State of the Negotiations,

Some Considerations

1

Different Visions 3

La Ciencia es Para las Personas 4

Science is for the People 4

Importance of Climate Ethics

Animates Learning Center

5

Thinking Locally, Acting Locally 6

U.S. Delegate Head Supports

Major Groups

7

How many are twice as many? 7

The Politics of Hope: Rural

Development, Water, and

Climate Change

8

Food Security and Climate

Change

9

Sheila Oparaocha Profile 10

Live from the CSD 11

Food for Thought... 12

State of the Negotiations,

Some Considerations

Outreach Issues

First and most importantly, while the world is

faced with the impacts of the combined food,

financial and climate crises, country representa-

tives have so far failed to fulfil their mandate to

identify and address the basic causes underpin-

ning the global food crisis and propose a clear

set of concrete proposals.

The current unsustainable industrial agricultural

methods that have caused continuing, social and

environmental problems, resulting in wide-

spread hunger, depletion of natural resources

and acceleration of climate change, don’t seem

to be regarded as a problem. Failing to address

the root causes makes it impossible for the CSD

to present proposals that will effectively tackle

the global food crisis and promote true sustain-

able development.

The current negotiating text is focused on in-

creasing food production and agricultural pro-

ductivity. This has been strengthened by the text

inserted by the delegates of G77, which have

failed to stress in their propositions the crucial

importance of boosting ‘sustainable’ agricultural

practices and have limited their references to

develop agri-businesses and productive prac-

tices. As stated by the UN Special Rapporteur on

the Right to Food, Prof. Olivier de Schutter,

Continued on page 2

Inside this Issue:

A daily publication of Sustainable Development Issues Network (SDIN) and Stakeholder Forum (SF)

FRIDAY May 8, 2009

1

Outreach Issues is the civil soci-

ety newsletter produced by the

SDIN Group (ANPED, TWN and

ELCI) and Stakeholder Forum.

Outreach Issues aims to report

with attitude, from the global

scene of sustainability.

The organizations publishing

Outreach Issues are not re-

sponsible for the content of

signed articles. Opinions ex-

pressed in articles are those of

the authors.

By: Marco Contiero, Greenpeace European Unit

After three days of negotiations, national interests and countries positions are

becoming increasingly clear, and, despite the high number of insertions, brackets

and rewording proposed by delegates, some general considerations can be drawn.

Report from Working Group 1

2

“there is a risk that, in the name of raising

production, the need for both socially and

environmentally sustainable solutions will

be underestimated.” Delegates must un-

derstand that such an emphasis on pro-

duction per se, to the exclusion of social

and environmental needs, is a recipe for

disaster.

The main message coming out of the CSD

should be to move away from business-as-

usual and invest efforts, time and money

in a new food and agricultural model

based on ecological practices. A system,

able to feed people and fulfil their eco-

nomic needs, while protecting the environ-

ment and the natural resources on which

we all depend.

Far from rethinking the global food sys-

tem, currently neither socially nor environ-

mentally sustainable, and far from agree-

ing a clear set of solutions to the global

problems we are currently facing, delega-

tions seem to be concentrated on engag-

ing in a rather sterile debate. Indeed,

countries keep defending narrow national

interests, making sure that the current

situation remains substantially unchanged.

Ending global hunger and malnutrition will

never be addressed by limiting interna-

tional measures to solely boosting food

production. Ignoring environmental prob-

lems such as biodiversity loss, soil degra-

dation, water consumption and pollution

will continue to prevent agricultural pro-

ducers, particularly in developing coun-

tries, from being able to feed themselves

and their communities in the long run,

especially given the serious climatic

changes ahead.

These considerations are in line with the

conclusions reached by the International

scientific community. January this year saw

the publication of the most authoritative

assessment of past, present and future

challenges in agricultural production, con-

sumption, knowledge, research and devel-

opment ever conducted, the International

Assessment of Agricultural Science and

Technology for Development (IAASTD).

ture knowledge, science and technology

towards agro-ecological sciences will con-

tribute to addressing environmental issues

while maintaining and increasing produc-

tivity.” IAASTD Global Summary for Deci-

sion Makers, Key Finding 7.

It must be noted that, despite the crucial

relevance of the IAASTD Report, delega-

tions have proposed to introduce refer-

ences to numerous other international

conferences but have avoided mentioning

the existence of such an authoritative

Report.

Outreach Issues

This four-year project was initiated by the

World Bank and a multi-stakeholder

group of organisations, including FAO,

UNESCO, World Health Organisation,

UNDP, UNEP as well as governments, civil

society, private sector and scientific insti-

tutions. The Report, drafted by more than

400 scientists from around the world,

concludes that the existing food system

based on industrial agricultural practices

must be radically reformed and that the

future of agriculture is represented by

ecological farming practices.

“An increase and strengthening of agricul-

first of these visions. It’s also frustrating to

think and talk in UN-speak, the glossary of

which lacks words related to ethics and

values.

I do want to be effective in this CSD forum,

and influencing language in the outcome

document is the most tangible evidence of

effectiveness. But then I ask whether there

is also another way to be effective.

