. However, hard evidence about the effects of climate change on economic activity has been inconsistent.
Greenland is Melting Away (The New York Times)
For years, scientists have studied the impact of the planet’s warming on the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. But while researchers have satellite images to track the icebergs that break off, and have created models to simulate the thawing, they have little on-the-ground information and so have trouble predicting precisely how fast sea levels will rise. Their research could yield valuable information to help scientists figure out how rapidly sea levels will rise in the 21st century, and thus how people in coastal areas from New York to Bangladesh could plan for the change.
Climate Policy

Nordic Ministers Project GHG Reductions from Fossil Fuel Subsidies Reform (IISD)
A new report looking at potential impacts of fossil fuel subsidy reform (FFSR) in 20 countries estimates that reform could bring an average reduction in national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 10.92% by 2020, and an annual average savings of US$92.83 per tonne of GHG emissions removed. The emission cuts could increase, the report finds, to 18.15% if 30% of the savings from fossil fuel subsidy cuts are reinvested into energy efficiency and renewables from 2016-2025.

Energy Numerous States Prepare Lawsuits Against Obama’s Climate Policy (The New York Times)
As many as 25 states will join some of the nation’s most influential business groups in legal action to block President Obama’s climate change regulations when they are formally published Friday, trying to stop his signature environmental policy.

Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation Conference 2015
Location: Portland, OR
Date: November 8-12
More Info2015 AWRA Annual Water Resources Conference
Location: Denver, CO
Date: November 16-19
More Info

.

————————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy and Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

ENB: Convention on Biological Diversity: SBSTTA 18 & Article 8(j) 9 – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

 Browser Version

.

27th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol [Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer] – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

IISD: CSLF – 6th Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) Ministerial Meeting – Final Summary

 Browser Version

.

———————————————————————-

.

ENB: Convention on Biological Diversity: SBSTTA 18 & Article 8(j) 9 – Issue #5

Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

ENB: Convention sur la diversité biologique: SBSTTA 18 et Article 8 (j) 9 – Bulletin #3 — “State of Knowledge Review: Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health”

Browser Version

.

.

ENB: @IISDRS report of the 49th #GEF Council and Consultation with CSOs

Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council Consultation Meeting with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), GEF 49th Council Meeting and 19th Meeting of the Least Developed Countries Fund
and the Special Climate Change Fund (LDCF/SCCF) Council

19-22 October 2015 | World Bank headquarters, Washington, DC, United States of America

The summary report from this meeting is now available in PDF format at:http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/sd/enbplus192num14e.pdf and in HTML format at: http://www.iisd.ca/gef/council49/html/enbplus192num14e.html

.

ENB: @IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #CRC11

11th Meeting of the Chemical Review Committee to the Rotterdam Convention
on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

26-28 October 2015 | Headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

 http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/poprc11-crc11/

.

.

ENB: @IISDRS Summary & Video of the 5th Conference on #Climate Change and #Development in Africa #ccda5

5th Conference on Climate Change and Development in Africa (CCDA-V) 

28-30 October 2015 | Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe

http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccda5/

.

.

IISD: – 5th Conference on Climate Change and Development in Africa – Final Summary

 Browser Version

.

IISD Video Coverage of the Fifth Conference on Climate and Development in Africa

Dear Colleagues,
Wanja is in Victoria Falls for IISD Reporting Services at the Fifth Conference on Climate and Development in Africa. Check out the video coverage.  http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccda5/
Kimo Goree
.
.

——————————————————-

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy and Practice

 Browser Version.

.

.

IISD: RRI Dialogue: Rights and Resources Initiative Dialogue on Forests, Governance and Climate Change – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Click here to visit the Sustainable Development Policy & Practice knowledgebase.

.

ENB: GEF Council – 49th Meeting of the Global Environment Facility Council – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————–

.

.

ENB – Bonn Climate Change Conference – October 2015 – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

IISD: Forest Europe Bulletin – 7th Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe and Extraordinary Ministerial Conference – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

ENB: Bonn Climate Change Conference – October 2015 – Issue #4

Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

 Browser Version.

.

————————————————————————

.

ENB: @IISDRS Summary Report of #CFS42 #foodsecurity

 42nd Session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS 42), Making a Difference in Food Security and Nutrition
12-15 October 2015 | Rome, Italy
The summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format at http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/sd/enbplus184num8e.pdf and in HTML format at http://www.iisd.ca/food-security/cfs42/html/enbplus184num8e.html
The 42nd session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS 42) convened from 12-15 October 2015, at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN, in Rome, Italy. Approximately 1060 participants attended the session, which addressed a series of agenda items related to: CFS and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) challenge; the 2015 report on the State of Food Insecurity in the World (SOFI); policy convergence, including recommendations on Water for Food Security and Nutrition, and the Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises; coordination and linkages between CFS and other food security and nutrition stakeholders at the global, regional and national levels; ongoing workstreams, including the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition (GSF), the outcomes of the High-Level Forum (HLF) on Connecting Smallholders to Markets, the report on the findings of the CFS effectiveness survey, and the Multi-year Programme of Work (MYPoW) and priorities for 2016-2017; the role of CFS in advancing nutrition; and organizational issues. Special events were held on youth for food security and nutrition and resilience building for sustainable food security and nutrition. Marking the culmination of some areas of work, CFS 42 endorsed the Framework for Action for Food Security and Nutrition in Protracted Crises and recommendations on Water for Food Security and Nutrition. The meeting also launched new areas of work, such as the role CFS will play in nutrition and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda), and adopted its MYPoW for the next biennium, including Open- ended Working Groups (OEWGs) on nutrition and on the SDGs.
The CFS Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org>. This issue was written and edited by Stefan Jungcurt, Ph.D., Elsa Tsioumani and Liz Willetts. The Editor is Melanie Ashton <melanie@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by CFS. Photo credit must be given: © FAO/Giulio Napolitano, editorial use only, copyright © FAO. IISD can be contacted at 111 Lombard Avenue, Suite 325, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0T4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletinmay be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://www.iisd.ca/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, New York 10022, USA.
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree

Where: 20-23  Oct Ankara, 24-28 NYC, 30 Tokyo, 1-4 November Riyadh, 5-6 Dubai

.

———————————————————————

.

ENB: Bonn Climate Change Conference – October 2015 – Issue #2

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————–

.

CFP: Envisioning Futures for Environmental and Sustainability Education

Fri, Oct 16, 2015
Subject: Fwd: CFP: Envisioning Futures for Environmental and Sustainability Education
To: Sustainable Development Announcement List <sdg@lists.iisd.ca>

Dear Colleagues,

 Attached please find a CFP for a new edited collection project. Please feel free to distributed to interested parties.
***
This edited collection invites educational practitioners and theorists to speculate on – and craft visions for – the future of environmental and sustainability education. We wish to explore what educational methods and practices might exist on the horizon, waiting for discovery and implementation. How might the collective project of imagining alternative futures help us rethink environmental and sustainability education institutionally, intellectually, and pedagogically? How might we use emerging modes of critical speculation as a means to map and (re)design the future of environmental and sustainability education today?
The future of environmental education is an urgent question in the larger context of the Anthropocene, the geological epoch in which human activities have become the dominant driver in the ongoing evolution of Earth’s biosphere. Our contemporary ecological moment is characterized by complexity, uncertainty, and “accelerating change” (Wals and Corcoran 2012). While the global impact of anthropogenic climate change is undeniable, the pace of temperature and sea-level rise depends on ecological feedback loops that are not fully understood – and which may be increasing the rate of biosphere destabilization (Hansen et al. 2015). From a social perspective, the Anthropocene is an age of what humanities scholar Rob Nixon (2011) terms “slow violence,” or ecological violence and environmental injustice that occurs on spatial and temporal scales that are hard to understand or represent, most often against the world’s poorest peoples. In light of such developments, educators need strategies for anticipatory engagement with changing socio-ecological realities – both in the present and future – in order to be effective within their various embodied contexts. This volume explores how environmental educators can engage in imaginative mapping concerning large scale, global processes, as well as create useful, situated knowledge for dissemination within their respective socio-ecological contexts.
We seek contributions that leverage speculative inquiry to imagine how nascent scientific, technological, social, and ecological developments might perturb, disrupt, and/or transform the field of environmental education. Likewise, we also seek contributions that mobilize such thinking to extend earlier lines of related inquiry within the field, such as “backcasting” (Holmberg 2000), or that chart points of contact between emerging modes of speculative thought and the field’s own longstanding concern with ecological futurity. In asking these questions we are inspired by thinkers within fields such as design, architecture, and computer science. These disciplines have recently initiated discussions concerning how critical speculation might help practitioners challenge ingrained disciplinary assumptions. For example, speculative design (Dunne and Raby 2013), architecture fiction (Gadanho 2009; Lally 2014), and science fiction prototyping (Johnson 2011) harness science fiction’s capacity to explore possible futures through extrapolating elements of our contemporary moment into imaginary worlds.
Previous volumes within this United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (UNDESD) series have responded to the complexity of environmental education in our contemporary moment with concepts such as social learning, intergenerational learning, and transformative leadership for sustainable futures. Envisioning Futures for Environmental and Sustainability Education builds on this earlier work – as well as the work of others. It seeks to foster modes of intellectual engagement with ecological futures in the Anthropocene; to develop resilient, adaptable pedagogies as a hedge against future ecological uncertainties; and to spark discussion concerning how futures thinking can generate theoretical and applied innovations within the field.
You can view the full CFP at:
Abstract submission instructions
In order for your chapter to be considered, please submit an abstract to futuresbook2015@gmail.com no later than November 13 2015. Abstracts should be approximately 300 words. Please include 2-5 key references in your abstract; these will not count towards your word limit. Please identify the part of the book in which you’d like your chapter to be considered. Also include a short professional biography for all co-authors.
Best,
Joseph P. Weakland, Ph.D.
Marion L. Brittain Postdoctoral Fellow
   Georgia Institute of Technology
Editorial Associate, Center for Environmental and Sustainability Education
   Florida Gulf Coast University

envisioning futures book CFP 10-2-15

.

————————————————————————-

.

ENB – Bonn Climate Change Conference – October 2015 – Issue #1

Browser Version

.

42nd Session of the Committee on World Food Security – Final Summary

 Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Linkages

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Our Ocean Conference 2015 – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————–

.

ENB: @IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #IPCC 42

42nd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-42)

5-8 October 2015 | Dubrovnik, Croatia

http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ipcc42/

 .

ENB: 42nd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————–

.

IISD: Climate Change Job Vacancies

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

.

———————————————————————-

.

IISD: Eye on Earth Summit 2015

 Browser Version

.

—————————————————————————-

.

IISD: Eye on Earth Summit 2015 – Issue #2

Eye on Earth Summit Bulletin
Volume 195 Number 3 | Wednesday, 7 October 2015

Eye on Earth Summit 2015 Highlights

Tuesday, 6 October 2015 | Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Languages: EN (HTML/PDF)
Visit our IISD/ENB+ Meeting Coverage from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE) at: 
http://www.iisd.ca/eoesummit/2015/

.

———————————————————————-

.

IISD: 42nd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC-42)

Dear Community of Educators,

The 42nd Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is being held October 5-8 in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The ENB meeting reports will become available October 11th, 2015.     Highlights and key actors are, http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ipcc42/5oct.htm
 
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UNSD 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: +1-(734) 352•7429
Landline: +1-(734) 994•3612

.

———————————————————————-

.

ENB: 4th Session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management – Summary & Analysis

Dear Community of Educators,

Progress on managing chemicals and the path towards a safe chemicals future has been exceptional at the global cooperation and coordination level, learn about the 21st century face of Environmental Education as a lens, the overarching policy strategy to building the future we want to create… in terms of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) – a policy framework to foster the sound management of chemicals, see http://www.saicm.org/   The appended summary report states:

As it was pointed out in an HSL panel, the value-added that SAICM brings to the table and the benefit of the model are its “unique” structure and voluntary nature, which provide the flexibility to address the complexity of chemicals management. Stakeholders want to see a SAICM-type platform continued in the future, and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner described it as the incubator for actions and ideas that will allow it to “be ahead of the curve” and create a path towards a safe chemicals future rather than “chasing history” and reacting to disasters.

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

Browser Version

.

—————————————————————————

.

“Call For Input” IISD: Last Call for Input: IISD’s 2015 Reader Survey

Browser Version.

.

———————————————————————————

.

IISD: Eye on Earth Summit

Browser Version

.

.

IISD: International Conference on Climate Action: Local Governments Driving Transformation – ICCA2015 – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

ENB on the Side – SDG 7 [key actors/partners below]

Browser Version

 

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

ENB Summit Highlights

Browser Version

.

@IISDRS Announces Coverage of the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015

Browser Version.

.

IISD Linkages ADP

Dear Climate Change Friends and Colleagues,

As you read over the comments and captions under the photos, who do you know, who would you like to know, who can you approach?  To learn more about the Bonn Climate Change Conference – August 2015, the IISD has compiled a Summary Highlights of the Meeting in photos,
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh

Co-Coordinators UN SD Education Caucus Climate Change

__________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell:  1-734-352-7429

.

.

ENB on the Side

Browser Version

.

—————————————————————————-

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

 Browser Version.
.

.

.

IISD and The Huffington Post: The Breakthrough Secret to Negotiating the SDGs

         Become a fan 
Senior Manager of Knowledge Management, International Institute for Sustainable Development

The Breakthrough Secret to Negotiating the SDGs

 

Negotiating the SDGs

Representatives from the almost 200 member countries of the United Nations successfully concluded their negotiations on the new set of global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at a time when global governance has been struggling to find cooperative outcomes. Innovations to the negotiation process that were evident during the development of the SDGs would be inconceivable in traditional multilateral negotiations, and are worth analyzing for future global negotiations. The debate over the sustainable-consumption and production goal (SDG 12) offers a window into the divisions between countries from the global North and South, and the difficulty in reaching agreement for collective action among all the states in the United Nations.

Sustainable consumption and production (SCP) has been defined as “the use of services and related products, which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of further generations.” In 2002, the 10-year review of the 1992 Earth Summit (called the World Summit on Sustainable Development) recognized SCP as one of three overarching objectives and requirements for achieving sustainable development. The other two objectives were poverty eradication and the management of natural resources in a manner that fosters economic and social development. SCP is therefore at the heart of the challenges that the global community is seeking to address through the SDGs, but intergovernmental cooperation on this issue has been slow to take shape.

Negotiators of Agenda 21, one of the agreements reached at the 1992 Earth Summit, identified the dilemma inherent in the SCP debate as follows: “Although consumption patterns are very high in certain parts of the world, the basic consumer needs of a large section of humanity are not being met.” Large portions of developing countries’ populations were not consuming enough to reach daily subsistence levels, while large portions of developed countries’ populations were consuming natural resources faster than they could be regenerated. The negotiation rhetoric called for developed countries to take the lead in achieving sustainable-consumption patterns. But developed countries resisted being held to more stringent sustainable-development obligations than emerging economies, which had pockets of wealth. As a result, the search for joint solutions was limited. While the solutions identified by Earth Summit negotiators in 1992 remain relevant today — including encouraging efficient energy and resource use, and minimizing waste generation — they lacked specificity and enjoyed limited ownership by individual countries to take action.

Subsequent intergovernmental discussions of the SCP issue progressed the issue, including through the development of a 10-year “framework of programmes” on sustainable consumption and production, but continued to reflect the difficulties encountered by many multilateral-environmental agreements. Since Rio, the international approach to develop plans of action on sustainable development focused on the negotiation and adoption of international law, and employed consensus as the decision making mechanism, but some key negotiations concluded without agreement. When a few countries are not willing to go along with the consensus, the ability of a multilateral-environmental agreement to set the agenda for global implementation breaks down.

Fast-forward two decades, and the SCP debate (and sustainable-development debate, for that matter) embarked on a new direction. The decision at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (also known as Rio+20) to develop a set of SDGs sought to break with this approach to governance (or lack thereof). Delegates at Rio+20 recognized that the SDGs would give the international community a chance to spur implementation efforts through a different mechanism than consensus-based negotiations — internationally established goals that would not rely on regular returns to the negotiating table.

Several elements combined to deliver a different negotiation process on the SDGs. A critical change was the fact that North-South differences were not as pronounced. The SDG negotiation process was conducted in a manner that reduced delegation rigidity, both of individual member states and within coalitions. Based on the Rio+20 instructions for how the SDGs would be developed, negotiations were conducted by an “Open Working Group” in which 70 countries developed a sharing arrangement for the designated 30 “seats” for participants. The sharing arrangement broke up traditional coalitions, and facilitated discussions in which seat partners sought to identify what they shared in common with each other’s position, rather than to strategize over how to elevate their different positions. In addition, the first eight meetings of the OWG were conducted as a “stocktaking” exercise, during which speakers presented on agenda items and negotiators arrived at a shared understanding of the challenges the SDGs would address.

Among the 17 goals and 169 targets that the OWG developed was a more robust treatment of SCP than that which the Agenda 21 negotiators adopted. The SDGs are to be universally applied, and SDG 12 indicates that all countries will take action on SCP, although it allows that it will be “developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries.” Countries will seek to, individually and collectively, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources, halve per capita global food waste, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, substantially reduce waste generation, encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices, promote sustainable public-procurement practices, and rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions.

Rather than suggest that the ends justify the means, the SDG process shows that the means — how negotiations are conducted — can break traditional deadlocks and facilitate more specific, and implementable goals for countries to reduce their consumption and make production more efficient. SCP underlies many of the other goals, particularly the environmental ones, and action on SDG 12 can catalyze the realization of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda.

This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post, “What’s Working: Sustainable Development Goals,” in conjunction with the United Nations’Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The proposed set of milestones will be the subject of discussion at the UN General Assembly meeting on Sept. 25-27, 2015 in New York. The goals, which will replace the UN’s Millennium Development Goals(2000-2015), cover 17 key areas of development — including poverty, hunger, health, education, and gender equality, among many others. As part of The Huffington Post’s commitment to solutions-oriented journalism, this What’s Working SDG blog series will focus on one goal every weekday in September. This post addresses Goal 12.

To find out what you can do, visit here and here.


TAKE ACTION ON THIS ISSUE

Your voice is needed to encourage the International Cocoa Initiative to aim higher to eliminate the worst forms of child labour in cocoa!

End extreme poverty, reduce inequalities & fight climate change: #TellEveryone about the #GlobalGoals

Take the pledge: Say No to Palm Oil

Actions curated by the Speakable team in support of charity partners to end extreme poverty. Read terms   here

.

——————————————————————

.

ENB – UN Sustainable Development Summit – Issue #2

Browser Version

.

—————————————————————-

.

CCAC Bulletin – Vol. 172 No. 24 – Working Group Meeting of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

——————————————————————–

.

World Forestry Congress Bulletin – Vol. 10 No. 19 – XIV World Forestry Congress – Final Summary

World Forestry Congress Bulletin

Volume 10 Number 19 | Monday, 14 September 2015

Languages: EN (HTML/PDF)

Visit our IISD/ENB+ Meeting Coverage from Durban, South Africa at: 
http://www.iisd.ca/forestry/world-forestry-congress/wfc-14/

.

———————————————————————–

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.
.

———————————————————————–

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.
.

——————————————————————-

.

ENB – Bonn Climate Change Conference – August 2015 – Summary & Analysis

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

Volume 12 Number 644 | Sunday, 6 September 2015


Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference

31 August – 4 September 2015 | Bonn, Germany


Languages: EN (HTML/PDF) FR (HTML/PDF) AR (HTML/PDF) JA (HTML/PDF)
Visit our IISD/ENB Meeting Coverage from Bonn, Germany at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/unfccc/adp2-10/

.

ENB: Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference

http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12644e.html

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

Volume 12 Number 644 | Sunday, 6 September 2015


Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference

31 August – 4 September 2015 | Bonn, Germany


Languages: EN (HTML/PDF) FR (HTML/PDF) AR (HTML/PDF) JA (HTML/PDF)
Visit our IISD/ENB Meeting Coverage from Bonn, Germany at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/unfccc/adp2-10/

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

ENB – Climate Change Bonn Highlights Wed. Sept. 2, 2015

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

Volume 12 Number 642 | Thursday, 3 September 2015


Bonn Highlights

Wednesday, 2 September 2015 | Bonn, Germany


Languages: EN (HTML/PDF) FR (HTML/PDF) AR (HTML/PDF) JA (HTML/PDF)
Visit our IISD/ENB Meeting Coverage from Bonn, Germany at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/unfccc/adp2-10/

ENB – Bonn Climate Change Conference – August 2015 – Issue #5

Browser Version

.

——————————————————

.

ENB: Bonn Highlights Wednesday September 2nd

Dear UNSD Education Caucus Climate Change Members,
If you haven’t had the opportunity yet check out the News page for the UNFCCC, http://www.unfccc.int   To find the current meeting in Bonn’s documents, http://unfccc.int/meetings/bonn_aug_2015/meeting/8923/php/view/documents.php
From:  Marta today the following notes from the Human Rights and climate change working group regarding the ADP text and Section C.

Dear colleagues,

Alyssa and Seb realized that none of the options proposed by the co-facilitators are acceptable and strongly urge us to reach out to delegates for them to ask co-facilitators to suggest a third option.
Please find below a template for the email you can send. We have already reached out to GUATEMALA, MEXICO, PHILIPPINES,LIECHTENSTEIN, FRANCE, ANGOLA, UGANDA, LUXEMBURG, COSTA RICA, CHILI, SUISSE, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, TUVALU.
Thanks for your help,
Fanny
I contact you on behalf of various groups (Human Rights Climate Change WG, Women and Gender Constituency, etc..) to draw your attention on latest developments regarding section C.  Since Monday, it has been very encouraging to hear Parties lend their support for the inclusion of gender and  human rights language, but we believe it is necessary to include this paragraph in the operational section (Section C) of the text. Please see attached the brief prepared by the Human Rights and Climate Change Working Group.
The core elements we are proposing are largely reflected in para 1.8 of the co-chair’s text (page 50):
- protection of human rights, including rights of indigenous peoples
- gender equality
- just transition
- food security
- protection and restoration of natural ecosystems
In late afternoon, we read the chart prepared by the co-facilitators in preparation for tomorrow’s negotiations on the general objective section, and are concerned with the two options that are presented. The second option proposes that human rights and gender should be included neither in the core agreement nor in the COP decision. The first option does include an objective, but proposes that the references to human rights, gender, and integrity of Mother Earth should be included in the COP decision rather than the negotiating text. We do not feel that either option is acceptable — these are core principles that must be reflected in the operative section (Section C) of the negotiating text.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions. We would very much welcome that the Africa Group speaks up on such issue during this afternoon’s negotiations on general/objective section.
Many thanks and regards,
Fanny PETITBON  |  CARE France  |  Chargée de mission Plaidoyer/ Advocacy Officer

71 rue Archereau, 75019 Paris | www.carefrance.org  |

Ligne directe/Direct line: +33.1.53.19.89.83 | Fax: +33.1.53.19.89.90

Email : petitbon@carefrance.org  |  Skype ID: fanny133002

On 9/2/15 6:31 PM, Alyssa Johl wrote:

All,

The co-facilitators have posted the attached table outlining two options for the general objective of the Paris Agreement in preparation for tomorrow’s negotiations (7-9 pm).  We know that the US, China and other major economies are very much in favor of Option II — we need your help in reaching out to Parties to make sure they understand why it’s critically important to maintain a longer, more inclusive objective section (Option I).

The Human Rights & Climate Change Working Group has prepared a short briefing note on the need for human rights in Section C (attached here).  Please feel free to share with your networks, and use these arguments as may be useful in reaching out to delegates.

If you schedule meetings w/ any delegates, please let me or Sebastien know if it’s possible for someone from the HR&CC working group to attend — we would be happy to join you.

Many thanks,
Alyssa

On 9/2/15 1:30 PM, Alyssa Johl wrote:

Dear all,

Many thanks for your participation in yesterday’s meeting and the consultations that have taken place since then.  Your efforts (and patience) are much appreciated!

Here is the FINAL paragraph for your review and sign-off on behalf of your respective constituencies/working groups.  Please let me know by tomorrow at 12 PM whether you will endorse this language as the core human rights paragraph to be included in the general/objective section.

All Parties shall, in all climate change related actions, respect, protect, promote, and fulfil human rights for all, including the rights of indigenous peoples; ensuring gender equality and the full and equal participation of women; ensuring intergenerational equity; ensuring a just transition of the workforce that creates decent work and quality jobs; ensuring food security; and ensuring the integrity and resilience of natural ecosystems.

Many thanks,
Alyssa

-- 
Alyssa Johl
Senior Attorney, Climate & Energy Program
Center for International Environmental Law
1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC  20036
Office: +1-202-742-5856
Skype: alyssajohl

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

Volume 12 Number 642 | Thursday, 3 September 2015


Bonn Highlights

Wednesday, 2 September 2015 | Bonn, Germany


Languages: EN (HTML/PDF) FR (HTML/PDF) AR (HTML/PDF) JA (HTML/PDF)
Visit our IISD/ENB Meeting Coverage from Bonn, Germany at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/unfccc/adp2-10/

.

————————————————————————

.

ENB: Bonn Highlights

Browser Version

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

.

———————————————————————-

.

World Bank Live Event Climate Action: A Conversation with Rachel Kyte on the Need for a Strong Climate Deal in Paris – September 2, 9-10a.m. EDT

Dear Friends and Colleagues,
 
A “World Bank Live” online live-streamed conversation on COP 21, the need for a strong climate deal looking to the future, may be of special interest to our members working on climate change issues.
 