Don’t we have a responsibility to articulate,

as clearly and succinctly as we can, the

second vision, if that is what we want to see

on the ground? This responsibility is to

ourselves, for our own integrity, to the

constituencies back home that we represent

here, and even to the governments and

their delegates who might profit from

grappling with these ideas?

I perceive a core of shared values … yes, I’m

using the “v” word” … among most of civil

society. Can we consider giving those

shared values a voice?

as commodities subject to uncontrollable

financial speculation.

To seriously address the global food crisis

country delegates must follow and trans-

late into action the findings and policy

options highlighted by the IAASTD, by

putting an end to public subsidies that

promote unsustainable industrial agricul-

ture practices and by dramatically increas-

ing their funding to boost modern ecologi-

cal farming systems. If CSD17 wants to

play the role it has been given under the

UN system it must agree on a strong text

that presents Agro-ecology as the essen-

tial basis for the future global sustainable

agricultural model. Delegates will there-

fore have to seriously modify the current

negotiating text which simply presents

Agro-ecology as one of the possible agri-

cultural methods available.

ers and obstacle to market access for less

developed countries need to be eliminated

for a multilateral trading system to help

eradicating hunger and poverty. However,

given the substantial disparities between

the North and the South, developing coun-

tries must be allowed a preferential treat-

ment in order to create a truly level play-

ing field. The US delegation intervening on

this specific point clarified that reduction

and elimination of tariffs and other trade

barriers is welcomed, but only provided

that “a more market-oriented environment

for food and agricultural products” is en-

sured. Much more debate will be needed

to reconcile these opposite positions.

Unfortunately, what is also lacking in the

present discussions, is another crucial ele-

ment, the need for agricultural products to

be treated as specific products and not just

3

Outreach Issues

Another sign of political myopia is repre-

sented by the repeated calls for more

open markets and an “ambitious” conclu-

sion of the Doha Round, proposed by the

US, EU and Australian delegations. Such

calls forget the crucial role that unfair

global trade rules have played in generat-

ing hunger, poverty and impacting on the

current food crisis. Opening national agri-

cultural markets to international trade

without rethinking the current unfair rules

is likely to have serious detrimental effects

for developing nations and their small-

scale farmers, especially in the long term.

On the other side of the fence sit the G77

delegations, which have consistently de-

manded the elimination of developed

countries' polices distorting markets for

agricultural products. Export subsidies as

well as national support systems for farm-

Different Visions By: Mary Gilbert, Quaker Earthcare Witness

I think I’m seeing two profoundly different

visions for our common future, operating

here at CSD 17.

The first is a top-down vision. It pictures

global linkages established through trade,

with high interdependence for the goods

needed to sustain countries and communi-

ties. It is based in maximizing profits for

investors and implies a trickle-down concept

of wealth and well-being for the rest of us.

The second vision is bottom-up. It pictures

healthy, thriving local economies that are

ecosystem-based. Communities are essen-

tially self-sustaining in terms of basic needs.

Trade exists, but involves surplus after basic

needs are met. Wealth and well-being grow

upward.

Agriculture

At CSD sessions we talk about agriculture as

if it were a single entity. Yet vision 1 is about

large-scale, industrial mono-cropping for

export, involving great use of petrochemical

inputs with their negative effects on soil

health, large use of water for irrigation, and

long supply chains with their concomitant

greenhouse gas emissions.

In contrast, vision 2 involves farming by

families and other small-holders, with

farmers receiving profits rather than wages.

These farmers have an investment in building

up soil health and long-term water manage-

ment systems, and they use short supply

chains, with local markets and rural-urban

links. This vision accords with Gandhi’s

swaraj, which doesn’t mean national self-rule

so much as being able to make decisions

about your own, your family’s and your

community’s lives. It means having a say

over the conditions in which you live,

without choices such as those about land use

and water management precluded by

interests and forces beyond your control.

Language

Here at CSD sessions I find it frustrating to

fight for language in the text that amounts to

small concessions than can be fit into the

4 4

Outreach Issues

La Ciencia es Para las Personas

Con la fe del neoconverso nuestros

Gobiernos se han lanzado a crear

instituciones y a dotar de presupuestos

millonarios a las ciencias básicas y a las

aplicadas. Las ciencias sociales, al parecer,

no son importantes, al menos en dotación

presupuestaria. Este abandono estruen-

doso ha de tener una explicación distinta

de la mala fe de los gobernantes.

Desde la revolución liberal los problemas

sociales se resuelven por los represen-

tantes elegidos democráticamente. En

aquel momento las ciencias básicas y

aplicadas tenían una presencia algo

marginal. Sin embargo, el crecimiento de

estas se ha acelerado profundamente en

los últimos años. Pero los problemas

sociales se siguen resolviendo desde los

Gobiernos y Parlamentos. Y sus decisiones

se fundamentan en improvisaciones y en

caros informes de consultorías que ignoran

la reflexión científica en el mundo de las

ciencias sociales.

En definitiva, la reflexión científica no está

siendo utilizada para la resolución de los

conflictos sociales. Pero además, esta

situación se favorece presupuestaria-

mente.

Pero lo cierto es que nuestra sociedad

tiene muy graves conflictos sociales que

las ciencias de laboratorio nunca van a

resolver. Nadie desconoce los problemas

de violencia, de medio ambiente, de

inmigración, de corrupción, etcétera.

Nunca en la historia ha muerto tanta

gente de hambre, nunca habíamos tenido

1.200 millones de personas sin acceso al

agua potable o flujos migratorios en los

que muchos prefieren morir a seguir

viviendo en la miseria. Somos la primera

generación que vamos a dejar el mundo

ambiental y socialmente en situación

catastrófica.

Desde las ciencias sociales buscamos

nuevas formas de vida más estables y más

justas. Muchos creemos que esto es más

importante que inventar llaves inglesas de

tercera generación. Pero si nuestra ciencia

no es superior a la de los ingenieros,

al menos que se nos reconozca la

homologación presupuestaria que exige la

ingeniería social.

By: Prof. Dr. Demetrio Loperena Rota, Centre for

International Environmental Conflict

Translated by Katerina Yiannibas, Legal Adviser,

International Court of Environmental Arbitration and

Conciliation

Science is for the People

Armed with a faith in international

dialogue, our governments have been sent

to create institutions equipped with signifi-

cant funding for basic and applied

sciences. Social sciences apparently, are

not deemed as important, at least not

as reflected in budgetary grants. This

uproarious abandonment must have some

explanation beyond a lack of faith on the

behalf of government.

Since the liberal revolution, social

problems have been solved democratically

by chosen representatives. At that time,

basic and applied sciences had a

somewhat marginal presence. Neverthe-

less, basic and applied sciences have

grown at an accelerated pace in the last

years. At the same time, social problems

continue being addressed and solved by

governments and parliaments. Their

decisions are based on improvisation and

expensive consultations which often

ignore the scientific method within the

realm of social science. In effect, the

scientific method is not being used for the

resolution of social conflicts. Even more,

this situation is favoured through

budgetary decisions.

One thing for certain is that society has

grave social conflicts that laboratories will

never solve. Laboratories cannot solve

the problems concerning violence,

environment, immigration, corruption, etc.

Never in history have so many died of

hunger. Never before have we had 1,200

million people without access to potable

water whereby many die instead of

continuing to live in such misery. We are

the first generation that will leave

the world in such a catastrophic environ-

mental and social state.

Through the social sciences, we look for

new, more stable and more just ways of

life. Many think this is more important

than developing third generation monkey

wrenches. This is not to say the social sci-

ences are superior to that of the science

of engineers, they have at base the same

importance so they deserve at least the

same funding. But at the moment, what

we have is science that turns its back to

the people. It is a pity for science. It is a

pity for people.

By: Prof. Dr. Demetrio Loperena Rota, Centre for

International Environmental Conflict

Translated by Katerina Yiannibas, Legal Adviser,

International Court of Environmental Arbitration and

Conciliation

Dr. Kaire Mbuende, Namibian Ambassador to

the UN and Vice-Chair of the Commission

opened a well attended Learning Centre

session on the question of climate ethics and

their application to the themes of this year’s

Commission on Sustainable Development on

Monday afternoon.

In his opening remarks, Peter Adriance,

of the Bahá'í International Community,

highlighted the 2007/8 UNDP Human

Development Report, which affirmed that

the mitigation of climate change “raises

profound moral and ethical questions of our

generation.” Faced with evidence that

inaction will hurt millions of people, the

report asks, “can we justify inaction?” and

concludes that “no civilized community

adhering to even the most rudimentary

ethical standards would answer that

question in the affirmative.”

Adriance also highlighted the Bahá’í Interna-

tional Community’s initial contributions to

the theme of climate ethics which affirmed

that, the challenge of climate change is not

only a technical one but a moral one, and

that if we are to forge a coherent ethics for

the resolution of the climate change crisis,

it is “the principle of the oneness of

humankind” that must become the “ruling

principle of international life.”

Don Brown of the Rock Ethics Institute at

Penn State, a co-sponsor, and Marilyn Averill,

an environmental attorney and doctoral

student at the University of Colorado, were

the main speakers for this session. They were

also among the authors of the “White Paper

on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate

Change”—a seminal piece which offers a

preliminary analysis of eight fundamental

ethical issues related to climate change.

Averill explained that ethics are standards or

rules of right conduct, which comprise

a moral philosophy. Ethics involve questions

of fairness, justice, duties and responsibili-

ties. Ethical standards, then, help to

determine what is right

and what is wrong and

when responsibility

should attach to human

actions that cause harm.

To address the question:

“Why do we need climate

ethics?” Averill noted

that ethical dimensions

are attached to decisions

regarding the allocation

of emissions caps; deci-

sions about payment for

injuries and adaptation

measures; and when

actions should be taken.

Agreement on ethical

standards can help to seek out answers to

such questions.