 
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UNSD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Co-Coordinators with Tiahoga Ruge, Jim Taylor, Tich Pesanayi, Suzana Padua, Kavita Myles, Fumi Kikuyama
__________________
Dr. P. J. Puntenney
Environmental & Human Systems Management
1989 West Liberty
 Ann Arbor, MI  48103  USA
Cell: +1-(734) 352•7429
Landline: +1-(734) 994•3612

~~~~~~

Dear Friends,
Next week we will host a World Bank Live conversation with Vice President and Special Envoy Rachel Kyte on the need for a strong climate deal in Paris and how we can get to a zero carbon future. The conversation will be moderated by Kalee Kreider, Science Policy Advisor, United Nations Foundation.
The event will be live streamed and we would be delighted if you could join us online at 9am EDT Wednesday, September 2, 2015.
Warm Regards,
Annika
 
Featuring: Rachel Kyte, Vice President and Special Envoy for Climate Change, World Bank Group
 
Moderator: Kalee Kreider, Science Policy Advisor, United Nations Foundation
 
Wednesday, September 2, 2015 |9:00am – 10:00am EDT | live.worldbank.org
In just three months from now, climate negotiators from around the globe will be in Paris with the aim of finalizing a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and so begin slowing the impacts of climate change. A key question now is what would make a meaningful deal in Paris that would see the world on track to achieve net zero emissions before 2100. During this event, Rachel Kyte will discuss what we should be looking for in a climate deal and how we can get to a zero carbon future.

————————————————–
Annika Östman
Communications Officer
T: 
+ 1-202-458-5877
M: 
+ 1-202-471-0867
www.worldbank.org/climate
1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 USA

.

———————————————————————————–

.

ENB: Bonn Climate Change Conference – Aug. 31-September 4

Browser Version

.

Video Series – Paris Knowledge Bridge: Unpacking International Climate Governance

Browser Version

.

Regional 3R (reduce, reuse, recyle) Forum Bulletin – Vol. 209 No. 2 – 6th Regional 3R Forum in Asia and the Pacific – Final Summary

   Browser Version

.

Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Climate Change Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Linkages Updates

 Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development & Practice

Browser Version.

.

ENB – 7th and 8th Sessions of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

IISD: Climate Change News

 Browser Version

——————————–

.

@IISDRS Summary & Analysis from the #OEWG 36 to the #MontrealProtocol

36th Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

20-24 July 2015 | United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) headquarters, Paris, France
The thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG 36) of the parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (MP) convened in Paris, France, from 20-24 July 2015. Over 440 delegates representing governments, UN agencies, MP expert panels and committees, non-governmental organizations and industry attended.
At OEWG 36, delegates considered a number of issues, including, inter alia: the 2014 quadrennial assessment reports of the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP), the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP); the 2015 progress report of the TEAP; the nominations for essential-use exemptions (EUEs) and critical-use exemptions (CUEs); alternatives to ozone depleting substances (ODS); and the outcomes of the intersessional informal discussions on the feasibility and ways of managing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). OEWG 36 also considered four proposals to amend the Protocol to address HFCs: the first by the US, Canada and Mexico; the second by India; the third by the European Union (EU) and its 28 Member States; and the fourth by the Island States”ŖKiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Palau, the Philippines, Samoa and Solomon Islands.
As the week started, delegates moved swiftly through the agenda items so that the bulk of the time would be available to discuss the proposed amendments. Although clear divisions remained, and despite negotiations in the informal group on the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs running late into the evening on Thursday and Friday without reaching agreement, delegates were still able to hold substantive discussions on the amendment proposals in order to clarify aspects of each proposal. Delegates did agree to hold an additional session of OEWG 36 prior to MOP 27, in order to conclude discussions in the informal group.
The  Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
 
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF OEWG 36
LE TOUR DӮOZONE
Life is like riding a bicycle”Ŗin order to keep your balance, you must keep moving. ØC Albert Einstein
SOLID START ØC FIRST OUT THE GATE
OEWG delegates convened in Paris, the city awaiting the arrival of the most famous bicycle race in the world, the Tour de France, at a milestone in ozone history. 2015 marks the 30th anniversary of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer”Ŗone round of ”°le tour d”Æozone,”± so to speak. With 197 parties who have ratified the Vienna Convention, its Montreal Protocol and subsequent amendments, amounting to universal ratification makes it the most broadly ratified and implemented multilateral environmental agreement. The Montreal Protocol has successfully reduced ozone depleting substances, starting with CFCs and halons, then carbon tetrachloride and methyl bromide, followed by HCFCs, the phase-out of which is still underway. This year marked further milestones, as no essential-use exemptions for metered dose inhalers were received and the number of critical-use exemptions declined.
At this OEWG session, the Scientific Assessment Panel underscored that the Montreal Protocol has gone the long, steady distance since its start: ODS are declining and the ozone layer is continuing to heal; but challenges remain such as a rapid increase in HFCs that have been used as a replacement substance, some of which have a high global warming potential. These are words that ring loudly in Paris, a city gearing up for the upcoming crucial climate change conference starting on 30 November 2015. The building momentum and pressure could also be felt at this meeting, with many eyes on the Montreal ProtocolӮs next time trial addressing HFCs, whose finish could contribute to addressing the climate change challenge.
OEWG 36 spent much of its time focusing on moving the discussion on HFCs management forward. It was the first time substantive, rather than just procedural, discussions on aspects of the amendments had been held in a formal setting. There were also informal discussions to try and establish terms of reference for a contact group to continue this discussion. Both of these discussions hoped to build on the sound footing of the Protocol, buoyed by its previous successes. This brief analysis looks at the discussions on the HFC amendments in the context of the history of the ozone regime, and assesses whether its history of success will ultimately help the current peloton of delegates move the Montreal Protocol into its next stage.
THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGING TIMES IN A MULTI-STAGE RACE
The Vienna Convention itself has weathered changing times. In the first half of its life, it saw the negotiation of the Montreal Protocol followed by four amendments, including the pivotal London (1990) and Copenhagen (1992) amendments and adjustments focusing on CFCs and HCFCs respectively”Ŗthe early stages of the multi-stage ”°tour d”Æozone.”±
A future HFC amendment could be compared to those in order of magnitude. All previous amendments were negotiated over a relatively brief period of time by many of the same negotiators who brought the Protocol into being. Compelling scientific evidence, such as the 1988 Ozone Trends Panel Report, surely played an important role in propelling parties into action, even when some replacement technologies were not yet available.
Similarly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/TEAP special report on safeguarding the ozone layer and global climate system, which was part of the Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC that won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, was the first to spark broader awareness about the chemical and radiative effects of HFCs. The report pointed to the complex two-way interactions between stratospheric ozone and climate and also sparked concern about HFCs, which by then had been deployed as a replacement substance for HCFCs under the Montreal Protocol. Arguably the Protocol is not only in the best position to deal with a phase-down of HFCs with high GWP, but also has a responsibility to be actively involved in this process since it played a role in increasing the use of HFCs in the first place.
The question that remains is how to move to the next stage, namely addressing HFCs.
With the last amendment having been negotiated over 15 years ago, many delegations have not retained the institutional memory of negotiating amendments that could help guide parties through this difficult terrain. But as some delegates pointed out what parties have now is an institutional memory and experience of implementation. Notably, countries have the experience of what worked and what was missing from previous amendments and their implementation, most notably with issues of financing, technology transfer and IPRs.
Another concern that came to the fore was how a number of Article 5 countries felt rushed in the previous amendment negotiations. A seasoned delegate was heard commenting that due to this perception, a number of parties felt like they may have lost out in the process, suggesting that this included not having Article 5 countriesӮ financial concerns fully addressed. This might underlie some of the anxieties of parties about undergoing another round of Montreal Protocol amendment negotiations and the call to have their concerns addressed first before considering amendment proposals. It might also explain the mistrust by some delegations who questioned certain proponentsӮ assurances that issues critical to other parties, such as full funding for conversions and providing for exemptions where viable alternatives are not yet widely available on the market at a reasonable price, will be adequately dealt with in the upcoming negotiations.
This anxiety and mistrust could be noted in the informal discussions about how to address HFCs, with much time being spent on discussing and listing concerns, which some delegations insisted had to be addressed first before considering amendment proposals. Others, however, said that they did not share these concerns and expressed confidence that any and all issues could be raised within a contact group.
Many delegates pointed to the lead role that the Montreal Protocol can take by addressing HFCs. HFCs are not ODS but rather greenhouse gases, many with high global warming potential. There is growing agreement among delegates that the Montreal Protocol is best positioned to address the increase in HFCs due in large part to its use as a replacement substance. Many delegates noted that no other convention has the infrastructure to address the issue and that the Montreal Protocol is best positioned to address the challenge having sound footing and processes for replacing substances, and providing funding for transition in Article 5 countries through the Multilateral Fund, that have been built and strengthened over the decades and that other conventions simply do not have.
TAKING ANOTHER TURN
Many viewed it as an achievement that OEWG 36 held a substantive exchange on the amendment proposals to air some of the prevailing concerns and issues. Parties were able to query proponents and seek clarifications about the proposals and thereby prepare themselves for future negotiations. This was achieved by separating the discussion about the mandate for a contact group, which proceeded in informal consultations and reported regularly to plenary and, on the other hand, having a separate agenda item on the amendment proposals, which were discussed in detail in plenary, component by component, over the better part of three daysØDsomething never before done in either the OEWG or the MOP.
Most delegates welcomed that there are now four proposals that have been submitted by about 40 parties. This in itself was seen by many as evidence of a growing momentum in favor of an HFC amendment. Generally, there seems to be a growing consensus that HFCs should be addressed under the Montreal Protocol, with parties acknowledging this in substantive discussions in plenary and getting close to agreement on a process going forward.
Delegates also recognized that the four HFC amendment proposals currently on the table also differ significantly but, as one delegate noted, there is opportunity in this diversity, with delegates now able to pick and choose components from each so that they can create an amendment that balances partiesӮ different concerns. Among the critical issues that need to be worked out are the baselines and timelines for an HFC phase-down. As some Article 5 countries pointed out, the HCFC phase-out in non-Article 5 countries is almost complete, while they themselves are still in the midst of it. One delegate was heard pointing to the fear of Article 5 countries carrying a double burden as another reason for resistance to quick timelines. Some parties were concerned that overlapping phase-downs of HCFCs and HFCs could place undue pressure on their industries and negatively affect national economic growth.
Building on these first substantive discussions, now might be the moment in time for the Montreal Protocol to reassert its role and responsibility in the interplay between safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system. It will remain to be seen if delegates can use the momentum offered by the concern over climate change to speed up the tour dӮozone and set the agenda for the next 30 years to come.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Kate Louw, Keith Ripley and Nicole Schabus. The Digital Editor is Mike Muzurakis. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James ”°Kimo”± Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Union, the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2015 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for the coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Ozone Secretariat. Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Quئbec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
.
.
—————————————————————————————————
.

Where: NYC through August

@IISDRS Coverage of #FFD3

     3rd International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3)

13-16 July 2015 | United Nations Conference Centre (UNCC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
 

The third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3) will be held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 13-16 July 2015.

FfD3 is mandated by the General Assembly, in resolutions 68/204 and 68/279, to focus on, inter alia: assessing progress in the implementation of the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Declaration; addressing new and emerging issues; and reinvigorating and strengthening the financing for development follow-up process. High-level political representatives, including Heads of State and Government, and Ministers of Finance, Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation, as well as all relevant institutional stakeholders, non-governmental organizations and business sector entities are expected to attend FfD3.

The Conference will result in a negotiated and agreed outcome, which should constitute an important contribution to the implementation of the post-2015 development agenda. Three formal drafting sessions and a number of informal sessions have already taken place at the UN Headquarters in New York, since January 2015, to draft the outcome document.

IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, will provide daily digital coverage, daily reports and a summary and analysis report from the 3rd International Conference on Financing for Development. Kindly return to this site on Monday, 13 July 2015, for more information.

Daily and Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/ffd/ffd3/
Specific funding for coverage of FfD3
has been provided by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the European Union.
IISD Reporting Services is grateful to the many donors of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and recognizes the following as core contributors to the ENB: the European Union, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, SWAN International, Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French is provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD).
.

———————————————————————–

.

IISD: Climate Change Daily Feed Climate Change Policy & Practice

Browser Version

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————-

.

@IISDRS Coverage of #OEWG36 to the #MontrealProtocol

36th Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol

20-24 July 2015 | United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO) headquarters, Paris, France
The thirty-sixth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG-36) of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer will be held from 20-24 July 2015 in Paris, France.
The OEWG is expected to consider, inter alia: issues related to exemptions under Article 2 of the Protocol, including nominations for essential-use exemptions for 2016 and nominations for critical-use exemptions for 2016 and 2017; the 2014 quadrennial assessment reports of the Scientific Assessment Panel, the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP); the 2015 TEAP progress report; and issues related to ozone-depleting substances.
Parties will also hear on issues related to the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and measures to facilitate the monitoring of trade in HCFCs and substituting substances. They will also take up the outcome of the intersessional informal discussions on the feasibility and ways of managing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and the proposed amendments to the Protocol.
IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, will provide daily digital coverage and a summary and analysis report from the 36th Meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Kindly return to this site on Monday, 20 July 2015, for more information.
Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/ozone/oewg36/
Specific funding for coverage of 36th Meeting of the OEWG to the Montreal Protocol
has been provided by the Ozone Secretariat and the European Union.
IISD Reporting Services is grateful to the many donors of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and recognizes the following as core contributors to the ENB: the European Union, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, SWAN International, Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French is provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD).
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: NYC except for 8-23 July Colorado (cycling)

Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged
and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.

.

———————————————————————

.

@IISDRS Coverage of the 7th and 8th Sessions of the #Post2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations

7th and 8th Sessions of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations
(Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Outcome Document)

20-24 and 27-31 July 2015 | UN Headquarters, New York

 

In September 2000, world leaders at the Millennium Summit issued the Millennium Declaration, calling for a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty. Following this event, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were elaborated based on consultations among representatives of international institutions. The UN Secretary-General presented the MDGs to the UN General Assembly in 2001. UN Member States recommended the MDGs be used as a guide to implement the Millennium Declaration, and set a deadline of 2015 for their achievement.
The UN is now making preparations for what will succeed the MDGs, referred to broadly as the ‘post-2015 development agenda.’ This global agenda currently comprises several elements: a preamble; a declaration; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets, and indicators; means of implementation (MOI) and a new global partnership; and a framework for follow-up and review of implementation.
This two-week span of discussions in July will be the seventh and eighth in the series of negotiations leading to the anticipated adoption of the post-2015 development agenda. UN General Assembly resolution 69/244, adopted on 29 December 2014, called for the UN Summit on the Post-2015 Development Agenda to take place from 25-27 September 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York. Discussions at the July sessions will focus on finalizing the ‘Zero draft of the outcome document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda.’
Previous intergovernmental negotiations focused on: stocktaking (19-21 January 2015); text of the declaration (17-20 February 2015); SDGs, targets and indicators (23-27 March); means of implementation (MOI) and the global partnership for sustainable development (21-24 April); and follow-up and review (18-22 May). The sixth session in this series (22-25 June) focused on the zero draft of the post-2015 agenda, which currently includes three annexes: Annex 1 on proposed target revisions; Annex 2 on food for thought regarding a possible Technology Facilitation Mechanism; and Annex 3 on an introduction of the Open Working Group Proposal for the SDGs and targets.
IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, will produce daily web updates and a summary and analysis from the 7th and 8th Sessions of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations (Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Outcome Document). Kindly return to this website on Monday, 20 July 2015, for more information.
Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/post2015/in7-8/
Specific funding for coverage of 7th and 8th Sessions of the Post-2015 Negotiations
has been provided by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the European Union.

IISD Reporting Services is grateful to the many donors of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and recognizes the following as core contributors to the ENB: the European Union, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, SWAN International, Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French is provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD).

Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: NYC except for 8-23 July Colorado (cycling)

Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged
and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.

.

————————————————————————

.

ENB – 2015 Meeting of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Appended is the summary and analysis of the June 26 – July 8, 2015 meeting of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.  As you will find in the text very diverse stakeholders handprints throughout shaping a very forward guide to the future we want to create.  Note the emphasis on participation, engaging society at all levels – putting people first, and more.  The mandates for environmental education are transformative twenty-first century frameworks leading to effective MOI.  Thank you Kimo Goree VI, founder of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and Director of IISD [International Institute for Sustainable Development], and and your excellent editors and reporting team.  And especially thank you for keeping us updated and functioning as an informed community of stakeholders.  Invaluable, priceless.
All the best,
Pam Puntenney and Bremley Lyngdoh
UN SD Education Caucus Co-Chairs
Climate Change Co-Coordinators

.

——————————————————————–

.

[recovery_human_face] World Bank/ILO: Universal Social Protection

 Subject: [recovery_human_face] World Bank/ILO: Universal Social Protection

  “recoveryhumanface@socpro.list.ilo.org

Today the World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim and ILO Director General Guy Ryder have launched a global initiative calling on world leaders to promote universal social protection.

http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/who-we-are/ilo-director-general/statements-and-speeches/WCMS_378984/lang--en/index.htm

 

JOINT STATEMENT BY WORLD BANK GROUP PRESIDENT JIM YONG KIM  AND ILO DIRECTOR GENERAL GUY RYDER 

Launch of the World Bank Group and ILO Universal Social Protection Initiative, calling the attention of world leaders to the importance of universal social protection policies and financing

            A joint mission and plan of action: Universal social protection to ensure that no one is left behind

The World Bank Group and the ILO share a vision of social protection for all, a world where anyone who needs social protection can access it at any time. The new development agenda that is being defined by the world community, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), provides an unparalleled opportunity for our two institutions to join forces to make universal social protection a reality, for everyone, everywhere.

Universal coverage and access to social protection are central to ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity, the World Bank Group’s twin goals by 2030. Universal social protection coverage is at the core of the ILO’s mandate, guided by its standards including the Social Protection Floors Recommendation, No. 202, adopted by 185 states in 2012.

For the World Bank Group and the ILO, universal social protection refers to the integrated set of policies designed to ensure income security and support to all people across the life cycle – paying particular attention to the poor and the vulnerable.  Anyone who needs social protection should be able to access it.

Universal social protection includes: adequate cash transfers for all who need them, especially  children; benefits and support for people of working age in case of maternity, disability, work injury or for those without jobs; and pensions for all older persons. This protection can be provided through social insurance, tax-funded social benefits, social assistance services, public works programs and other schemes guaranteeing basic income security.

Universal social protection is a goal that we, the World Bank Group and the ILO, strive to help countries deliver. Social protection systems that are well-designed and implemented can powerfully shape countries, enhance human capital and productivity, eradicate poverty, reduce inequalities and contribute to building social peace. They are an essential part of National Development Strategies to achieve inclusive growth and sustainable development with equitable social outcomes.

We are proud to endorse the consensus that has emerged in the early 21st century that social protection is a primary development tool and priority.

Since the 2000s, universality has re-entered the development agenda. First it was education: universal primary education became a Millennium Development Goal in 2000. In 2012, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution endorsing universal health coverage. Now it is time for universal social protection.

The African Union, ASEAN, the European Commission, G20, OECD and the United Nations have all endorsed universal social protection.

Now, it is time to join forces to make it happen.

Universal Social Protection in the Post 2015 Development Agenda

Beginning in 2016, the world will begin the pursuit of an ambitious new development agenda, under the auspices of the United Nations: the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Social protection systems, including social protection floors, figure prominently among the SDGs:

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere

1.3 Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and vulnerable

Social protection policies also feature in goals to achieve gender equality and to reduce income inequality.

Our joint vision reinforces this universal aspiration, to be applicable to all countries regardless of income level.  Now is it time to ensure that the international community has the means to make this vision a reality.

A joint programme of action to increase the number of countries adopting Universal Social Protection

Our shared objective is to increase the number of countries that provide universal social protection, supporting countries to design and implement universal and sustainable social protection systems. There are many paths towards universal social protection. It belongs to each country to choose its own, and to opt for the means and methods that best suit its circumstances.

Many countries have embarked on expanding social protection coverage and are reporting significant progress. Yet, the vast majority of the world’s population is still far from enjoying adequate protection. It is time to take determined and innovative steps to trigger change on a larger scale.

READ the Concept note: The World Bank Group and ILO Universal Social Protection Initiative

http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/social-security/WCMS_378991/lang–en/index.htm

 Please share your inputs by e-mailing: recoveryhumanface@socpro.list.ilo.org. To see all messages http://www.recoveryhumanface.org/.  This e-discussion is intended to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and ideas; the views expressed by contributors do not reflect the policies of ILO. The discussion is moderated by Isabel Ortiz, contact at ortizi@ilo.org.

Subscribe ¦ Unsubscribe

.

——————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————-

.

@IISDRS Summary & Analysis from the 6th Intergovernmental Negotiation on #Post2015 Dev Agenda

6th Session of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations
(Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Outcome Document)
 
22-25 June 2015 | UN Headquarters, New York
The sixth session of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda took place from 22-25 June 2015, at UN Headquarters in New York. The session enabled delegations to provide their reactions to the “Zero draft of the outcome document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda,” which was distributed earlier in the month by Co-Facilitators David Donoghue, Permanent Representative of Ireland, and Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya.
During the session, participants commented and provided amendments on each of the sections of the draft, which included sections titled: Preamble, Declaration, Sustainable Development Goals and targets, Means of implementation and the Global Partnership, and Follow-up and review. On Wednesday morning, Major Groups and other stakeholders presented their priorities and suggested amendments to the text. Governments commended the Co-Facilitators for their work on the zero draft, which they said provided an excellent basis for negotiations.
In concluding the session, the Co-Facilitators noted that they would distill what they heard and produce a final zero draft within a couple of weeks, ahead of the last, two-week leg of the negotiation process, which will begin on 20 July 2015. They expressed confidence that “we will achieve our goal” of concluding negotiations on the outcome document for the UN Summit on schedule by 31 July.
The Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
 
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MEETING
“You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.”
– Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
The post-2015 negotiations have entered into their final phase. With the process nearing its end, the sixth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiations gave delegations the opportunity to comment on the zero draft of the outcome document and set the stage for the last, two-week session in July. Is there time for everyone to get what they want in the UN’s development agenda for the next 15 years?
While at times during the four-day meeting it appeared as though battle lines were being drawn and that the outcome may result in winners and losers, as Co-Facilitator Macharia Kamau commented in closing the meeting, the differences may not be insurmountable, “if we don’t overcomplicate the process.” In fact, the overall mood in the room suggested that negotiators may want to avoid a zero-sum game and instead aspire to a “win-win” outcome―a situation where each player benefits, and not necessarily through someone else’s loss. Such an outcome could best capture the vision of the “paradigm shift” aimed for in the post-2015 development agenda, which is sought as a transformation from a competition over limited resources―financial, human and planetary―to a collaboration to ensure that everyone in every country can live “well enough,” both now and in future generations.
This brief analysis will examine the current state of the negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda and the possible path to a win-win scenario.
 
AVOIDING A ZERO-SUM GAME
In the context of the June negotiating session, as governments presented their positions on the zero draft, several North-South fault lines emerged that could set the stage for an outcome with winners and losers. Many of these issues are well-known sticking points in sustainable development negotiations, while some are unique to the post-2015 development agenda negotiation process. Delegates’ and the Co-Facilitators’ ability to navigate the discussions on the following issues and to manage the trade-offs will contribute to whether the final session will follow a problem solving or competitive process.
Common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR): Throughout the process of developing the SDGs and crafting the elements of the post-2015 agenda, developing countries have called for explicit references to the CBDR principle, while developed countries have argued that this principle should not be singled out from the other Rio Principles, and some have insisted that CBDR is an environmental concept with no place in a holistic development agenda.
However, during the June session, a more intellectual debate on CBDR took place, led by India, who explained in detail that the principle of differentiation does not contradict the notion of a universal agenda, and that it does not imply inaction by some. Developing countries also stressed that the economic divide persists, despite the emergence of large economies in the developing world, which means differentiation of responsibilities remains relevant. Japan and others continued to note that some developing countries now have higher per capita incomes than some developed countries, and some countries that were “developing” 20 years ago are now developed. They cite the expected continuation of this trend as a further reason to move away from differentiation of responsibilities and toward “shared responsibility” as a principle for implementing the new agenda.
People under foreign occupation: The State of Palestine, supported by the Arab Group and other developing countries, argued that if this agenda seeks to leave no one behind, people and states under foreign occupation cannot be left behind and, therefore, warrant an explicit mention in the outcome document. Israel, however, argued that they have no intention of excluding any Member State, such as Palestine, from the post-2015 process and called to put an end to the politicization of the process, which “occupies so much of our time.”
 
Status of the preamble: While this fault line is not as deep as the previous two, developing countries uniformly called for deletion of the zero draft’s preamble. They argued that, by identifying nine achievements sought for through the post-2015 development agenda, the preamble would highlight some goals over others and undermine the indivisibility of the agenda. Developed countries, on the other hand, argued that the preamble is important to be able to communicate the post-2015 development agenda to the general public. At the heart of this debate is the concern of some developing countries about reducing the perceived scope of the agenda in the part of the text that will effectively reach the public and national governments, which could reduce attention and support for the rest of the goal set. This debate is similar to the OWG’s discussion about the ideal number of SDGs, and whether the goals should be comprehensive and reflect the full complexity of a sustainable development agenda with poverty eradication at its core, or whether the goals should be prioritized to achieve a more digestible number.
 
The OWG outcome document: In the zero draft, the Co-Facilitators included the SDGs and targets from the OWG’s report, but placed the 18-paragraph introduction, or chapeau, in an annex and did not include the reservations that were stated during the closing OWG plenary in July 2014 and are contained in the OWG’s report (A/68/970). Developing countries felt very strongly that the OWG’s report needs to be placed in the post-2015 outcome in its entirety, including the chapeau and reservations, suggesting that these two sections capture important views. Developed countries preferred to leave these two sections of the OWG’s report out of the outcome, arguing that the declaration will cover the need for the OWG chapeau, while Heads of State or Government cannot adopt or sign off on other states’ reservations.
Technical Revision of the Targets: Another divide emerged over the technical “tweaking” to the targets. In May, the Co-Facilitators proposed amendments to 21 of the 169 targets, in order to remove the “Xs” that had been left in the OWG report and ensure that the targets were aligned with existing international agreements. Many developed countries welcomed the technical amendments and supported their incorporation in the text. A number of developing countries, however, warned that opening the targets to amendment would risk unravelling the entire goal and target set, since it had been adopted as a package. To complicate matters, some countries supported some of the technical amendments and not others (such complex humanitarian emergencies in targets 1.5 and 11.5, and UNCLOS in 14.c) so this was not completely an “all-or-nothing” debate.
Means of Implementation: Given that the FfD3 outcome document had not yet been adopted when the session concluded on 25 June, there was still not much clarity on the MOI chapter of the zero draft. Developed countries thought that the FfD3 outcome should serve as the MOI for the post-2015 agenda. But developing countries argued that it was not sufficient for that purpose, and would only serve as a complement to the post-2015 MOI, which must still be discussed. There was also some disagreement on follow-up and review of the MOI. Whereas the EU and other developed countries such as Switzerland or Japan called for an integrated monitoring and follow-up of the FfD3 and post-2015 outcomes, some developing countries called for two separate follow-up mechanisms, or suggested that the FfD3 follow-up and review mechanism should feed into the overall post-2015 follow-up and review mechanism.
Many of these fault lines could end up becoming fodder for trade-offs in the last stage of the negotiating process. The Co-Facilitators have as much as implied that avoiding a zero-sum game on some of these entrenched North-South fault lines may still be possible, with creative solutions and a shared interest in a win-win outcome. It remains to be seen, however, how delegates will be able to work together to adopt a transformative agenda in July.
 
MOVING TOWARDS A WIN-WIN OUTCOME
One could argue that the optimal outcome in any negotiating process is an agreement that everyone can support, or at least “live with.” In fact, this is one of the underlying principles of consensus-based decision making. The post-2015 negotiations, like the OWG negotiations before them, can be visualized as a collaborative game where all players try to carry a huge “earth ball” several meters in diameter over their heads while negotiating an obstacle course. In a game such as this everyone either loses (drops the ball because they do not work together) or wins by achieving their collective goal. In this game, all players are involved, no one is left behind and the game works on many levels by improving communication, cooperation, and capacity building.
One technique for consensus-based decision making is for parties to ask each other “why” they have certain needs, because in identifying the needs underlying positions, alternative ways to meet those needs may be found. By encouraging delegations to engage in a substantive discussion of the zero-draft, rather than a line-by-line wordsmithing, the Co-Facilitators wanted to create a space for just this kind of dialogue. In fact, the extensive conversation on CBDR during this session may have been productive for just this reason, by potentially lessening the emphasis on previously stated positions, and moving toward a shared understanding of the meaning of the principle.
Another technique for building consensus is to ensure everyone’s views are heard. Over the past six months, the post-2015 process has spent ample time on general conversations and statements. The dialogues with Major Groups and other stakeholders have also served to build a widespread sense of support for and investment in the post-2015 development agenda, even while the Co-Facilitators emphasized the intergovernmental nature of the process. A shared belief that everyone has played a part in crafting the outcome can generate a groundswell of support for the final outcome, even if all of their demands have not been met.
Both leadership and process are important factors that could ensure that no one drops the ball and the post-2015 negotiations reach a successful conclusion by 31 July. Leaders who understand the importance of timing, when to propose compromises and when to resort to innovative working methodologies are often able to build the necessary trust that can lead to a win-win, consensus outcome. Co-Facilitators Kamau and Donoghue have been trying to build the necessary trust to do just that.
With regard to process, as the Co-Facilitators noted, the dynamic of the post-2015 process is different from that of other processes, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The post-2015 agenda is not a legally binding instrument, they explained, but an expression of Member States’ intentions. Co-Facilitator Kamau underscored the need to manage the process in a similar way to the OWG, without falling into the potential trap of line-by-line wordsmithing. Avoiding line-by-line negotiations, and ensuring that the Co-Facilitators “hold onto the pen” as was the case in the OWG, may be conducive to reaching an agreement within the given timeframe.
To achieve a win-win outcome in the post-2015 development agenda, which will be adopted by Heads of State or Government in September and shape the sustainable development agenda for the next 15 years, Member States may have to reach a draw on the most divisive issues and take the battles to other fora. But some areas may allow for creative compromises that will be innovative and perhaps even groundbreaking in their implications.
What is clear is that only with good leadership, trust and a spirit of collaboration will the negotiations reach a successful conclusion on 31 July. Even though countries might not get everything they “want,” collectively it may be possible for this agenda to commit to more of what everyone needs.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>, Ana Maria Lebada, Faye Leone and Nathalie Risse, Ph.D. The Editor is Lynn Wagner, Ph.D. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Union, the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2015 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: NYC except for 30 June- 3 July Paris, 8-17 Colorado

.

—————————————————————–

.

Briefing Note on the Workshop on the Institutional Architecture for the Science-policy Interface on the SDGs

.

@IISDRS Coverage of the 6th Intergovernmental Negotiation on #Post2015 Dev Agenda

6th Session of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations
(Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Outcome Document)

22-25 June 2015 | UN Headquarters, New York

In September 2000, world leaders at the Millennium Summit called for a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty in the Millennium Declaration, following which the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were elaborated based on consultations among representatives of international institutions. The United Nations Secretary-General presented what are now called the MDGs to the UN General Assembly in 2001, at which point UN member states recommended that they should be used as a guide to implement the Millennium Declaration, with deadlines for accomplishing the goals set for 2015.

The United Nations is now making preparations for what will succeed the MDGs, referred to broadly as the “post-2015 development agenda.” Resolution 69/244, adopted on 29 December 2014, called for the UN Summit on the Post-2015 Development Agenda to take place from 25-27 September 2015, at UN Headquarters in New York. The process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, which is preparing for the UN Summit, began with a stocktaking session on 19-21 January 2015. The second session (17-20 February 2015) focused on the declaration; the third session (23-27 March) discussed the SDGs, targets and indicators; and the fourth session (21-24 April) examined means of implementation and the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. The 5th Session discussed follow up and review. Intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome will take place at the final sessions from 22-25 June, 21-24 July, and 27-31 July. The post-2015 development agenda will be adopted at a United Nations summit to be held from 25-27 September 2015, in New York and convened as a high-level plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly.

Negotiations at the June session will be based on the 43-page “Zero draft of the outcome document for the UN Summit to adopt the Post-2015 Development Agenda.” This document contains a 44-paragraph declaration, the SDGs and targets, Means of Implementation and the Global Partnership (containing placeholder language, pending the outcome of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development), and Follow-up and Review. The zero draft also has three annexes: Annex 1: Proposed Target revisions; Annex 2: Food for thought paper on a possible Technology Facilitation Mechanism; and Annex 3: Introduction of the Open Working Group Proposal for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets.

IISD Reporting Services, through its ENB Meeting Coverage, will provide daily web updates and a summary and analysis report from the 6th Session of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations (Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Outcome Document). Kindly return to this site on Monday, 22 June 2015, for more information.

Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/post2015/in6/
Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter
Specific funding for coverage of the 6th Session of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations
has been provided by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the European Union.
IISD Reporting Services is grateful to the many donors of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) and recognizes the following as core contributors to the ENB: the European Union, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, SWAN International, Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French is provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD).
 .

.——————————————————————

.

.

Vienna Energy Forum – Vienna Energy Forum 2015 – Final Summary

 http://www.iisd.ca/energy/vef/2015/html/enbplus93num13e.html

 

 

IISD: Climate Change

Browser Version

.

.

@IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #UNFCCC #SB42

Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015

1-11 June 2015 | Bonn, Germany

http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb42/enb/

.

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice [See UNICEF's highlight]

Browser Version.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

 Browser Version

.

——————————————————-

.

Climate Change Daily Feed – 11 June 2015 – IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version.

 

12th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

ENB – Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015 – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

ENB: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015 – Issue #7

Browser Version

GEF Council Bulletin – 48th meeting of the Global Environment Facility Council – Final Summary

Browser Version

Bonn Climate Change Conference

Volume 12 Number 633 | Saturday, 6 June 2015

Friday, 5 June 2015 | Bonn, Germany

Languages: EN (HTML/PDF) FR (HTML/PDF) AR (HTML/PDF) JA (HTML/PDF)

Visit our IISD/ENB Meeting Coverage from Bonn, Germany at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb42/

Climate Change

Browser Version

.

.

ENB – 3rd International Conference on Financing for Development – Issue #4

Browser Version

.

ENB – 2015 Meeting of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – Issue #5 

Browser Version

 

ENB – 2015 Meeting of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – Issue #4

Browser Version

 

ENB – 2015 Meeting of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – Issue #3

Browser Version

 

ENB – Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015 – Issue #1

 Browser Version

ENB – Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015 – Issue #5

Browser Version

.

—————————————————-

 .

.

Announcing @IISDRS Video on GHG Emissions Reductions and Fossil-Fuel Subsidy Reform: Measurement and Inclusion within #INDCs #fossilfuelsubsidyreform

Browser Version

 YOUTUBE   https://vimeo.com/129684234

.

.

————————————————————————

.

IISD: ENB on the Side – Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015

Dear Community of Educators,

Finance is being discussed and ideas generated.  The coverage of Workshop One highlights the process, about halfway down you will find the name Herman Sips [Netherlands] in the photo of the two facilitators on the left.  He has been Chairing the work on climate change finance recently, a person we should be talking with about financing Environmental Education as part of the Paris Agreement.
At the end is a photo opportunity with a 10 year old showing UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres who signed his banner.
All the best,

The Bonn Climate Change Team

Browser Version

.

 http://www.iisd.ca/

.

—————————————————————————–

.

ENB: @IISDRS Coverage of the #UNFCCC #SB42

Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015

1-11 June 2015 | Bonn, Germany

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Bonn Climate Change Conference will take place from 1-11 June 2015, in Bonn, Germany. The forty-second sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 42) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 42), and the ninth meeting of the second session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP 2-9) will convene.

ADP 2-9 will proceed on the basis of the agenda (ADP/2013/AGENDA) adopted at ADP 2-1, structured around workstream 1 (2015 agreement) and workstream 2 (pre-2020 ambition). Under workstream 1, the ADP is expected to discuss: mitigation; adaptation; finance, technology and capacity building (means of implementation); transparency; intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs); and other issues related to elements. Under workstream 2, Technical Expert Meetings (TEMs) will meet on the subject of renewable energy supply and accelerating energy efficiency action in urban environments.

The Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) will take up routine agenda items on: national reporting requirements; market and non-market mechanisms; technology transfer; adaptation; capacity building; least developed countries (LDCs); response measures; gender and climate change; agriculture; science and review; and methodological issues under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

IISD Reporting Services, through its Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) Meeting Coverage, will provide daily digital coverage, daily reports, and summary and analysis report from the Bonn Climate Change Conference – June 2015. Kindly return to this site on Monday, 1 June 2015, for more information.

Daily and Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/climate/sb42/
———————————————————————
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC except 5-20 June Blue Ridge Mountains, 21-25 Winnipeg & ELA, 26 Golden (NREL), 2-4 July Paris

————————————————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

Browser Version

.  

  Browser Version

.

Good News – Forum of Ministers & Environment Authorities Bulletin – Vol. 228 No. 2 – 1st Forum of Ministers and Environment Authorities of Asia Pacific – Final Summary

 

 Browser Version

.

.

Global Ocean Commission Bulletin – - 5th Plenary of the Global Ocean Commission – Final Summary

Browser Version

 

.

———————————————————————————

.

IISD: SDGs Bulletin – High-level Event on Follow-up and Review Mechanisms for Natural Resource Management and Governance to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals – Final Summary

Browser Version

————————————

.

Video Coverage in Bonn

Browser Version

.

Climate Change Policy & Practice - IISD Reporting Services

Browser Version

.

ENB – Meetings of the conferences of the parties to the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions – Issue #9

 Browser Version

.

ENB – Eleventh Session of the UN Forum on Forests – Issue #9

Browser Version

.

———————————-

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

.

Browser Version

  Browser Version

Browser Version

Browser Version

Browser Version

.

———————————————-

.

@IISDRS Coverage of the Follow-Up and Review Mechanisms for Natural Resources in the Post-2015 Development Agenda High-Level Event

International High-Level Event: 

Follow-Up and Review Mechanisms for Natural Resources in the Post-2015 Development Agenda
12-13 May 2015 | New York, US
A High-Level Event on “Follow-Up and Review Mechanisms for Natural Resource Management and Governance to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals” will take place in New York, US, from 12-13 May 2015. The event is being organized by the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Biovision Foundation, and Millennium Institute, and co-hosted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
This meeting will discuss options for a follow-up and review mechanism for the post-2015 development agenda. It will particularly focus on the management and governance of natural resources, and review of this management at the national, regional, and global levels.
The High-Level Event is expected to: bring together government negotiators and experts, UN representatives, and civil society; discuss options for the post-2015 review mechanism, focusing on natural resource management; consider the role of multi-stakeholder platforms in the follow-up to the SDGs; and produce a series of recommendations for negotiators of the post-2015 development agenda.
Funding for coverage of this meeting provided by IASS
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) –
United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: NYC except 7-14 May Switzerland (Geneva/Bern), 15-18 Hout Bay (cycling), 19-20 Addis Ababa, 21-22 Bangkok
Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged
and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the auth

.

————————————————————

.

IISD What We Do. Equity and Access to Knowledge

Browser Version.

Dear Community of Educators,

 
You have seen  many updates from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) as they cover various UN policy making meetings providing us with timely updates, no one else does such a service keeping us informed with key highlights, pictures, an understanding of what has happened with their summaries and policy analysis.  See the posting below to learn more.

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

   http://www.iisd.ca/about/what-we-do-at-iisd-reporting-services/

.

——————————————————————-

.

IISD: Climate Change Policy & Practice

 

Browser Version.

——————————————————————

.

Browser Version

———————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

IISD: @IISDRS Coverage of the KSA International Experts Workshop on #Carbon Management and its Implications

KSA International Experts Workshop on Carbon Management and its Implications

27-30 April 2015 | Khobar, Saudi Arabia

http://www.iisd.ca/climate/carbon/cmiw/

The KSA International Experts Workshop on Carbon Management and its Implications will take place from 27-30 April 2015 in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. The workshop will take place in two parts: the First Global Methane Initiative (GMI) Workshop and Exhibition in the Middle East will take place from 27-28 April; and the International Experts Workshop on the Adverse Social and Economic Impacts of Mitigation Measures, from 29-30 April.

The GMI Workshop and Exhibition is organized in partnership with the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Saudi Aramco, the GMI and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC).

During the event, participants will consider, inter alia: operational safety and energy security via methane emissions management; flare mitigation programme activities in Saudi Arabia; methane emissions and mitigation opportunities; methane emissions inventory experience in the middle east; and methane emissions detection and measurement techniques, equipment and costs. Case studies from Saudi Aramco, US and other countries will be presented, as well as oil and gas partner case studies.

IISD Reporting Services will provide daily web coverage and a summary report from the KSA International Experts Workshop on Carbon Management and its Implications. Kindly return to the site on Monday, 27 April 2015, for more information.

athttp://www.iisd.ca/climate/carbon/cmiw/.

Coverage of this meeting by IISD Reporting Services is funded by Saudi Aramco

.

—————————————————————————-

.

ENB: @IISDRS Coverage of #BRS #COPs2015

 Twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention (BC COP-12),
Seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (RC COP-7), and Seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention (SC COP-7)
“From Science to Action, Working for a Safer Tomorrow”

4-15 May 2015 | Geneva, Switzerland

The twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Basel Convention, seventh meeting of the COP to the Rotterdam Convention, and seventh meeting of the COP to the Stockholm Convention will convene back-to-back from 4 to 15 May 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland. The meetings will include joint sessions of the COPs on issues that are on the agendas of at least two of the three conventions, including technical assistance, financial resources and mechanisms, and programmes of work and budgets.
Substantive issues to be addressed during the meetings include, inter alia, the listing of new chemicals under the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, adoption of technical guidelines under the Basel Convention, and financial and technical support for implementation of all three conventions. A ‘Friends of the President’ group is expected to convene to work on compliance under the Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions.
IISD Reporting Services will provide daily web coverage, daily reports, and a summary and analysis from these meetings. Kindly return to this page on Monday, 4 May 2015, for more information.
Daily and Summary coverage will be available athttp://www.iisd.ca/chemical/cops/2015/
*Partial funding for IISD Reporting Services ENB coverage of the BRS COPs is provided by the BRS Secretariat and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management *
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC except 7-14 May Switzerland (Geneva/Bern), 15-18 South Africa, 19-20 Addis Ababa, 21-22 Bangkok

——————————————————————

.

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

.

“Soils – Global Stage” IISD: Global Soil Week 2015 – Final Summary

Browser Version

.

ENB: – 16th Meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea – Summary & Analysis

 Browser Version

.

——————————————————-

.

IISD:  Linkages Updates

WM gsw_2015

Browser Version

Sign up

.

.——————————————–

.

IISD: Climate Change Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

.

———————————————————-

.

WM Post Diggest

IISD: Check This Resource Out – Post-2015 Digest

ISSUE #119

The Post-2015 Digest provides a weekly compilation of news, opinion, reports, and events on the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals and related processes.

Connect with us:      www.irf2015.org

 

REPORTS AND PROPOSALS

Manuel F. Montes (South Centre): Financing for Development Conference 2015: Views from the Global South. This briefing identifies six areas in which institutional progress is essential for the Global South: 1) mobilizing domestic resources for development; 2) further developing domestic financial sectors; 3) the role of international trade as an engine for development; 4) increasing international financial and technical cooperation; 5) reducing the burden of external debt; and 6) enhancing the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems.

Alex Evans and the NYU Center on International Cooperation: FFD Summit Strategy Note. Evans provides recommendations for the Addis Ababa outcome. He makes suggestions to reduce risks from current weaknesses in the agenda-setting process. These include: building consensus on what the Addis Outcome might look like, energizing agenda setters (including specific governments, as well as business and civil society), and using the resulting political momentum to generate a sense of opportunity around Addis.  

Note by the UN Secretary-General on “Coherence, coordination and cooperation in the context of financing for sustainable development and the post-2015 development agenda” (E/2015/52). This note prepared for the special high-level meeting of ECOSOC with Bretton Woods institutions, the WTO and UNCTAD discusses the following themes: world economic situation and prospects; challenges and opportunities for mobilization of financial resources and their use for sustainable development; a renewed global partnership for development; and follow-up to enhance the role of ECOSOC (see events section for further details).

Transparency, Accountability and Participation (TAP) Network: Catalyzing  inclusive and transformative Financing for Development. This brief proposes six recommendations for inclusion in the Addis Outcome Document: 1) full transparency of revenues, allocation, data/statistics and spending at all levels; 2) inclusive and meaningful public participation at all stages of the process; 3) a common standard for reporting and a global and national tracking system; 4) effective and accountable institutions to prevent illicit flows; 5) reduction of corruption and bribery in all forms; and 6) investment to equip citizens, legislators and others to understand and use financial and development data effectively.

Alexander Müller, Jes Weigelt, Ariane Götz, Oscar Schmidt, Ivonne Lobos Alva, Ira Matuschke, Ulrike Ehling, and Tim Beringer: The Role of Biomass in the Sustainable Development Goals: A Reality Check and Governance Implications. This analysis looks at what the SDGs imply for demand on and for food, feed, biomaterials, bioenergy, and consumption and how this impacts governance questions for the SDGs. It recommends, among other things, a close review of the safeguards and frameworks that could apply to governance implications of the SDGs, building on or reinforcing good policies, and ensuring a strong monitoring and review framework.

European Commission: Communication on A Global Partnership for Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development after 2015. The EU Communication, which will serve as a basis for negotiating positions in both the post-2015 and Addis agreements outlines ‘key components’ of the post-2015 means of implementation and mechanisms for review and monitoring. Means of implementation addressed include the enabling policy environment, capacity building, domestic and international public finance, trade, science, technology and innovation, the private sector, and migration. The communique also emphasizes the need for a strong review mechanism, with roles for civil society, regional groupings, as well as the High Level Political Forum.

Alvin K. Leong (Pace University School of Law): CBDR in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. This article analyzes CBDR in the context of the intergovernmental decisions underpinning the Post-2015 Development Agenda. It proposes that CBDR be contextualized by “different national circumstances,” which may change over time, rather than solely as an environmental concept. Leong proposes that this shift could help to transcend the North-South divide in current CBDR discussions.

RECENT CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS

Fourth Session of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations. This round of negotiations took place 21-24 April 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York, on the focusing on Means of Implementation and a Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. Coverage by IISD is available here

Cartagena Data Festival. This festival organized by ODI, Africa Gathering, CEPEI, Data-Pop Alliance, PARIS21, UNDP and UNFPA from 20-22 April 2015 in Cartagena, Colombia, focused on solving critical gaps in coverage, access and analysis of data, thereby contributing to the global effort to drive progress in the post-2015 agenda.

ECOSOC Special high-level meeting with the World Bank, IMF, WTO and UNCTAD. This meeting was held 20-21 April 21 at UN Headquarters in New York on the theme Coherence, coordination and cooperation in the context of financing for sustainable development and the post-2015 development agenda”.

Conference on ‘Measuring Sustainable Development: How Can Science Contribute to Realizing the SDGs?’This event organized by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the UN University (UNU) 23-24 April 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York discussed indicators and monitoring, assessment and evaluation, synergies and ownership in the post-2015 agenda.

 

NEWS AND BLOGS

Saleemul Huq (IIED) on IRF2015.org. “2015: A critical year for the Least Developed Countries.”

Alex Evans (NYU-CIC) on Global Dashboard. “How to make the Addis Financing For Development summit a success.”

Beyond 2015 video. “Amina Mohammed says SDGs aim to leave no-one behind.”

Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva (Oxfam) on From Poverty to Power. “Is a Data Revolution under way, and if so, who will benefit?

Lauren Barredo (SDSN) in the UN Chronicle. “The SDGs and a Healthier 2030.”

Marina Ponti on Social Watch. “Has the time come for a legally binding framework to ensure that private sector’s activities contribute to (and not undermine) sustainable development?

WRI is a member of the IRF2015 — a collaboration of 11 international research institutions providing critical thinking, integrated analysis and awareness raising for a post-2015 development agenda. Further work can be found on www.IRF2015.org and all 11 partner websites.

We welcome submissions of any materials for this digest that you would like to see included during the week. Please e-mail Sonya Suter (sonya.suter@wri.org) with suggested items to post, questions or comments. To subscribe to this weekly digest, along with other WRI newsletters, please visit this sign-up page on WRI’s website.

Connect with us:          

.

———————————————————————

.

ENB: @IISDRS Summary & Analysis from the 4th Intergovernmental Negotiation on #Post2015 Dev Agenda

Fourth Session of the Post-2015 Intergovernmental Negotiations
(Means of Implementation and Global Partnership for Sustainable Development)

21-24 April 2015 | UN Headquarters, New York
The fourth session of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda took place from 21-24 April 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York. The session convened as a joint meeting with the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3) process, and was co-chaired by the Co-Facilitators for the post-2015 process, David Donoghue, Permanent Representative of Ireland, and Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya, and the Co-Facilitators for the FfD3 preparatory process, Geir Pedersen, Permanent Representative of Norway, and George Talbot, Permanent Representative of Guyana.
Delegates focused on: the deliberations during the second preparatory meeting of the FfD3 process, which had convened the previous week; a discussion with representatives from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; proposals for the creation of a technology facilitation mechanism and other science, technology and innovation issues; the relationship between the FfD and post-2015 processes; follow-up and review on FfD and means of implementation (MOI); and coherence between the outcome documents from the two processes, outstanding issues and the way forward. An interactive dialogue with stakeholders took place on Thursday morning.
Throughout the four-day meeting, delegates discussed how they thought the two processes should relate to each other, with some saying the FfD3 process should comprise the MOI section of the post-2015 development agenda and others viewing them as distinct outcomes. Delegates noted that the ambitious proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out “what” the international community would strive to achieve during the post-2015 period, while the FfD3 process would address “how” the SDGs would be implemented. At the end of the week, delegates and the four Co-Facilitators commented that it had been a productive exchange of views, as they looked towards meetings on follow-up and review and the release of negotiating texts for both processes in May.
The  Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
 
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MEETING
Post-2015 Co-Facilitator Macharia Kamau greeted delegates to the joint meeting of the post-2015 development agenda and Third International Conference on Financing for Development negotiations with a “reality check.” Reading the headlines from that morning’s issue of the New York Times regarding global tragedies and violence stemming from inequalities among and within countries, he asked participants: “How are we going to put together a post-2015 agenda and find the resources to address the very fundamental challenges that we face at the dawn of the 21st Century?”