Averill also noted that the term, “common

but differentiated,” not only applied to

“responsibilities” held by countries, but to

their contributions, impacts, and capacities

as well. “We all contribute to the problem,

but at different levels; we will all be affected,

but some are more vulnerable than others;

we have different levels of responsibility,

again some more than others; and we have

different coping capabilities.” This raises

numerous ethical questions: “Who or what

should be protected? Who are most

vulnerable? What rights do they have to

protection? Who has duties to protect? Who

gets to decide?”

Climate-related ethical issues include

matters of international equity (to what

degree are people in one country responsible

for the welfare of those in another country?);

inter-generational equity (to what extent are

those alive today responsible for the welfare

of future populations?); inter-species

responsibilities (what responsibility do

humans have to other species?); and

stewardship (what duties do humans have to

protect nature?)

Don Brown brought the focus from the

general to the more specific, stressing the

7 5

Outreach Issues

Importance of Climate Ethics Animates Learning Center

importance of clearly identifying concrete

ethical issues embedded in economic and

legal arguments. Using an array of maps

and images, he highlighted the strong

connection between climate change and the

Commission themes, outlining ethical issues

related to agriculture, land, rural develop-

ment, drought and desertification.

For the second half of the session,

participants worked in small groups to

examine six country-specific case studies in

order to identify the relevant ethical issues,

determine ethically sound actions, and

identify responsibilities for diverse actors.

Following the exercise, each group

presented a summary of the insights gained

from the analysis.. While the ethical issues

were often complex and difficult, many

participants noted that such considerations

were essential in finding sustainable

solutions.

In the final segment, Don Brown highlighted

measures that had been undertaken to

increase awareness of the ethical dimen-

sions of climate change and engaged

the group in a discussion of strategies to

expand those efforts. Several ideas

emerged, including the use of the arts and

the development of educational curricula to

inspire ethical action.

By: Jeff Thimm, Bahá'í International Community

the first generation that will leave

This is CSD-1 for Barbara Hachipuka Banda,

but you’d hardly know it from talking with

her. Ms. Banda has come to the U.N. from

Zambia, where about 3.5 out of 12 million

are currently employed in agriculture. This

figure is on the rise (from about one million

in 1960), but according to Banda, many more

depend on subsistence agriculture to survive.

The Zambian dilemma, she says, is one of

sustainability—not just with respect to envi-

ronmental degradation, but to affordable

farming as well. Many farmers in Zambia

simply cannot compete with globalized tech-

nologies, like hybrid seeds. So in 2004, Banda

teamed up with Shumei International in Ja-

pan, which has promoted the age-old model

of natural agriculture. Together, they

founded an organic farming project through

the Mbabala Women Farmers’ Cooperative

Union (MBAWOFA).

“When you’re doing basic, normal farming

with fertilizers, hybrid seeds,” she says, “Yes,

the productivity and efficiency is

faster...because you don’t need the human

manpower. But when it comes to organic

and natural, you need a lot more manpower,

which is an advantage as well, especially for

African countries, because it can create em-

ployment opportunities.”

The organizational philosophy is straightfor-

ward: a respect for nature, the indigenous

seed, and soil cleansing. MBAWOFA has pur-

sued these goals through a variety of initia-

tives: seed harvesting, crop rotation, finan-

cial training and while it may seem obvious,

self-sufficiency is at the forefront of the solu-

tion.

Originally, the project sprouted from a small

group of women, led by Banda’s mother,

who urged them to buy two-dollar shares in

the cooperative. This quickly expanded to

about two thousand women, each owning

one or two shares in the group. So when

Banda’s mother passed away, the women

were left with empty hopes.

They turned to Barbara, who notes, “People

are there. They’re getting together everyday,

and they’re ready. And what they’re simply

Thinking Locally, Acting Locally

looking for are partnerships and guides to

help them get to the next level.”

Today, she is seeing progress beyond the

small, ecological successes that have devel-

oped with organic farming. Through MBA-

WOFA, the group of women have drawn

tremendous support from the local commu-

nities—men, children, even tribal leaders.

The project has begun to embody Banda’s

chief philosophy: “that when you educate a

woman, you educate an entire community.”

But to achieve broad support, all of these

Zambian communities need to advocate for

local initiatives. Ms. Banda is very much part

of a grassroots movement that is propelling

sustainable development on the ground.

She says, “This is where the international

community must take advantage of these

opportunities to say, ‘Let’s not support a big

donor organization. Let’s not do some big

NGO where we are going to spend so much

on operational funds. Let’s do direct part-

nerships with the rural communities. Not

the government level, not just people in

cities, but with the rural community.”

By: Madhyama Subramanian and Matthew Boms

6 6

Outreach Issues

In Zambia, the MBAWOFA Project has set a global example for sustainable agriculture and self-empowerment.

7 7

Outreach Issues

share. One of the priorities of the youth

caucus is to make the policies we are

writing here more action-oriented. After

all, if these policies do not translate into

real change, we have achieved little. As

the voice of hopeful youth, we call for

actions over words, for concrete steps

towards tangible goals.

We believe change begins with a heart-

felt commitment on the part of each

individual. This commitment goes beyond

advocating for the agendas of our respec-

tive organizations and governments.

We’re not here only on behalf of a

particular group; we have deeper

responsibilities as members of the human

race.

She was in the middle of her sentence

when the gavel cut her off. From the floor

came the question, why should this

woman, who had so much more to say,

have only one minute of our time?

This happened this week here at CSD 17.

The speaker was from the women’s major

group, and the question came from the

head of US delegation.

The youth caucus agrees with those

governments that have raised concerns

about giving major groups only one minute

to speak. The major groups have on-the-

ground experience that we are ready to

U.S. Delegate Head Supports Major Groups By: Beth Gunningham, Shirlynn Sham, Thea Tan &

Alicia Cundall, Youth Caucus

Beth Gunningham (left) and Antonia Hernandez (right)

But how many are twice as many? - 100

%? - Enough? - Even 50 %? When Agenda

21 was adopted, 30 % of all world citizens

were children and youth, and therefore in

chapter 25, it is announced that “it is

imperative that youth from all parts

of the world participate actively in all

relevant levels of decision-making

processes” and furthermore that “the

involvement of today's youth in environ-

ment and development decision-making

and in the implementation of programmes

is critical to the long-term success of

Agenda 21”.

However, the percentage of children and

youth has increased radically since. Today,

half of world’s population is children and

youth. In many countries, especially in the

developing world such as the Sub-Saharan

region, the percentage is even larger - up

to 70-80 %. Meanwhile, here at CSD,

children and youth has, so far, only been

given one minute to speak and out of 46

paragraphs, 3 paragraph mentions youth.

Therefore, while this CSD is focusing on

agriculture, rural development, drought

and desertification, land, Africa, the

majority of the people who will be the

most affected is barely taken into account.

This is insolently unfair. Children and youth

of today have inherited a world they did

not shape, and their future is principally

depending on the decisions and actions

being made – or not being made, by

Governments and other stakeholders. The

fact that it is unfair is nothing compared to

how unsustainable it is!

In the developing world, up to 70-80 % of

the total population is children and youth.

If their participation and contribution is

not guaranteed, will adults be sustainable

enough for everyone? And not to forget,

since young people are not only the pre-

sent but also the future; if young people

are not included today – how can there be

true sustainable development?

I am youth and just like everyone else,

I have the capability to pollute, destroy

and eliminate. But I also have the capacity

to do wonderful things; to innovate, to

lead, to mobilize, to contribute and to

cooperate. I am not alone; neither of

being youth nor having the capacity to do

these amazing things. Therefore, the

successful inclusion of children and youth

is not just a “children and youth issue” – it

is a matter of sustainability.

Today, 3 paragraph out of 46 paragraphs

in the negotiation text mentions youth.

There is still a lot of time to extend

this appropriately. You can make this

happen. Please, let this happen! Let all

world citizens enjoy young people’s

contribution!

How many are twice as many? By: Ms. Rebecka Carlsson, Youth Representative of the

Swedish Delegation and Member of the Youth Caucus

At a meeting I recently attended, one

speaker began with a dramatic image: “If you

want to see real fear in someone’s eyes, talk

with a climate scientist.” That was the most

positive statement he made in his talk,

actually. He was correct on some level, of

course. I’m a climate impacts biologist work-

ing globally on water and climate issues with

WWF, and both as a species and as stewards

of the earth’s resources, humans clearly have

a lot of new things to be afraid of because of

climate change. Perhaps the most serious

threat is that the climate will continue to

change for decades even if we were to stop

all human-source greenhouse gas emissions

today. We are committed to adapting to the

emerging climate.

But fear is a strong drink that should be

sipped slowly; despair is intoxicating. And I

hope my eyes reveal hope too, since hope is

a better foundation for action. By accepting

that the climate is already changing and will

continue to do so for the foreseeable future,

we can focus on the needs of the most

vulnerable among us: the poor, especially in

the developing world. And in truth, we have

three emerging trends relevant to rural

development worldwide that represent new

opportunities.

Climate Adaptation Is Mostly About Water

Most of the reports about climate impacts —

whether in the scientific or the popular press

— tend to focus on air temperature. But

most of the species on the planet live in

areas where freshwater is critical: obviously

in lakes and rivers, but also species that live

in forests, mountains, and meadows. Even

marine species that live in estuaries or near

shore often depend on nutrients carried by

rivers to the sea or on species that spend

part of their lives in freshwater such as many

molluscs, arthropods, and fish. Humans are

certainly no exception: as a species, we live

in regions that range from extremely humid

to excessively arid and from some of the

hottest to the coolest parts of the earth. But

wherever we live, we always need water —

whether from surface, frozen, groundwater,

or even desalinated sources. For rural areas,

reliable access to water often defines the

agricultural basis of the economy as a whole,

particularly where subsistence farming plays

a significant role.

There’s a growing recognition among

governments and civil society groups focused

on conservation and development that

adapting to climate is mostly about manag-

ing water resources. At a recent meeting in

Nairobi sponsored by the Danish government

and the UN Environment Program, ministers

and delegates from a wide range of coun-

tries, multi-lateral organizations, and non-

profits agreed on a core set of guiding cli-

mate adaptation principles for land and

water management

The Politics of Hope: Rural Development,

Water, and Climate Change

(see http://www.landwaterdialogue.um.dk).

At a conference in Istanbul, panels

representing government, industry, and

civil-society organizations easily reached

consensus on the key status of the water

sector in facilitating the adaptation of

human societies and economies to the

emerging climate. This consensus is new and

has developed very recently. Those of us

focused on climate adaptation largely agree

that water management is the critical issue

for humans for this century.

Climate Change and Water Catalyze Holistic

Thinking (Finally!)

Agreeing that water is the focus for

collective action on climate adaptation is

important, but perhaps even more promis-

ing is the recent recognition that managing

water requires holistic thinking. For too

long, conservation and development have

been viewed as separate, even competing

approaches. But in rural China, climate

change has been the vehicle for WWF to

finally bring together landowners, fish and

poultry farmers, freshwater ecologists, pro-

vincial resource managers, urban water

treatment centers, and central government

planners together to talk about water qual-

ity.

By: John H. Matthews, WWF Freshwater Climate

Adaptation Specialist

8 8

Outreach Issues

“By accepting that the

climate is already changing

and will continue to do so

for the foreseeable future,

we can focus on the needs

of the most vulnerable.”

tion is less a scientific problem than a prob-

lem with inertia, isolation, and fear. As Va-

hid Alavian, water consultant with the

World Bank, said in a talk last summer, “We

cannot wait thirty years for precise science.”

Bringing the relevant stakeholders together

to talk about issues holistically is a critical

first step. Groups like WWF and GPPN have

been developing guidelines for sound cli-

mate-resilient water management that build

on qualities like flexibility, preparation for

extreme events, and maintaining (or im-

proving) ecosystem health and viability. We

may have difficult challenges, but we have

new opportunities as well.

In eastern Africa, WWF has been working

with farmers, biologists, and policymakers in

the Ruaha basin to manage the hydrological

cycle (environmental flows, or e-flows) in a

more sustainable way. All of these groups

have needed to talk to one another for dec-

ades, but climate change has been the

means of facilitating new approaches to link

human water use with the health of ecosys-

tems.

Climate Adaptation Should Begin Now (and

It Can)

Although the amount of climate change

we’ve realized is modest compared to what

we can expect in coming decades, biologists

have already noted significant alterations in

the behavior and geographic ranges of many

species globally. Climate change alters the

ecosystems we depend on, and people

whose livelihoods depend directly on ecosys-

tems — such as fishers and farmers — are

certainly the most exposed and vulnerable.

In more than 500,000 km of travel in the 18

months I’ve worked for WWF, I’ve seen a lot

of anxiety around climate change: “We know

it’s a problem. We know we should focus on

water. But we don’t have the expertise to

begin adapting.” WWF’s message is that

good climate adaptation is not a problem

that requires mainframe computers. It does-

n’t require a PhD. Effective climate adapta-

At a conference in Istanbul, panels

7 9

Outreach Issues

1. Climate variability and climate change

issues mainstreamed into national, re-

gional and international agricultural de-

velopment strategies and institutional

agendas.

2. Innovative information products and

communication processes developed

and maintained at local, national and

regional levels.

3. Effective, climate-informed decisions

made relating to: (a) setting priorities to

identify and fund research and develop-

ment agendas and adaptation policies

and investments at international and

regional levels; (b) promoting and imple-

menting adaptation options that render

rural communities better able to moni-

tor and adapt to climate variability and

change, with full knowledge of the trade-

offs that arise between multiple objec-

tives of increasing food security and sus-

taining livelihoods and the environment;

(c) establishing and maintaining a sup-

porting institutional, policy and infra-

structural environment so that adapta-

tion options are effective.

For more information, contact Thomas

Rosswall, Chair of the CCAFS Steering Com-

mittee at thomas.rosswall@gmail.org.

Food Security and Climate Change By: Thomas Rosswall, Chair, CCAFS Steering Committee

It is clear that food security and livelihoods of

hundreds of millions of people who depend

on small-scale agriculture are under signifi-

cant threat from climate change. To address

this challenge, a new major research pro-

gramme has recently been launched on Cli-

mate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

(CCAFS). This initiative unites the comple-

mentary strengths of the Consultative Group

on International Agricultural Research

(CGIAR) and its 15 centres and the Earth Sys-

tem Science Partnership (ESSP; a partnership

of the four international global change sci-

ence programs sponsored by the Interna-

tional Council for Science, ICSU) to address

the most pressing and complex challenge to

food security in the 21st century.

The goal of CCAFS is to overcome the addi-

tional threats posed by a changing climate on

attaining food security, enhancing livelihoods

and improving environmental management.

The Program will address this goal by gener-

ating the knowledge base and toolsets to

enable and assist farmers, policymakers,

researchers and donors to successfully man-

age agricultural and food systems so as to

strengthen food security, enhance rural live-

lihoods, and improve environmental sustain-

ability in the context of the challenges arising

from current climate variability and progres-

sive climate change.

The strategic alliance between the CGIAR and

the ESSP will bring together the world’s best

researchers in agricultural science and Earth

system science and engage the stakeholders

in a participatory approach.

The collaboration will allow a truly integrated

multi-disciplinary, resilience-based approach

to the climate change–food security prob-

lem. Thus, the programme will bridge the

natural – social sciences divide as well as the

global – local scale. In bringing together cli-

mate scientists and development researchers

it will tackle the difficult issue of scale, where

climate must be understood at the global

level, while development in small scale sub-

sistence farmers must be understood in a

local context. Much of the research is inher-

ently place-based and will be carried out in

three focus regions (East and West Africa

plus the Indo-Gangetic Plain) that have popu-

lations and agriculture vulnerable to climate

change, sufficient institutional capacity, and

offer a high chance of generating transfer-

able results. The outputs will be IPG with

utility well beyond the research locations.,

and offer best practice examples, which a

number of delegates have called on major

groups to present.

The activities and outputs of the CCCP are

orientated towards three high-level out-

comes to achieve impact:

Oparaocha, the secretary and coordinator for

the International ENERGIA Network on

Gender and Sustainability, was a guest on

Pioneers of the Planet, a radio program re-

corded live at the UN by the Stakeholder

Forum in partnership with the BBC World

Trust.

The problems for women in places like Zam-

bia are directly related to a lack of modern

energy, according to Oparaocha. Without

modern electricity, women are mired in their

traditional roles of gathering firewood for

the wood burning stoves that they use to

cook. When they have to spend large

amounts of time with household chores, they

have little time to spend on activities that

would better their lives – like education, said

Oparaocha.

She sees renewable energy technology –

things like microhydro, improved cook

stoves, biogas and solar cookers – as forms

of technology that can be adapted to meet

the needs of different communities.

“When you have renewable energy, this

really offers an opportunity to provide

energy for poor households,” said

Oparaocha.

She’s proudest of a program that she helped

start in Kenya to create a market for better

cook stoves. The simple clay stoves, made

and sold within the community, are vastly

more efficient and have helped prevent

further deforestation in Kenya by reducing

demand for firewood. At first, the locals

refused to use the new stoves because they

didn’t work with their traditional ways of

cooking. This taught Oparaocha an important

lesson.

“Yes, we have the ideas and advice, but we

also have to educate ourselves on what their

problems are and listen to them,” said

Oparaocha.

Once they were able to educate the public

about the benefits of the new stoves, the

program caught on, allowing women to

spend less time on household chores, and

creating more income for the people making

and selling the stoves.

“People are willing to change if they see the

change benefits them. They are not going to

be willing to change if it’s just imposed,” said

Oparaocha.

She is optimistic that programs like the one

in Kenya can be repeated to solve some of

the biggest problems in developing counties.

After all, she said, “We are living in the era of

Obama,” a fact she said is a personal boost of

inspiration.

Sheila Oparaocha Profile

Despite distractions like the current financial

crisis, she encourages people to stay

focused on the problems plaguing develop-

ing countries.

“Even in these difficult times, people realize

that climate change and poverty are very

serious problems,” said Oparaocha. “We

need to stick to some of the commitments

and be very serious about them to be able

to move them forward.”

Oparaocha’s entire interview with Pioneers

of the Planet is available online at

media.stakeholderforum.org.

By: Brett Israel, Stakeholder Forum

10 10

Outreach Issues

Growing up in Zambia, one of the least developed countries in the world, Sheila Oparaocha, saw first hand how

poverty, gender and energy are related. During her graduate studies in Thailand, she realized other developing

countries faced similar problems, and that the solution was to understand people’s lifestyles, and then create

solutions that meet their needs.

Sheila Oparaocha interviewed by Merim Tenev

Day Four of the Radio programme in a joint

collation of Stakeholder Fourm and the BBC

World Service Trust in conjunction with UN

radio produced more innovative Radio pro-

grammes. Today the programmes where led

primarily by Bulgarian Journalist Merim

Tenev. In Earth talk Merim sets out to un-

ravel the debates surrounding organic and

fertiliser farming, clarifying approaches to

sustainable agriculture.

In today’s edition of “Pioneers of the Planet”

Merim talked to Sheila Oparaocha. Sheila is

involved in gender energy issues and is a

Secretariat Coordinator for the international

ENERGIA Network on Gender and Sustain-

able Energy.

tion of women at the CSD, and also voices of

pastoralists from Kenya and a section on

regulated advertising to curtail consumption.

Episode 4 of “The Greentable” shows was

moderated by Richard Black and set out to

answers the question on “Do small-scale

community projects or industrial nuclear and

clean coal installations hold the key to our

energy and climate future?” The guest in-

cluded Dr Hans Holger-Rogen of the Interna-

tional Atomic Energy Agency, Annie Wilson

of the New York Sierra Club, and Sabina

Mensah from the Gratis Foundation.

Live from the CSD http://media.stakeholderforum.org

By: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum

Radio journalists preparing production of Today at the CSD.

is available online at

7 11

Outreach Issues

The discussion focused on the connection

between gender and energy. Sheila dis-

cussed the ways in which women are in-

volved in many energy-supplying issues such

as collecting firewood for their homes. We

also discussed the issue of energy policies in

such countries and outlined the perspectives

of renewable energy there.

During the conversation we faced the truth

that it is not only having necessary to have a

program on sustainable development, it is

also necessary to educate the people on how

to benefit from it.

In Today at the CSD we have an eyewitness

account of Climate Change at the Arctic,

words of caution on biofuels, the representa-

A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

Towards the end of the first week of my first Commission on Sustainable Development, and through sitting in and observing the delegates engage in dialogue that affects us all, I am remind of some graffiti by the artist Banksy, about the power to influence change.

“In November '89, in response to a small uprising in Timisoara, Romania, the country's corrupt and brutal dictator was persuaded to address a public rally in Bucharest. A lone man in the crowd, Nica Leon, sick of Ceausescu's dreadful regime started shouting in favour of the Timisoara revolutionaries. The crowd around him, obedient to the last, thought 'Long live Timisoara!' was a new political slogan and started chanting it to. It was only when he began shouting 'Down with Ceaucescu!' that they realised all was not right. They tried to get away from him, banners were getting dropped and broken in the crush and women started screaming.

On the balcony, the panic sounded like booing. Ceausescu stood there ludicrously frozen, mouth opening and shutting. Then the head of Romania's security walked over to him and whispered 'they're getting in'. It was clearly audible on the President's microphone and was broadcast live across the whole country. The revolution had begun. Within a week Ceausescu was dead. Somewhere in a bar in Romania sits Nica Leon, a solitary man who changed the course of history.

Food for Thought… Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

looks very much like the chance for some

movement on IEG will be possible. Heads

of State will not want to attend a Summit

in 2012 without a resolution of this issue,

which has been going on since the first

Rio Earth Summit.

What is the role of this discussion in the

context of sustainable development gov-

ernance? Is the CSD as it is presently

constructed the right body to address the

sustainable development challenges of

the future? Is a work programme set up

in 2003 relevant to issues that need to be

addressed in 2010 to 2015? Where in the

UN system can you address emerging and

critical issues such as energy and climate

security, food security, water security,

and the real impacts of growth of urbani-

sation?

Might a Sustainable Development Council

of the General Assembly to deal with

these kinds of issues be a better place for

doing this?

Maurice Strong did advocate at Rio in

1993 and afterwards that there should be

a transformation of the Trusteeship

Council into an Ecological Security Coun-

cil. Might Rio+20 be a chance to look

again at these kinds of ideas?

This brings me back to reform of UNEP.

One of the ideas in the papers distrib-

uted to governments for the governing

council mentioned the merging of UNEP

and UNDP. If one was to extend that to

include UN Habitat, might we have a

world sustainable development organi-

sation that could address the role of the

UN in countries in a real coordinated

way? Is this too radical an idea for

Rio+20?

“Governance”

Senior Editor: Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, ANPED

Co-Editor: Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

Daily Editor: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum

Design and Layout: Erol Hofmans, ANPED

Contributing writers:

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace European Unit

Mary Gilbert, Quaker Earthcare Witness

Prof. Dr. Demetrio Loperena Rota, Centre for International Environmental Conflict

Jeff Thimm, Bahá'í International Community

Madhyama Subramanian and Matthew Boms

Beth Gunningham, Shirlynn Sham, Thea Tan & Alicia Cundall, Youth Caucus

Ms. Rebecka Carlsson, Swedish Youth Representative

John H. Matthews, WWF Freshwater Climate Adaptation Specialist

Thomas Rosswall, Chair, CCAFS Steering Committee

Brett Israel, Stakeholder Forum

EDITORIAL TEAM

Previous and today’s issues are easily available online, go to:

www.sdin-ngo.net

media.stakeholderforum.org

Please send your contributions to:

smooney@stakeholderforum.org

erol.hofmans@anped.org

Outreach Issues

12

With the failure of the General Assembly

process on International Environmental

Governance (IEG) under Mexican Ambas-

sador Claude Heller and Swiss Ambassa-

dor Maurer, now is the time for UNEP to

pick up the leadership role. The decision

of the UNEP Governing Council to set up

a Working Group of 20 Ministers to try

and move forward IEG is to be very much

welcomed. It was framed in Nairobi by

the impressive speech by Marthinus van

Schalkwyk, South African Minister of En-

vironmental Affairs and Tourism, who

said:

“My challenge to our collective gathered

here today is that we must use the next 3

years, up to Rio+20 in 2012, to define a

new paradigm for our cooperation. We

must transform the politics of distrust,

break the impasse and build a common

vision for IEG reform. Whilst building on

UNEP by enhancing its legitimacy, author-

ity and resources, we must ask ourselves

fundamental questions on the desired

future and how we can find innovative

ways of achieving it.”

With a target date of 2012 now set, it

Outreach Issues is made

possible through the

generous support of: .

THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND SEA

AND

THE BELGIAN SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL PUBLIC

PLANNING SERVICE