Following this bold introduction, delegates to the four-day session embarked on a discussion of the complex and historically conflictual issues of financing, technology, partnerships and accountability, and how they will apply to the next development agenda. This brief analysis reviews the competing definitions and proposals that delegates to the post-2015 and FfD3 processes presented and now must clarify as they approach the start of negotiations in earnest, and seek to draft agreements in line with the reality they are seeking to address.
LINKING PARALLEL PROCESSES
Delegates openly welcomed the presence of the four Co-Facilitators and the opportunity to address how the two parallel and deeply intertwined processes should coordinate and potentially be integrated. However, different interpretations of the relationship between the two processes were presented during the meeting.
Many developed countries proposed that the outcome of the FfD3 process should represent an agreement on the MOI of the post-2015 agenda, and called for the FfD3 document that will be adopted in Addis Ababa to be incorporated in its entirety as the post-2015 agenda’s MOI pillar. By contrast, many developing countries preferred to withhold judgement on how the FfD3 text would be recognized in the post-2015 agenda outcome document. Some explained that it was a matter of not wanting to agree to anything until they knew what the final FfD3 outcome will be. Others indicated concern that the developed countries’ proposal entailed removing SDG 17 on MOI and possibly other MOI-related targets from the proposed SDGs. Suggesting an alternate format, South Africa, for the G-77 and China, insisted “the two processes should be retained as two separate tracks, as the scope of FfD3 goes beyond implementing the SDGs, while the MOI for the post-2015 agenda should go beyond FfD3.”
While many countries agreed duplication of the work of the post-2015 and FfD3 processes should be avoided, others welcomed maximum attention on financing for the goals, and some even considered whether new commitments could be added on in Addis. With such differing ideas of the identity of FfD3 and its purpose for the post-2015 agenda, many left the four-day meeting without a clear view for how this traditionally difficult cluster of issues would be resolved in the 80 days remaining before FfD3 begins in Addis. Despite the concern that the ambitious agenda set out in the proposed SDGs might not receive the MOI that many delegates argue it needs to become a reality, some pointed to the procedure used during the four-day meeting as an important step forward. The attentive Co-Facilitators of both the Post-2015 and FfD3 processes presided over discussions on each of the agenda items, and delegates noted that the four men’s partnership in shepherding the two processes will prove important for the success of both agendas, which they noted must also be marked by new and innovative partnerships.
BUILDING SHARED DEFINITIONS
As disagreements continued on the fundamental purpose of the implementation section of the post-2015 agenda and how parallel negotiations on FfD could be coordinated with this agenda, Member States also recognized that many of the key words that they have used for months still lack common definitions. Encouraged by the Co-Facilitators to offer specific and concrete ideas, options for some of these definitions emerged.
During the discussion on the global partnership for development, for example, Post-2015 Co-Facilitator Kamau pointed out the discrepancy between discussing “The Global Partnership” and “global partnerships.” Canada offered definitions for these two concepts, describing the first as an underlying principle of solidarity and the second as the multi-stakeholder efforts necessary to achieve the goals. Developing countries replied with a different approach, stressing that North-South cooperation and commitments should be central to the Global Partnership concept. There appeared to be general consensus that the inclusion of civil society and the private sector in the implementation of the agenda will be crucial, with Finland essentially summarizing the thoughts of many when she stated that “we cannot expect them to participate in an agenda they did not help develop.” However, competing perspectives arose in this area, too, with Germany proposing a monitoring framework rooted in the concept of a renewed global partnership, in which stakeholders participate with commitments of their own and help with collecting data, while the G-77/China stressed the importance of monitoring frameworks to monitor commitments on ODA, technology transfer and capacity building.
Participants observed that Member States’ divisions also followed fairly traditional lines about the larger notion of universality, which is supposed to underpin the post-2015 agenda. Offering a definition of universality that moves away from a partnership divided along North-South lines, the UK explained that “universality” should be defined as a shared responsibility for implementation by all actors. India, on the other hand, said “North-South is not a divide, it is a fact,” and proposed addressing this reality by viewing universality as a complement of the principle of differentiation. He said universality means that developed countries would now also “be held responsible for their actions,” while developing countries would also take action on issues of collective importance in ways differentiated by their capacities to do so.
The discussion of technology also revealed recurring divides, as developing countries insisted that a long-discussed technology facilitation mechanism be created through the post-2015 process, and developed countries continued to favor existing initiatives and broader efforts on science, technology and innovation. Brazil and India stated that deciding on the mandate and form of a TFM could be a key deliverable of the post-2015 agenda, and some thought that the discussions at this joint meeting finally pointed to the possibility that past disagreements on this issue could be overcome. Others thought the reality of upcoming negotiations on this topic would entail late nights and extended consultations.
ENSURING COMMON AMBITION
Following Post-2015 Co-Facilitator Kamau’s reality check during the opening plenary, delegates quickly turned to the reality that the high ambition set by the proposed SDGs and targets would require huge commitments of resources in order to be achieved. Research done by the Bretton Woods Institutions, whose representatives briefed delegates following their Spring Meetings the previous weekend, informed delegates that funding must increase from “billions to trillions,” in order to achieve the SDGs as currently proposed.
But  efforts to fulfill that ambition will require more than successful negotiations on the format, wording and relationships of the post-2015 and financing agreements. As one delegate remarked, regardless of whether Member States reach consensus on how to implement the SDGs, the international community will still have to mobilize the money to make any progress on the central goals of ending poverty and sustainable development.
On more than a few occasions, participants in the meeting attempted to remind each other of the weight and reality of the issues that they are contemplating, and the importance of matching their ambitious agreement on “what” to do—the SDGs—with resources for “how” to address them. Bringing delegates back to reality on the ground in their search to match political will with their pocketbooks, one Major Group representative silenced the room while presenting her personal account of female genital cutting and appealed for funds to educate others about the practice. Her courage and story were applauded by delegates, although whether their words will be filled with an equivalent level of courage will only unfold during the coming months, as delegates move into a schedule of almost continuous negotiations.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Ana Maria Lebada, Kate Offerdahl and Lynn Wagner, Ph.D. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE), the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2015 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC except 7-14 May Switzerland (Geneva/Bern), 15-18 South Africa, 19-20 Addis Ababa, 21-22 Bangkok

.

———————————————

.

IISD: @IISDRS Summary Report of Global #Soilweek 2015

Third Global Soil Week (GSW) 2015 – “Soil. The Substance of Transformation”

19-23 April 2015 | Berlin, Germany
The summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format at http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/crsvol206num3e.pdf and in HTML format at  http://www.iisd.ca/soil/gsw3/html/crsvol206num3e.html 
The third Global Soil Week (GSW 2015) convened in Berlin, Germany, from Sunday, 19-23 April, under the theme ‘Soil. The Substance of Transformation.’ Following an opening reception on the evening of Sunday, 19 April, participants attended plenary sessions, interactive dialogue sessions and open space discussions from 20-23 April. Plenary sessions addressed linkages between soils and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), an integrated perspective for implementation, and the way forward, whereas interactive dialogue and open space sessions were loosely organized into five thematic streams. Participants also attended the inauguration of the ONE HECTARE exhibition.
The Global Soil Week Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org>.
This issue was written and edited by Camellia Ibrahim, Stefan Jungcurt, Ph.D., Vijay Krishnan Kolinjivadi, and Asterios Tsioumanis. The Digital Editor is Mike Muzurakis. The Editor is Melanie Ashton <melanie@iisd.org
The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for coverage of this event has been provided by the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Economic Development (BMZ), and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax:+1-204-958-7710.
The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://www.iisd.ca/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, New York 10022, USA.

.

—————————————–

.

IISD: @IISDRS Summary & Analysis from #MontrealProtocol Workshop on #HFC Mgmt and #OEWG35

Workshop on Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Management and
Thirty-fifth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG 35) of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

20-21 and 22-24 April 2015 | UN Conference Centre (UNCC), Bangkok, Thailand
The Workshop on Hydrofluorocarbon Management and the thirty-fifth meeting of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG 35) of the parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer convened back-to-back in Bangkok, Thailand from 20-24 April 2015. Over 440 participants attended the workshop, while over 420 delegates representing governments, UN agencies, Montreal Protocol expert panels and committees, non-governmental organizations and industry attended OEWG 35.
The Workshop and OEWG 35 were convened in response to decision XXVI/9 of the twenty-sixth Meeting of the Parties (MOP 26) to the Montreal Protocol, which called for a two-day workshop in 2015, back-to-back with an additional three-day meeting of the OEWG, to continue discussions on all issues related to hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) management, including a focus on high-ambient temperature conditions and safety requirements, as well as energy efficiency.
OEWG 35 discussions resulted in agreement to continue to work intersessionally in an informal manner to study the feasibility and ways of managing HFCs, with a view to the establishment of a contact group on feasibility and ways of managing HFCs at OEWG 36 in July 2015
The  Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
 
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF OEWG 35
 
After six years of arguing about how, when, or if HFCs should be discussed under the Montreal Protocol at all, delegates arrived in Bangkok prepared to discuss only HFCs. First a two-day workshop focused on the technical aspects of HFCs, and then OEWG 35 turned its attention to the policy aspects of HFCs.
The technical workshop, and its array of technical and overview materials prepared by the Secretariat with help from TEAP, attempted to cover in-depth not only the issues flagged in its mandate from MOP 26, but also key issues and concerns raised by parties over the years pertaining to a possible phase-down of HFCs within the MP and their substitution with low-GWP alternatives. The organizers worked to ensure that the workshop examined the differing challenges faced in each subsector, while also reflecting a balance in the perspectives of Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries. This attention to technical detail, nuances, and balance in perspectives, resulted in repeated praise of the workshop throughout OEWG 35, including by those previously skeptical about even discussing HFCs within the context of the MP.
This analysis examines how the technical foundation assisted in growing political consensus to formally discuss amending the Protocol to include HFCs, the significance of new amendment proposals both announced and tabled at OEWG 35, and then looks ahead to OEWG 36 in July and beyond.
MORE PLAYERS AT THE TABLE
Since 2009 parties have had before them a proposal to amend the Montreal Protocol to include HFCs. However, they have never agreed to form a contact group to formally examine, discuss or negotiate the proposals. FSM and Mauritius filed the first proposal, followed by a Canadian, Mexican and US submission (“the North American proposal”) in 2010. Both proposals have been tweaked and resubmitted every year since, but without success and with little “ante up” from other parties drafting and submitting their own proposals.
As OEWG 35 began there was considerable buzz in-the-corridors about the significance of India’s HFC amendment proposal filed just the week prior to the meeting. Many interpreted the fact that a formerly vocal opponent of bringing HFCs under the Protocol submitted a text proposal as a portent that the impasse was about to break. While Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had already indicated at a 2014 visit with US President Obama that India would be willing to consider addressing HFCs in the Montreal Protocol, few expected this statement to translate into a proposal for negotiating text.
Just how much comfort amendment proponents can take in the Indian proposal, though, is an open question. In its submission to amend the Protocol, India proposed, among other things: a 15-year grace period for Article 5 parties; a wait until 2050 for a phase-down to reach 15% of HFC baseline levels; an exemption from the Protocol for HFC-23, known to have the highest GWP, when generated as a by-product in facilities that produce other HFCs or HCFCs; a provision stating that the Montreal Protocol amendment does not change the HFC obligations under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol and that these latter two instruments would be amended accordingly; a requirement that the MLF compensate for “full conversion costs,” full second conversion costs wherever transitional technologies are deployed, and “compensation for lost profit streams for gradual closure” of HFC production facilities.
Whether just an opening bargaining gambit or an attempt to serve as counterweight to the FSM and North American proposals, the submission nonetheless was welcomed in plenary by many delegations as adding diversity and enriching discussion on HFC management. FSM went as far as to welcome India to “finally playing poker at the same table.” To which India, unusually quiet throughout the course of OEWG 35, later responded, “The poker game that India has entered is one that involves seven billion people.”
During OEWG 35 the EU officially announced that it will soon submit a formal amendment proposal on behalf of its 28 Member States. This proposal has been expected since last year, when the EU circulated its discussion paper on HFCs at OEWG 34 and MOP 26, but this confirmation by the EU means proposals on the table are soon to double, and that momentum is increasing.
Many Article 5 country delegates expressed satisfaction that they would have a broader range of options from which to pick and choose, perhaps finally creating the right conditions for negotiations to commence.
Over the years, amendment opponents have cited uncertainties over the safety, availability, costs, and suitability of low-GWP alternatives for high-ambient temperature conditions among the reasons for their skepticism. The workshop preceding OEWG 35 was designed to allay as many of these concerns as possible, while identifying uncertainties and data gaps that may exist, and laying a solid technical foundation for policy discussions to follow at OEWG 35, thus building clarity and bridging gaps between different perspectives. In many ways it was emblematic of the widely-acknowledged strengths of the MP regime: its emphasis on sound science and technical knowledge, and of cooperation with the very sectors and industries it impacts.
UNDERSTANDING THE RULES OF THE GAME
In past OEWGs many countries opposed including HFCs in the Montreal Protocol in principle, arguing that HFCs are not ODS and legally belong under the UNFCCC. More and more opponents have come to accept that there is no legal impediment to the Protocol addressing HFCs if the focus is on phase-down rather than phase-out and UNFCCC competency is not tampered with through such an approach. Also, it’s now widely accepted that the “HFC problem” was created in large part due to the HCFC phase-out under the Montreal Protocol, which phased in HFCs, and that the Protocol’s technical expertise and implementation machinery may be best suited to phase-down HFCs. The shift of China and India from the ranks of opponents to neutral, due in part to high-level diplomacy on the part of the US, also sapped strength from the UNFCCC argument. When MOP 26 came tantalizingly close to adopting a text on a way forward on HFCs within the MP context, this hurdle appeared to be diminishing.
This second HFC Management Workshop, so focused on technical issues, and with its overall message that such technical issues, while complex and still bearing some uncertainties, are not insurmountable, also sapped force from amendment opponents’ arguments.
Throughout the OEWG a growing list of countries indicated their willingness to discuss HFC issues in a contact group. The debate over whether or not to form a contact group came to a head, however, with the unveiling of the African CRP calling for a contact group and proposing the types of issues it can discuss, and which HFCs to be phased down. This proposal increased the likelihood of a contact group at OEWG 36, since it was based on a formal ministerial declaration from 54 African countries.
The procedural dispute over whether to discuss the CRP at all was interpreted by many delegations and observers as a delaying tactic to ensure that any decision over creation of a contact group would be postponed until OEWG 36, which in itself would result in further limiting time for any negotiations on amendment proposals. It took a contentious debate over majority versus minority rights, and whether the “consensus” so prized by the ozone family should be interpreted to mean unanimity before delegates pulled back, heeding appeals to preserve the Protocol’s reputation as the most successful multilateral environmental agreement, which always finds a way to forge consensus on tough issues and, as China put it, maintains the spirit of “one big family.”
This eventually resulted in the agreement to work intersessionally on a long list of concerns, with a view to possible establishment of a contact group at OEWG 36 in Paris. There was tangible relief in the room that the ozone family unity had once again been preserved.
DEALING A THE NEXT HAND
Many delegates left OEWG 35 expressing hope that the compromise to continue discussions intersessionally, India’s new proposal, the anticipated EU proposal, and the request by AMCEN, through the African Group, would build momentum for the establishment of a contact group on HFC amendments at OEWG 36. The US, expressing optimism openly in plenary, stated, “Our goal is to adopt an amendment in 2015, one that is acceptable to all the parties in the room, and we need to work together if we are going to get there.” If such an amendment to address HFCs under the Protocol does make progress at OEWG 36 through the formation of a contact group, and move forward at November’s MOP 27, this may have positive residual effects, either on the substance or the spirit of the UNFCCC climate conference in Paris, later in November.
Veteran ozone process observers, while acknowledging encouraging signs that “change is in the air,” cautioned that significant progress at OEWG 36 is by no means guaranteed. The intersessional meetings will be difficult to organize on short notice, with one possibly occurring on the sidelines of the May MLF ExCom, and others depending on hosting offers by particular countries. The long list of issues to be examined, and the data and reports needed to address them, may be difficult, if not impossible, to treat fully in just three months.
All that said, the door to the creation of an HFC contact group is now cracked. Whether it can be fully pushed open will depend on how diligently parties work intersessionally, and whether all delegations come to Paris in July ready and willing to sit down at the negotiating table. If not, the stakes may be the reputation for consensus building and unity so treasured by members of the ozone family, keeping in mind that in such a consensus-based environment, its momentum can be halted if even just one party decides to walk away from the table, and slam the door.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Jennifer Lenhart, Dorothy Wanja Nyingi, Ph.D. and Keith Ripley. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>.
The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE), the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2015 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for the coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Ozone Secretariat. Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC except 7-14 May Switzerland (Geneva/Bern), 15-18 South Africa, 19-20 Addis Ababa, 21-22 Bangkok
.

———————————————————————-

.

IISD: @IISDRS Coverage of the KSA International Experts Workshop on #Carbon Management and its Implications

27-30 April 2015 | Khobar, Saudi Arabia
The KSA International Experts Workshop on Carbon Management and its Implications will take place from 27-30 April 2015 in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. The workshop will take place in two parts: the First Global Methane Initiative (GMI) Workshop and Exhibition in the Middle East will take place from 27-28 April; and the International Experts Workshop on the Adverse Social and Economic Impacts of Mitigation Measures,
from 29-30 April.
The GMI Workshop and Exhibition is organized in partnership with the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Saudi Aramco, the GMI and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC).
During the event, participants will consider, inter alia: operational safety and energy security via methane emissions management; flare mitigation programme activities in Saudi Arabia; methane emissions and mitigation opportunities; methane emissions inventory experience in the middle east; and methane emissions detection and measurement techniques, equipment and costs. Case studies from Saudi Aramco, US and other countries will be presented, as well as oil and gas partner case studies.
IISD Reporting Services will provide daily web coverage and a summary report from the KSA International Experts Workshop on Carbon Management and its Implications. Kindly return to the site on Monday, 27 April 2015, for more information.
Daily digital and summary coverage will be available athttp://www.iisd.ca/climate/carbon/cmiw/.
Coverage of this meeting by IISD Reporting Services is funded by Saudi Aramco
  .

——————————————–

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

IISD: Climate Change Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

—————————————————

.

.2nd Drafting Session on the Outcome Document of the 3rd International Conference on Financing for Development – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

.

——————————————————————–

.

@IISDRS Coverage of the 4th Intergovernmental Negotiation on #Post2015 Dev Agenda

Fourth Intergovernmental Negotiation on the Post-2015 Development Agenda

21-24 April 2015 | UN Headquarters, New York, US
In September 2000, world leaders at the Millennium Summit called for a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty in the Millennium Declaration, following which the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were elaborated based on consultations among representatives of international institutions. The United Nations Secretary-General presented what are now called the MDGs to the UN General Assembly in 2001, at which point UN member states recommended that they should be used as a guide to implement the Millennium Declaration, with deadlines for accomplishing the goals set for 2015.
The United Nations is now making preparations for what will succeed the MDGs, referred to broadly as the “post-2015 development agenda.” This new, global agenda is currently anticipated to comprise four elements: an introductory declaration; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets, and indicators; means of implementation (MOI) and a new Global Partnership; and a framework for follow up and review of implementation.
Per resolution A/69/L.43, adopted on 29 December 2014, the UN Summit on the Post-2015 Development Agenda will take place from 25-27 September 2015, in New York, US. The process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, which will prepare for the UN Summit, began with a stocktaking session on 19-21 January. As adopted in decision A/69/L.44, the subsequent sessions were scheduled as follows: 17-20 February (Declaration); 23-27 March (SDGs and targets); 21-24 April (MOI and Global Partnership for Sustainable Development); 18-22 May (Follow up and review); and 22-25 June, 21-24 July, and 27-31 July (intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome document).
IISD Reporting Services will provide daily web updates and a summary and analysis from this event. Kindly return to this page on Tuesday, 21 April 2015, for more information.
Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/post2015/in4/
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI
Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office
300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA
Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: 14-15 April Vienna, 16-17 Geneva
Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged
and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.

——————————————————————

IISD: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

 .

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————-

.

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

———————————————————————————–

.

ENB – Convention of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) CRIC 13 – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

.

IISD works with UNEP to advise on SDGs

.

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

.

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice… See Sendai Framework and Water Updates

 Browser Version.

 

——————————————————————–

.

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version

 

.

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

———————————————————————

@IISDRS Summary & Analysis from  #UNCCD CST4 and SC3

Fourth Special Session of the Committee on Science and Technology (CST S-4) and  UNCCD 3rd Scientific Conference

9-12 March 2015 | Cancún, Mexico

The fourth Special Session of the Committee on Science and Technology (CST S-4) of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), together with the UNCCD 3rd Scientific Conference, convened from 9-12 March 2015, in Cancun, Mexico. Approximately 300 people registered for the meeting, almost half of whom were from the scientific community. In addition, government officials and representatives of civil society, intergovernmental and UN organizations also participated.
Participants at the Scientific Conference had been charged by the UNCCD Conference of the Parties (COP) with addressing “Combating desertification/land degradation and drought for poverty reduction and sustainable development: the contribution of science, technology, traditional knowledge and practices.” They considered this theme on the basis of an Impulse Report on “Climate change and desertification: Anticipating, assessing and adapting to future change in drylands,” several keynote addresses and three sessions of parallel workshops, each featuring poster presentations and discussions. The Scientific Conference was organized by the Scientific and Traditional Knowledge for Sustainable Development consortium, under the guidance of the CST Bureau and the Conference’s Scientific Advisory Committee.
In addition to the official proceedings, morning, lunchtime and evening side-events were held throughout the week, showcasing, inter alia, advances in tools and techniques, new initiatives and regional and thematic activities, ranging from use of newly available satellite imagery to the anticipated production of a Global Land Outlook publication to progress on the COP-mandated Scientific Knowledge Brokering Portal.
As he opened the meeting, CST Chair Uriel Safriel underscored the uniqueness of combining a scientific conference with a meeting of national policy-makers. The Scientific Conference organizers highlighted that the Conference would deploy a new format, reflecting lesson learning from the first two iterations of this novel approach to bridging science and policy. This meeting also marked the first UNCCD meeting with active involvement by the newly-established Science-Policy Interface, which held its second meeting immediately prior to the opening of the CST S-4 on 7-8 March 2015. The CST S-4 report will be transmitted to the 12th meeting of the CST and to the COP, which convenes in Ankara, Turkey, in October 2015.
The Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
 
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MEETINGS
 
In the two decades since the UN Convention to Combat Desertification was negotiated, the UNCCD has proven itself to be a “learning convention”―with parties exhibiting willingness to take stock and adjust structures and institutions over the years. The Scientific Conference concept perhaps best exemplifies this reflexivity, and as participants gathered for its third iteration, they were asked to engage with a new format and approach.
This analysis focuses on the challenge posed by the enduring puzzle of bridging science and policy in this context and examines how the continued learning within the UNCCD had an impact on: the format of the third Scientific Conference, the role of the newly-established Science-Policy Interface (SPI) institution, and the substantive connections with climate change and synergies with the UNFCCC.
 
THE ENDURING CHALLENGE OF TRANSLATING KNOWLEDGE INTO POLICY
 
Parties to the UNCCD have turned to science for guidance on how to set priorities and most efficiently and effectively address the challenge of land degradation and achieve SLM. Yet over the years concerns have been raised that the necessary knowledge is perhaps not being produced, or not being conveyed in a format that can successfully feed into the policy process.
In particular, the open membership plenary format of the CST, established in the Convention text itself, has been questioned as lacking flexibility and not drawing sufficient expertise from the scientific community. It is in response to this deficit that parties agreed to convene a Scientific Conference during CST 9, held along with COP 9 in Buenos Aires in 2009.
Since this first iteration, parties, and the scientific and civil society stakeholders that are being targeted to contribute, have experimented with a variety of formats to best help bring science into the policy realm. One of the challenges of this learning process, however, is that there are widely diverging views on how best to bridge the science-policy divide.
Indeed, at the workshops held during the third Scientific Conference in Cancun, some participants put the blame on scientists who are not producing the results policymakers need to make sound and informed decisions. Conversely, others placed the responsibility on the shoulders of policymakers, and a slow political process that is always “two steps behind” the science and the scientists.  Still others called attention to the need for both scientists and policymakers to connect to those on the ground who are facing the direct consequences of land degradation, and whose participation and buy-in is essential for SLM. This raised questions not only of how, but especially of who should undertake the task of translating knowledge―be it scientific, practical, traditional or local―into a form that is usable and relevant for those setting policies that can combat DLDD.
 
WORKSHOP EXPERIMENTS
 
As was underscored in both the opening and closing of the Scientific Conference, the format was an experiment building upon the first two conferences. Further, as CST Chair Uriel Safriel underscored in his opening address, the Scientific Conference format itself is unique among multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in combining a scientific conference with a meeting of policymakers.
At the Scientific Conference, the CST continued its approach of coordinating the planning of each conference with a consortium of research organizations. At the 1st Conference in 2009, the organizing consortium had commissioned teams of scientists to prepare a series of white papers that were presented in plenary keynotes. At the 2nd Scientific Conference in 2013, abstracts were solicited and papers were presented in multiple parallel sessions. In both of these cases, some participants noted that the emphasis was on listening to presentations and bemoaned the lack of time both for productive discussion on the science presented, and for generating useful and targeted policy recommendations. Many had also voiced a need for deeper and more meaningful exchanges among participating scientists but also between scientists and policymakers.
Building on these experiences, the members of the organizing Scientific and Traditional Knowledge for Sustainable Development (STK4SD) consortium and the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) for the conference opted for a structure and schedule that prioritized discussions. The SAC commissioned an Impulse Report on climate change and desertification that served as the basis for several keynote speeches and then divided the Conference into three sessions on: diagnosis of constraints, responses, and monitoring and assessments. Under each of these themes, abstracts were solicited for posters to be presented in more targeted two-hour parallel workshops.
As participants reflected on these workshops, several noted that this format was a step in the right direction and exemplified lessons learned from the previous two conferences. Some noted that this format allowed a better balance between the presentation of work from the field and the opportunity for more in-depth discussion. Nevertheless, there was a great deal of variation in how the workshops were conducted, which, according to some participants, made it more difficult for this process to yield policy-relevant recommendations.
Repeated mention was also made of the fact that several of those who had had abstracts accepted for presentation had been unable to make the trip for logistical and financial reasons. Those who had more experience with traditional scientific conferences also regretted the short time-window and tight spaces in which posters were available for perusal that prevented in-depth exchanges with poster authors. The workshop discussions following the poster sessions also made clear the appetite for more detailed and specific discussions. However, there were concerns that these dialogues would have been enhanced by greater geographic representation, as well as by enhanced participation by social scientists and local and traditional knowledge holders.
 
WORKING AT THE INTERFACE
In the end, this complex structure relied extensively on the preparatory and synthesizing work of each workshop’s facilitator and rapporteurs, most of whom were drawn from the STK4SD Consortium, the SAC and the SPI, a 20-member committee established by COP 11 that had held its second meeting in the two days preceding CST S-4. The SPI is another example of UNCCD parties’ willingness to engage in reflexive learning and craft an innovative structure to tackle the enduring puzzle of how best to facilitate evidence-informed policy making in MEAs. In Cancun, the SPI had two key roles. First, its members, who include CST Chair Uriel Safriel, were responsible for presenting many of the keynotes and facilitating or reporting on several workshops. Second, the daily schedule pointed to the SPI convening in the morning and evening throughout the meeting, highlighting that they were also focused on mining the conference for policy-relevant insights. Indeed, one immediate deliverable that the SPI has set itself, as reported by Mariam Akhtar-Schuster during the closing plenary, is repackaging the outputs of this Conference into a policy brief to facilitate follow up at COP 12.
Among its work programme, the SPI has been tasked with the assessment of the two first scientific conferences in supporting UNCCD decision-making, and this will be an eagerly awaited report to COP 12. Indeed, the SPI was established amidst dissatisfaction with the provision of science advice in the UNCCD process (although this is not a concern unique to the UNCCD and one that is raised in several other MEAs). Yet some participants noted that the SPI itself is evidence of the success of the Scientific Conferences, underscoring their creation can be traced back to the recommendations stemming from the 1st Scientific Conference in Buenos Aires in 2009.
As one experienced UNCCD delegate explained, the SPI is unique because its members were not selected to engage in science, nor to guide policy, but to fulfill a narrow, yet essential role: that of engaging in the translation or other mediating work that would connect these two realms. Yet, working at this interface is itself an emerging field of study, and there are no clear rules or accepted best practices on how to do this. Indeed, one participant underscored that the members of the SPI, while credentialed in matters of science and/or policy, are in fact autodidacts when it comes to this interfacing task. Thus, great attention will be paid to whether SPI can meet these high expectations when parties receive the result of their first work programme at COP 12.
 
SYNERGIES AND CONNECTIONS
In addition to experimenting with a new format for facilitating science-policy exchanges, CST S-4 and the 3rd Scientific Conference also stood out for the emphasis on synergies with the Rio Conventions and the SDGs. In addition to being integrally woven into the agenda of the meeting, the prominence of synergies, in particular with the UNFCCC, was also championed by UNCCD Executive Secretary Monique Barbut, for whom this marked the first UNCCD subsidiary body meeting since her appointment.
This emphasis on synergies was substantive, and the Impulse Report and keynotes emphasized the complex feedback loops through which land degradation, climate change and biodiversity are tightly interconnected, moving beyond the common understanding of climate change and land degradation as two separate drivers. Some noted they hoped this shift in understanding could bring attention to the need to synergize how the Rio Conventions are implemented on the ground. The presence of Tomasz Chruszczow, Chair of the UNFCCC’s SBSTA, who also delivered a keynote address, was also pointed to as a signal of interest of the UNFCCC to address this tight coupling between land degradation and climate change.
Forging connections was also at the root of repeated calls for the UNCCD to more meaningfully involve land users themselves, especially as they hold valuable traditional, practical and local knowledge, with civil society organizations, in particular, underscoring that real work needs to be done in combating DLDD on the ground. On that front, some participants noted with optimism the constructive cross-regional exchanges during the poster sessions, workshops, and side events to identify practices that can be translated to varied local contexts. There was also a great deal of excitement for those technological applications (many smart-phone driven) presented during the week that promise to facilitate both the crowd-sourcing of ground-proofing data and the sharing of modeling and data-intensive processing results. While many noted these have the potential to empower local communities and facilitate the sharing of best practices and, they hope, bring more engagement in the long-run of those on the front lines, others underscored the need to strengthen these connections even further to enable the co-production of knowledge by all concerned stakeholders.
Synergies were also evident in the emphasis, in the Impulse Report and in discussions, on “win-win” strategies that could, for example, facilitate adaptation and build local resilience to climate change while also bringing about SLM, or even the elusive “triple-wins” that would also reduce biodiversity loss and enhance the provision of ecosystem services. Some participants nevertheless cautioned that “win-lose” situations are also inevitable. They underscored that policymakers need the evidence to help them set priorities and decide how to make strategic trade-offs. In this context, participants were enthusiastic at an evening side event on plans to complete a Global Land Outlook that could underpin these decisions. The first chapter, on climate change and land degradation, is supposed to be ready in time for the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference.
 
LEARNING PATH
 
In addition to these synergies with developments on the climate front, there will be many opportunities for further science-policy interfacing and harnessing of synergies before delegates meet again in Ankara for COP 12. As several participants noted at the close of CST S-4, there is still the need for a more detailed and coordinated discussion on the indicators for land degradation neutrality under Sustainable Development Goal 15, including within the UNCCD’s Intergovernmental Working Group on the follow up to Rio+20.
There will also be opportunities for SPI members to draw from relevant scientific proceedings and developments, including the Global Soil Week in April in Berlin. These events, in addition to the CRIC meeting in Bonn in just a few weeks, will mean there is little downtime in coming months.
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Pia Kohler, Ph.D., Suzi Malan, Ph.D., Wangu Mwangi,  and Lynn Wagner, Ph.D. The Digital Editor is Angeles Estrada. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMA), the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2015 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office 300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA  Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: March 11-19 Sendai (Disaster Conference)
Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged  and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.

———————————————————————–

ENB:  Fourth Special Session of the Committee on Science and Technology and UNCCD 3rd Scientific Conference – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

@IISDRS Coverage of UN #WCDRR 3

Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (UNWCDRR-III)

14–18 March 2015 | Sendai, Japan
The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction will convene from 14–18 March 2015 in Sendai, Japan, following a 2013 decision of the UN General Assembly (A/RES/67/209). The conference will review implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), discuss ways to cooperate at the international level and adopt a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction (DRR).
Previous UN World Conferences on disaster risk reduction took place in Japan in 1994 and 2005, in Yokohama and Kobe, respectively. Regional DRR platforms have been engaged in preparation for the UN Third World Conference on DRR, while cooperation at the global level takes place through the Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction, which the UN Office for DRR (UNISDR) coordinates.
Several thousand participants from government and stakeholder groups will attend the conference, including representatives of local government, research institutions, NGOs and the private sector. Many organizations are hosting side events and related activities, with the aim of building national and local resilience to disasters.
IISD RS will provide daily web coverage, daily reports, and a summary report from this conference. Kindly return to this site on Saturday, 14 March 2015, for more information.
Daily & Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/isdr/wcdr3/
 
*Funding for IISD Reporting Services ENB coverage of the UNWCDRR-III is provided by the UNISDR*
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office 300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA  Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: March 11-19 Sendai (Disaster Conference)

——————————————————————–

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

 

————————————————————————–

IISDRS Coverage of UNIDO EGM on Economic Growth, Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development and Sustainable Consumption and Production

 UNIDO Expert Group Meeting: Economic Growth, Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development and Sustainable Consumption and Production

2-3 March 2014 | Vienna, Austria
The briefing note of this meeting is now available in PDF format at http://www.iisd.ca/unido/gsdr/egm/brief/brief_unido_egm.pdf and in HTML format at  http://www.iisd.ca/unido/gsdr/egm/brief/brief_unido_egm.html
Organized by the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in cooperation with the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), an Expert Group Meeting convened on 2-3 March 2015 to discuss the first draft of Chapter 5 of the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) 2015, dedicated to economic growth, inclusive and sustainable industrial development and sustainable consumption and production. The GSDR is a UN publication aiming to strengthen the science-policy interface at the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development, which replaced the Commission on Sustainable Development after Rio+20 as the main UN platform providing political leadership and guidance on sustainable development issues at the international level. The meeting provided an opportunity for contributing agencies and partners to present their views and suggestions on the substantive content of the chapter and develop key messages in time for its finalization. The meeting also aimed to contribute to the international debate on the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the post-2015 development agenda by helping to achieve a better articulation of the agenda related to economic growth, industrial production, sustainable consumption and production (SCP), and their linkages to the broader objectives of the new development agenda and SDGs.
The UNIDO Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org>. This issue was written and edited by Elsa Tsioumani. The Editor is Melanie Ashton <melanie@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by UNIDO. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://www.iisd.ca/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services,
contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, New York 10022, USA.
  Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office 300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA  Direct
Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree
Where: March 6-10 Cape Town (Cape Town Cycletour), 11-19 Sendai (Disaster Conference)
Notice:This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged  and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the author.

———————————————————————

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

———————————————————————

ENB:  Forty-first Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

IISD:  Working Group meeting of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants – Final Summary

Browser Version

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

———————————————————————

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

Browser Version.

—————————————————————————-

 

Announcing @IISDRS coverage of the #CCAC Working Group Meeting #SLCPs

Working Group meeting of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC)
24-25 February 2015 | Kathmandu, Nepal
The Working Group of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC) will meet in Kathmandu, Nepal, on 24-25 February 2015. The CCAC is a voluntary international framework that was launched in February 2012 to address short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) as an urgent and collective challenge. The Working Group oversees the CCAC’s activities.
The CCAC is a partner-led effort and aims to reduce emissions of methane, black carbon, and many hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in order to protect the environment and public health, promote food and energy security, and address near-term climate change.
IISD RS will provide daily digital coverage and a summary report from this meeting. Kindly return to this site on Tuesday, 24 February 2015, for more information.
Daily digital and summary coverage will be available athttp://www.iisd.ca/climate/ccac/wg/2015/.
Coverage of this meeting by IISD Reporting Services is funded by the CCAC Secretariat.
Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office 300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA  Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC until 25 February, 26-27 San Francisco, 28 – March 3 Tokyo, 4-5 Ankara, 6-10 Cape Town (Cape Argus Classic), 12-18 Sendai (Disaster Conference)

—————————————————————————

@IISDRS Coverage of 2nd Intergovernmental Negotiation on #Post2015 Dev Agenda

Second Session of International Negotiations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
17-20 February 2015 | UN Headquarters, New York, US
The second session of the intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda convened from 17-20 February 2015 at UN Headquarters in New York. The session, co-facilitated by David Donoghue, Permanent Representative of Ireland, and Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya, focused on the declaration component of the outcome that will be adopted at the Summit of Heads of State and Government on the post-2015 development agenda in September 2015.
The discussion began with Member States’ responses to an Elements Paper circulated by the Co-Facilitators on 5 February 2015. After a round of statements on that document, the Co-Facilitators circulated a “discussion document for the declaration” on the morning of Thursday, 19 February. Governments then offered interventions on this text.
The session also included an interactive dialogue with Major Groups and other stakeholders and a briefing with the Director of the UN Statistics Division.
Throughout the week, government delegates and other participants expressed awareness of the other processes unfolding in parallel to the post-2015 development negotiations, including those on climate change and financing for development. A summary of the discussion will be produced by the Secretariat for reference. Kamau said the discussion document, meanwhile, remains “a document without status,” but will assist in creating the zero draft of the Summit outcome.
The Summary of this meeting is now available in PDF format
 
 
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MEETING
 
The second session of the intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda opened on a somber note, after recent attacks on citizens of Denmark and Egypt. Co-Facilitator Macharia Kamau shared condolences, and reflected on the links between terrorism and the challenges of sustainable development, urging delegates to reach an understanding of “how we wish to break with the past.… We need a declaration that is visionary about a different future for us, where what has happened in Libya to Egyptian Christians, in Paris, Copenhagen, Northern Kenya, and Nigeria becomes a thing of the past.”
Throughout the week’s discussions, numerous delegations expressed their shared grieving for the violence. Where sentiments diverged, however, was in how to move away from the past, and how a transformed world should look.
This brief analysis examines the week’s discussions in terms of the purpose of the declaration, the use of language, and the vision for the future, as it will be embodied in the post-2015 development agenda.
 
PURPOSE: INSPIRATION OR AFFIRMATION
 
As delegates said on multiple occasions, they hoped the post-2015 development agenda would be able to reach out and inspire the world. Some, seeing the declaration as the last chance to make a large and unwieldy agenda concise and understandable, called for creative new approaches to its formulation. Sierra Leone set a high bar, noting that the declaration could be “the billboard of the SDGs.” The Netherlands hoped that his 13-year-old daughter would be able to relate to more simple language in the declaration, and suggested that a group of young people be involved in “proofing” it for their generation. Delegates supported calls to crowd-source the title of the declaration in order to reach out to the wider public, and many called for strict page limits and the use of footnotes as a check on length.
However, not everyone agreed with this interpretation of the declaration’s intent. The Maldives, for one, cautioned that the use of the word “simple” might detract from the complex, multi-dimensional issues present in the agenda, and others commented that the declaration must not only be understandable to 13-year old readers. “This should not be a mere PR campaign,” stressed Belize. CARICOM suggested a solution to this problem in the creation of a separate, robust communications strategy for the post-2015 agenda tailored to different forms of media.
Although many governments stressed the value of a concise framework for communicating a complex agenda, some expressed concern that it could represent or lead to a shrinking of ambition from the full breadth of the 17 SDGs.
At times over the four days, the meeting room seemed to have given way to a brainstorming session between creative writers. “We must let the poets within all of us come into this room,” expounded the New Zealand delegate. This inspired atmosphere did not appeal to those delegates itching for political contests, however. “This is so boring,” said one delegate. “None of it really matters until we have a zero draft to fight over.”
 
LANGUAGE: “TIMELESS PRINCIPLES” OR “FRESH THINKING”
 
Breaking with the past was also a theme in delegates’ exploration of language to be used in the declaration. Many seemed to embrace the idea of “fresh thinking” about language as a tool for innovation. The Netherlands suggested that a professional speechwriter could help craft visionary language, and Japan called for avoiding a “Christmas tree of agreed language” in the declaration. A suggestion that found favor was to use footnotes to reference agreed outcomes and commitments, in order to keep the text flowing, brief and accessible.
Others were determined to protect the ground gained through hard-fought, historical agreements over terminology. They stressed the need to preserve the formulation of the OWG and Rio+20 outcomes, cautioning against “taking liberties with carefully balanced language.” South Africa, for the G-77/China, specifically cautioned to avoid concepts that have not been universally negotiated, some of which were introduced into the elements paper and/or discussion document.
These concepts included “just societies,” “institutional failures” and “environmental stewardship.” Another, “shared responsibility,” was also discussed during the meeting. “Shared responsibility” seemed to be an attempt to reflect the innovative character of the agenda, in Finland’s words, “by all for all.” While some explained this phrase as welcoming partnership with civil society and the private sector to help with implementation where it would not otherwise be possible, others expressed wariness about holding developing countries responsible for a global situation they did not cause. These delegations stressed the importance of differentiation and “timeless principles,” and called for replacing “shared” with “common but differentiated” responsibilities.
 
VISION: TRANSFORMATION OR EQUILIBRIUM
 
This meeting marked the first formal chance in this process for governments to paint their respective pictures of the world of 2030, and to find out whether their inspirations and ideas were shared by others. The calls for the agenda to be “transformative” were truly countless, and governments’ visions for the transformative world seemed inspiring to many. But there was still a lack of consensus on the ways the new agenda should diverge from the past.
The concept of “leaving no one behind” was central to the discussion on vision. In fact, at least two delegations suggested that phrase could serve as the title to the declaration. This concept seemed to appeal, at least in spirit, to almost everyone, as representing a clear break from the past. However, while there was support for the concept, there was less agreement on its operationalization.
For example, leaving no one behind would entail collecting much more disaggregated data to make sure that those most likely to be left behind could be identified, and policies could be designed to meet their needs. The statistical questions are one challenge facing the adoption of such a lofty goal, stressed some.
Another challenge is whether the objective is to leave behind no country, or no person, and how to avoid the pitfall of averages. Countries in special situations stressed that they are the ones who must not be left behind on the sustainable development path, while representatives of excluded social groups―migrants, the aging, farmers, indigenous people, women and girls, and people with disabilities―highlighted how the most vulnerable within a country are the most likely to be left behind. SIDS have pointed to rising sea levels as a concrete way in which they are about to be literally left behind.
A third way that “leaving no one behind” falls short as a vision for some is by not fully addressing inequality. MICs, for example, are concerned they would receive less ODA if the agenda shifts to a focus on the poorest. As Brazil suggested, what would be truly transformative about the agenda would be to address inequality between not just the poorest and those in the middle (average), but also between the richest and the rest of the world.
A second lens through which the agenda can be seen as potentially transformative is the relationship between poverty eradication and sustainable development. Are they interdependent, as Sweden and others asserted? If governments agree that they are, it will represent a marked change from the past, and pave the way for governments to reorganize themselves along an integrated agenda. But many governments preferred to speak of sustainable development as a strategy for achieving poverty eradication, making the latter the overarching objective of the new agenda. Delegates and observers wondered if these different visions could be reconciled into a single agenda, or if they are essentially divergent?
 
FORGING AHEAD
 
This week’s discussions took up the “why” of the post-2015 development agenda—what is it all for? The meeting in March will turn to the “what”—the goals and targets and, as indicated in the briefing with the Statistics Division on Wednesday afternoon, indicators, which will be a prominent part of the discussion. Delegations and stakeholders are also looking ahead to the April session on means of implementation and the global partnership – the “how” of implementing the post-2015 development agenda that is ultimately adopted.
As the negotiating process turns from the broadest, most ideal visions for the world of 2030, to the more specific details of how it will be realized, the new agenda will begin to face its true test. Can governments reach agreement on a post-2015 development agenda that leaves behind the international community’s record of partial gains amid escalating global challenges? The challenge remains for governments to agree both on the transformed world they want, decide how to express it, and inspire its realization.
 
This analysis, taken from the summary issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © enb@iisd.org, is written and edited by Ana Maria Lebada, Faye Leone and Kate Offerdahl. The Editor is Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donors of the Bulletin are the European Commission (DG-ENV and DG-CLIMATE), the Government of Switzerland (the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC)), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. General Support for the Bulletin during 2015 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies – IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
 Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office 300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA  Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC until 25 February, 26-27 San Francisco, 28 – March 3 Tokyo, 4-5 Ankara, 6-10 Cape Town (Cycletour), 12-18 Sendai (Disaster Conference)

—————————————————————————————

ENB:  Geneva Climate Change Conference – February 2015 – Summary & Analysis

Browser Version

@IISDRS Coverage of 2nd Intergovernmental Negotiation on #Post2015 Dev Agenda

Second Intergovernmental Negotiation  on the Post-2015 Development Agenda

17-20 February 2015 | UN Headquarters, New York, United States of America
In September 2000, world leaders at the Millennium Summit called for a new global partnership to reduce extreme poverty in the Millennium Declaration, following which the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were elaborated based on consultations among representatives of international institutions. The United Nations Secretary-General presented what are now called the MDGs to the UN General Assembly in 2001, at which point UN member states recommended that they should be used as a guide to implement the Millennium Declaration, with deadlines for accomplishing the goals set for 2015.
The United Nations is now making preparations for what will succeed the MDGs, referred to broadly as the “post-2015 development agenda.” This new, global agenda is currently anticipated to comprise four elements: an introductory declaration; Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets, and indicators; means of implementation (MOI) and a new Global Partnership; and a framework for monitoring and review of implementation.
Per resolution A/69/L.43, adopted on 29 December 2014, the UN Summit on the Post-2015 Development Agenda will take place from 25-27 September 2015, in New York, US. The process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, which will prepare for the UN Summit, began with a stocktaking session on 19-21 January. As adopted in decision A/69/L.44, the subsequent sessions will take place as follows: 17-20 February (Declaration); 23-27 March (SDGs and targets); 20-24 April (MOI and Global Partnership for Sustainable Development); 18-22 May (Follow up and review); and 22-25 June, 20-24 July, and 27-31 July (intergovernmental negotiations on the outcome document).
IISD RS will provide daily web updates and a summary and analysis from this event. Kindly return to this page on Tuesday, 17 February 2015, for more information.
Summary coverage will be available at http://www.iisd.ca/post2015/in2/
   Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office 300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA  Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC until 25 February, 26-27 San Francisco, 28 – March 3 Tokyo, 4-5 Ankara, 6-10 Cape Town (Cape Argus Classic), 12-18 Sendai (Disaster Conference)
———————————————————————————————

IISD:  Sustainable Development Policy & Pracrice

Browser Version.

 

————————————————————————

New CARE, CIEL briefing paper | Climate change: tackling the greatest human rights challenge of our time

Dear All,
Alyssa Johl of CIEL (not a GGCA member but works closely with CARE) shares news of a new briefing paper: ‘Climate change: tackling the greatest human rights challenge of our time’.
Here is a supporting tweet I shared as @GGCA_gender: NEW! #Climatechange: tackling greatest human rights challenge of our time bit.ly/1DXWk3K #ADP2015 @ciel_tweets @CAREClimate
Best regards,
Cara Beasley | Coordinator | Global Gender and Climate Alliance (GGCA) e: cara@gender-climate.org | s: cara.beasley | t: @GGCA_gender | w: http://www.gender-climate.org
From: Alyssa Johl [mailto:ajohl@ciel.orgSent: Monday, February 09, 2015 10:54 AM Cc: Sven Harmeling; Kit Vaughan Subject: New CARE, CIEL briefing paper | Climate change: tackling the greatest human rights challenge of our time
Dear colleagues,
In recent weeks, we’ve seen some really encouraging signs that governments are starting to take the issue ofhuman rights and climate change seriously. Yesterday, on the first day of the climate negotiations in Geneva, Mexico, Uganda, Chile, the EU and others all called for human rights to be included as a cross-cutting goal of the 2015 agreement.
Though there’s still a long way to go, momentum around the critical issue of climate change and how it impacts on human rights is building.
To provide additional background on human rights and climate change, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and CARE International are pleased to present a new briefing paper: ‘Climate change: tackling the greatest human rights challenge of our time’.  Also available here.
Aimed primarily at policy-makers, the paper provides an overview of the human rights implications of climate change and the human rights obligations of States relating to climate change. It explores ways in which human rights can be addressed further in the UNFCCC process and sets out specific recommendations for integrating human rights into the UNFCCC climate regime.
Suggested tweet:  NEW @ciel_tweets @CAREClimate briefing >Climate change: tackling greatest human rights challenge of our time bit.ly/1DXWk3K #ADP2015
Please share widely with your networks and contacts.
Best wishes,
Alyssa Johl, Center for International Environmental Law Kit Vaughan and Sven Harmeling, CARE International
Follow us on Twitter: @CAREClimate and @ciel_tweets  Or visit: www.careclimatechange.org and www.ciel.org

————————————————————————

iisd: Sustainable Development Policy & Practice

http://sd.iisd.org/sd-update/2015-02-11/

http://sd.iisd.org/sd-update/2015-02-09/

@IISDRS summary report INTERLAKEN+10: Governing Forest Landscapes + Parallel Youth Conference Recommendations Part of UNFF11 Input

 

INTERLAKEN+10: Governing Forest Landscapes:  Lessons Learnt from Ten Years of Experience and  The Way Forward Post-2015

3-6 February 2015 | Interlaken, Switzerland
The summary report of this meeting is available in PDF format here:http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/sd/crsvol180num2e.pdf and in HTML format here: http://www.iisd.ca/forestry/unff/unff11/interlaken+10/html/crsvol180num2e.html
Held from 3-6 February 2015 in Interlaken, Switzerland, the Interlaken+10 workshop was a country-led initiative (CLI) in support of the UN Forum on Forests (UNFF), organized jointly by Switzerland with Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico and Ukraine. The workshop gathered approximately 140 participants, including policymakers working at the national and local government level, and representatives of international organizations, local communities, civil society and the private sector.
Workshop participants exchanged ideas on how to include meaningful governance issues in a post-2015 international arrangement on forests (IAF). Through a series of plenary, thematic, roundtable and small group sessions and field trips, they took stock of experiences gained since the first Interlaken workshop in 2004 and of lessons learnt on governance and decentralization as they relate to forest management and conservation. Taking into account developments over the past ten years related to governance of forest landscapes, they identified key issues that need to be addressed in a global forestry context and worked on a set of recommendations on how to foster good governance of forest landscapes directed at the UNFF. The draft recommendations will be revised according to comments received during the concluding plenary and, following an electronic consultation, they will be finalized by the end of the following week for transmission to UNFF11, to convene in May 2015 in New York.
A parallel conference was organized by the International Forestry Students Association on behalf of the UNFF Major Group “Children and Youth.” Their recommendations will also be transmitted as an input to UNFF11.
The INTERLAKEN+10 Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org>. This issue was written and edited by Olivia Pasini, Yixian Sun, and Elsa Tsioumani. The Digital Editor is Mike Muzurakis. The Editor is Brett Wertz <brett@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for coverage of this event has been provided by the governments of Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://www.iisd.ca/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, New York 10022, USA.
   Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI Vice President, Reporting Services and United Nations Liaison International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) – United Nations Office 300 E 56th St. Apt. 11D – New York, NY 10022  USA  Direct Line: +1 973 273 5860 Plaxo public business card: http://kimogoree.myplaxo.com
Email: kimo@iisd.org Mobile phone: +12128107701 Skype: kimogoree Twitter: @kimogoree
Where: NYC

———————————————————————————————-

ENB:  Geneva Climate Change Conference – February 2015 – Issue #6

Browser Version

ENB:  Geneva Climate Change Conference – February 2015 – Issue #5

Browser Version

 

ENB:  Geneva Climate Change Conference – February 2015 – Issue #3

Browser Version

ENB:  Geneva Climate Change Conference – February 2015 – Issue #2

Browser Version

ENB – Geneva Climate Change Conference – February 2015 – Issue #1

Browser Version

—————————————————————————————————

WM 2015-time_for_global_action_for_people_and_planet

ISSD:  Linkages Updates

Browser Version.

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed.