RIO DE JANEIRO, 23 junho (TerraViva)  A Conferencia Global para os Assentamentos Humanos (Habitat II), em Istambul há 16 anos, foi das mais abertas à participação da sociedade civil, senão a campeã. Acolheu num grosso volume conclusivo milhares de  propostas e recomendações dos participantes.

Estava fadado ao esquecimento. “Faltou estratégia”, avaliou Jaime Lerner, certificado como grande urbanista pela inovadora gestão de Curitiba décadas atrás.

Sociedade civil: desejo de soluções rápidas para demandas complexas. Crédito: Ana Libisch

A Rio+20, pela via oposta, terminou também sem permitir que se vislumbre uma estratégia para desarmar a armadilha em que se meteu a humanidade. Propostas das ONGs foram excluídas. Mas poderia a conferencia governamental, com 99 por cento de países capitalistas, digerir as teses anticapitalistas do fórum não governamental ?

A Declaração Final da Cúpula dos Povos na Rio+20 assume o “desafio urgente de frear a nova fase de recomposição do capitalismo”, em que “o povo organizado e mobilizado” é a única forma capaz de “libertar o mundo do controle das corporações e do capital financeiro”.

A principal contribuição dessa Conferencia sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável pode ser um choque de realismo como estímulo a uma reflexão, a partir do reconhecimento de realidades ignoradas tanto na pretensão de se apontar “O futuro que queremos” no documento oficial, como na de reunir uma “Cúpula dos Povos” no Aterro do Flamengo, sugerindo uma hierarquia rejeitada por esses mesmos “povos” quando se reúnem no Forum Social Mundial.

Essa busca de novos caminhos já começou. Um movimento lançado neste sábado no Rio de Janeiro, o Rio+20+1 dia ou “Day After”, pretende construir uma proposta de “Um novo Contrato Social para o século XXI”, atualizando idéias do pensador Jean Jacques Rousseau, cujo tricentenário se comemora este ano.

A iniciativa, idealizada pelo diretor executivo da UNITAR (Instituto da ONU para Formação Profissional e Pesquisa), Carlos Lopes, foi inaugurada com a presença do presidente do Painel Internacional de Mudanças Climáticas (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, e do economista do ecodesenvolvimento, Ignacy Sachs, entre outros.

Há um certo consenso sobre a necessidade de um novo padrão de produção e consumo. Mas seguem indefinidos tal paradigma e o como alcançá-lo, temas de discórdia inevitável. Ninguém, mesmo entre os anticapitalistas da “Cúpula”, fala em revolução social.

O impasse evidenciado pela Rio+20 põe em cheque concepções voluntaristas. Muitos cobram liderança com “ousadia, coragem de estadistas” aos atuais ocupantes do poder, como forma de resolver a “crise civilizatória” em que se combinam crises variadas como a ambiental, a econômica, a social e ética. Acaso queremos a volta dos déspotas esclarecidos ?

O impeachment do presidente paraguaio, Fernando Lugo, coincidindo com a Rio+20, deixa claro que governantes também têm seus limites. Devem responder aos interesses reais da sociedade nacional e à correlação de forças, que se expressam no poder político e econômico, não nas pesquisas de opinião em que uma maioria diz ter preocupações ambientais.

A ausência de Barack Obama na Rio+20 se atribuiu aos riscos que o mais poderoso homem da Terra enfrenta nas eleições de novembro próximo. Assumir compromissos ambientais ameaçaria sua reeleição.

O descompasso entre a dinâmica política de curto prazo e o longo prazo das questões ambientais seria outro obstáculo ao equacionamento dos desafios. Mas está fora de cogitação alongar os mandatos e exemplos recentes mostram a crescente intolerância com a longevidade no poder.

Uma nova institucionalidade parece indispensável para enfrentar ameaças à humanidade, como as mudanças climáticas, a redução da biodiversidade e da disponibilidade de água potável, a acidificação dos oceanos e a desertificação.

A conferência do Rio debilitou o multilateralismo, acatando a tese americana a favor de iniciativas nacionais, contra acordos globais vinculantes, concluiu a ex ministra Marina Silva. A ONU foi “capturada por interesses corporativos”, segundo muitos outros ativistas.

Nesse quadro, não parece prometedor criar uma nova agencia para temas ambientais na ONU, a exemplo da Organização Mundial de Saúde ou do Comercio, principal proposta para uma governança necessária nessa área.

Também não se avançou na questão do financiamento do desenvolvimento sustentável. A proposta de países emergentes pela criação de um fundo de 30 bilhões de dólares foi vetada, principalmente pelos Estados Unidos.

Mas na reunião das 20 maiores economias, nesta mesma semana no México, se aprovou um aporte de 456 bilhões de dólares para o Fundo Monetário Internacional, dos quais 75 bilhões oferecidos pelos emergentes do BRICS (Brasil, Russia, India, China e África do Sul), numa clara indicação de que a prioridade é “salvar os bancos”, se queixam os ativistas.

Diante dessa complexidade dos problemas globais são inócuas manifestações tautológicas de que precisamos de novos paradigmas de consumo. Há medidas de evidente eficácia, como a eliminação dos subsídios aos combustíveis fósseis, que somavam 409 bilhões de dólares no ano passado, segundo a Agencia Internacional de Energia. A tendência é de subir para 660 bilhões em 2020. Por que não se consegue sequer reduzir esse incentivo à destruição da vida, como se tem conseguido em relação ao tabaco?

Outra ação de resultados significativos, tanto ambientais como sociais e de saúde, é disseminar fogões eficientes a lenha, já desenvolvidos, ou mesmo substituir esse combustível ainda usado por três bilhões de pessoas no mundo.

Falta ao “povo organizado”, na verdade dividido em ONGs, sindicatos, movimentos sociais e entidades variadas com seus objetivos específicos, uma estratégia comum para tornar políticas públicas as experiências eficientes na área socioambiental e influir nas decisões nacionais e mundiais determinantes para o destino da humanidade.

Os caminhos para uma eficácia política, reprovada ou descartada a via partidária, deveriam aparentemente merecer uma maior reflexão por parte dos militantes. (TerraViva)

(FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, 22 junho (TerraViva) – O moçambicano Jeremias Vunjanhe conseguiu, na caótica Cúpula dos Povos, encontrar os ativistas do Movimento Xingu Vivo que denunciavam a criminalização dos seus ativistas pela policia de Altamira, no interior do Pará.

Vunjanhe tornou-se conhecido no encontro da sociedade civil da conferencia Rio+20, ao ser deportado no dia 12 de junho, quando desembarcava no aeroporto internacional de Guarulhos. Barrado pela Policia Federal, teve seu passaporte retido e devolvido “três horas depois já dentro do avião” de regresso a Moçambique, contou a TerraViva.

Manifestação contra a construção de Belo Monte.

O carimbo no seu passaporte diz que foi “Impedido” de entrar no país porque “consta no SINPI”, siglas de Sistema Nacional de Procurados e Impedidos, apesar de ter um visto de entrada concedido pelo consulado brasileiro em Maputo.

A solidariedade de 80 organizações e negociações com a chancelaria brasileira permitiram que viesse ao Brasil com novo visto. Recebido com festas no Aeroporto do Galeão dia 18, participou dos últimos quatro dias da Cúpula dos Povos, onde trouxe denuncias sobre violências da brasileira Vale contra os desalojados por suas atividades mineiras em Moçambique.

Membro da ONG Justiça Ambiental, denunciou também a ameaça que representa a hidrelétrica de Mphanda Nkuwa, que a Camargo Correia, uma das grandes empreiteiras brasileiras, construirá no Rio Zambeze, em sociedade com duas empresas locais, com investimentos previstos de 2,4 bilhões de dólares.

Daí seu interesse em estabelecer uma troca de informações e experiências com o Xingu Vivo, também procurado por Güven Eken, diretor-executivo da ONG Doga Denergi, da Turquia.

Represas atingem povos em todo o mundo, “a solução tem que ser global”, disse Eken, pregando “união para defender os rios”. Enquanto Belo Monte ameaça a Amazônia, a hidrelétrica Ilisu, no Rio Tigre, ameaça a Mesopotâmia, berço da civilização, salientou.

O encontro foi convocado pelo Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre (MXVPS) para informar sobre os interrogatórios a que a Delegacia de Altamira está submetendo participantes da manifestação do dia 16, no âmbito do Xingu+23, uma serie de atos de protesto contra Belo Monte na própria região, durante a semana passada.

No dia 16 manifestantes cavaram uma vala numa das ensacadeiras, para deixar escorrer a água, num gesto simbólico em favor do livre fluxo do Rio Xingu. Após o ato, alguns índios invadiram escritórios da Norte Energia, consórcio que constrói a usina, danificando equipamentos e instalações.

Estão tentando criminalizar a resistência ao “monstro Belo Monte”, quando os culpados pela violência são o próprio Governo Federal, o Poder Judiciário e o consórcio construtor, que violam a legislação, impondo uma licença de implantação da hidrelétrica, sem que as condicionantes estabelecidas com base nos estudos de impacto ambiental tenham sido cumpridas, protestou Antonia Melo, líder do Movimento.

Só os atingidos são criminalizados, enquanto se privatiza um bem público como o rio, a Norte Energia, “maior latifundiária da região”, tem propriedades legalizadas em três municípios e os pequenos agricultores nunca recebem seus títulos de propriedade, são desalojados sem indenização, enfatizou Ana Laíde Barbosa, do Conselho Indigenista Missionário de Altamira.

O governo e as empresas implantaram um clima de “terror jurídico” na região para “imobilizar a luta” conta Belo Monte e “calar ativistas”, opinou o advogado Sergio Martins, da Sociedade Paraense de Defesa dos Direitos Humanos, que presta assistência aos ativistas.

A repercussão dos fatos envolvendo Belo Monte, com personalidades conhecidas em todo o mundo aderindo ao movimento contra a hidrelétrica, tornou esse empreendimento uma referencia internacional dos atingidos por barragens. (TerraViva)

(FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, 21 de junho (IPS/TerraViva) Com a população mundial ameaçando explodir – dos sete bilhões atuais para mais de nove bilhões até meados do século –, o aumento acentuado de seres humanos não significa apenas cidades superlotadas, mas também uma demanda crescente por alimentos, água, energia e abrigo, prenunciando implicações devastadoras para um futuro sustentável.

Os esforços para promover o desenvolvimento sustentável que não abordam a dinâmica das populações continuarão a fracassar. Foto: Fahim Siddiqi/IPS

O século 21 é um período crítico para as pessoas e o planeta, com tendências demográficas e de consumo que impõem enormes desafios para um mundo finito, adverte um novo relatório divulgado na cúpula Rio+20, no dia 21, pelo Fundo de População das Nações Unidas (UNFPA).

Apropriadamente intitulado Assuntos da População para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável, o relatório sublinha a importância da dinâmica populacional na agenda do desenvolvimento sustentável, algo “que foi perdido nas últimas décadas”.

O relatório propõe políticas concretas centradas nas pessoas e baseadas em direitos para tratar de questões que o mundo enfrenta de uma forma ampla no Século 21.

Em entrevista ao TerraViva, o diretor executivo do UNFPA, Babatunde Osotimehin, disse que melhorar o bem-estar da humanidade, agora e no futuro, exige, acima de tudo, uma mudança real e imediata para uma produção sustentável e um consumo equilibrado – a marca da economia verde.

“Em todos os lugares, mas especialmente nas economias emergentes, milhões de pessoas estão se tornando consumidores mais ricos de bens e serviços, aumentando assim a pressão sobre os recursos naturais. Padrões sustentáveis de consumo, possibilitados em parte por tecnologias apropriadas, são, portanto, urgentes”, advertiu.

Osotimehin observou que novas dinâmicas populacionais globais apresentam muitos desafios, mas também oferecem oportunidades para garantir um futuro sustentável. Mudanças demográficas, como a tendência de viver em cidades, podem reduzir a pressão sobre o meio ambiente reduzindo o consumo de recursos.

“Desacelerar o crescimento da população pode ter um impacto positivo sobre a sustentabilidade ambiental no longo prazo. Isto também dará mais tempo para as nações se adaptarem às mudanças no ambiente. No entanto, isso só pode ocorrer se as mulheres tiverem o direito, o poder e os meios para decidir livremente quantos filhos ter e quando”, enfatizou.

O relatório diz que mais de dois terços dos governos dos 48 países menos desenvolvidos (PMD) têm manifestado grandes preocupações com o crescimento populacional, alta fertilidade e rápida urbanização.

Para inserir a agenda populacional novamente na discussão do desenvolvimento sustentável, há a necessidade de se reconhecer que a dinâmica de populações tem uma influência significativa sobre o desenvolvimento sustentável, que esforços para promover o desenvolvimento sustentável que não abordam a dinâmica populacional têm falhado e continuarão a fracassar, e que dinâmica populacional não é destino.

Entretanto, a mudança é possível por meio de um conjunto de políticas que respeitem os direitos e liberdades humanas, e contribuam para a redução da fertilidade, nomeadamente o acesso aos cuidados de saúde sexual e reprodutiva, educação além do nível primário, e o empoderamento das mulheres.

Osotimehin ressaltou que os governos também precisam integrar as tendências demográficas e projeções futuras em suas estratégias e políticas de desenvolvimento. “Os investimentos que são construídos sobre, e aproveitam, a evolução demográfica podem ajudar a transformar a população em um capital humano rico que pode impulsionar o desenvolvimento sustentável”, opinou.

“Planejar para mudanças projetadas no tamanho da população em tendências como o envelhecimento, migração e urbanização é uma condição indispensável para estratégias sustentáveis de desenvolvimento rural, urbano e nacional, bem como os esforços significativos de mitigação e adaptação às mudanças climáticas”, concluiu. (FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 22 (TerraViva) The EU’s “agriculture minister” tells TerraViva that in Europe, the push for food security made at Rio+20 will be continued with a future European development policy centred on this issue.

Dacian Ciolos. Credit: Claudia Ciobanu/IPS

Q: How do you evaluate the final Rio agreement?

A: Even if generally the European Union thinks that the final Rio document could have been better as regards agriculture and food security, I think the document is consistent enough.

Our objectives are in there, for example, the value of small-scale farming for global food security is properly recognised. Improving productivity of small farms both helps increase overall food production levels and contributes to poverty alleviation.

Technology and innovation transfer to small farmers has been acknowledged as important here in Rio and the EU’s development policy, particularly in relation to Africa, will reflect this. The document recognises the negative impacts of food price volatility on the livelihoods of smaller farmers and it has been agreed to improve transparency in food markets.

Q: Many voices say that Rio will not have any practical impact. What impact can Rio have when it comes to food security?

A: Food security cannot be dealt with unilaterally, by only one institution. It is also a problem that cannot be solved without looking at it simultaneously from the economic, environmental and social point of view.

The Rio agreement acknowledges this and it is a step towards finding the complex answer to the complex food security question. From now, when decisions will be made about financing or about social support measures, agriculture will be considered central.

In the next couple of years, we will need to think up an international framework that can address the issue of food security in its multidimensionality.

Q: What are the next steps you will take in Europe to follow up on Rio?

A: The European Commission is now working on applying our experience from the Common Agricultural Policy (i.e., the farming policy of the EU which offers financial support for European farmers and is now undergoing a “greening” process) to our development policy.

In the future development policy of the EU (2014-2020), we are focusing on two core dimensions: sustainable energy and food security. We intend to offer not only financing for these two areas but also offer knowledge.

Mind you, we do not want to provide models, but we rather want to support our partners in developing countries to elaborate their own development models. In Europe itself, the next farming policy will change to be more sustainable.

Q: Everyone speaks now about supporting small farmers to achieve food security. Is it enough to offer support to small farmers or do some other measures need to be taken to limit the negative impact that agri-business can have on sustainability?

A: Large-scale farming makes more sense than small-scale ones in some areas because of relief, climate and soil conditions, for example, when it comes to cereal and oil production. But what is important to watch is the behaviour of agri-business in the market: they should not be allowed to take over land artificially when proper land tenure and market management are lacking.

It is also important to ensure that investments in farming do not just go for those enterprises that bring short-term profits, which are agri-businesses, but also significantly towards the model that brings long-term gains, which according to me is smallholder farming.

Because private banks usually steer away from offering financing to small farmers, public policies should support investments in this sector. And public support is also needed for the organisation of small farms and simply for balancing the development of the agri-business sector and the smallholder one.

Q: How difficult it is politically to shift investments towards small farms?

A: It is a matter of political will. If you want to obtain medium and long-term results which make sense both socially and economically, then you are interested in supporting small farmers.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 22 (TerraViva) When the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development ended Friday, there were winners and losers – mostly losers.

The omission of reproductive rights is a step backwards from previous agreements, said Gro Harlem Brundtland. UN Photo/Mark Garten

The United Nations and the host country Brazil – along with big business – put a positive spin on the outcome of the conference, a follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit.

It was another historic document that will change the world, they claimed.

But most non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society representatives and women activists expressed disappointment and outrage over the final blueprint, titled “The Future We Want”, which was approved by world leaders Friday.

The comparison with the 1992 Agenda 21 was inevitable.

Anita Nayar of the Manila-based Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) told IPS that in the historic agreement adopted in 1992, there were around 170 references to gender and an entire chapter on women.

In the latest version of “The Future We Want”, there are only around 50, and these have been watered down and were used as negotiating chips by states, she said.

“It is not a simple matter of gender mentions either, but rather there is clearly an unwillingness by some states to agree on concrete actions and an overall weakening of internationally agreed commitments on gender equality and women’s empowerment,” Nayar added.

She said while human rights is generally affirmed in the context of sexual and reproductive health, the specific omission of reproductive rights is glaring.

Equally critical was Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway and chair of the Brundtland Commission (named after her) which brought the concept of sustainable development to global attention 25 years ago.

“The Rio+20 declaration does not do enough to set humanity on a sustainable path, decades after it was agreed that this is essential for both people and the planet. I understand the frustration in Rio today,” she said in a statement released Thursday.

Brundtland, who is a member of a group called The Elders, said, “We can no longer assume that our collective actions will not trigger tipping points, as environmental thresholds are breached, risking irreversible damage to both ecosystems and human communities. These are the facts – but they have been lost in the final document.

“Also regrettable is the omission of reproductive rights – which is a step backwards from previous agreements. However – with this imperfect text, we have to move forward. There is no alternative,” she said.

The reactions from groups at the grassroots level were mostly negative.

“I haven’t seen this much fake green covering since last St Patrick’s day. The document does not come close to the future we really want and that’s because it was written with the interests of the few rather than the many in mind,”  said Nathan Thanki of Earth, one of the protesting youth leaders who occupied the plenary entrance at the Rio+20 site on Thursday.

Noelene Nabulivou, Women’s Action for Change, Fiji, told IPS, “As an activist from Pacific I see clearly the catastrophic impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and sea level rise. Rio+20 does not do justice to the immediacy and severity of this global problem.”

Nicole Bidegain of GEO-ICAE, Uruguay said, “The green economy simply reinforces the current model of development, based on overconsumption and production. The same financial mechanisms that caused multiple crises since 2008 are being promoted, but this time to commodify nature. There is enough evidence on the negative impacts of the financialisation of nature on women’s rights and livelihoods. “

She said the private sector as a source of finance is prioritised over public financing. “This is ironic as the private sector is concerned with maximising profit in the short term, not with long-term investments needed to transition to genuine people-centred sustainable development.”

Monica Novillo, Coordinadora de la Mujer, Bolivia, said, “I came to Rio+20 with high expectations that governments would build on the landmark resolution on sexual and reproductive health and rights for youth and adolescents adopted at the 45th Commission on Population Development.”

She said Brazil played a key role in creating this outcome, “so I expected that they would strongly defend these fundamental rights at Rio+20 against a minority of conservative governments.”

While the Cairo and Beijing agendas (on population and women) were reaffirmed at Rio+20, it is high time that these agreements are fully implemented, she added.

DAWN’s Gita Sen regretted that Rio+20 had virtually buried reproductive rights.

She told IPS, “Reproductive rights has been traded away. It is very clear in this outcome document that there is a continuing war on women’s human rights launched by the Holy See (Vatican) along with some very conservative governments.”

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 22 (TerraViva) I disagree with the branding of Rio+20 as an abject “failure”. As a returnee from the 1992 Earth Summit, I have mixed views about the conference, some positive.

Don de Silva

Even former political leaders have joined the chorus of disappointment.

Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway, has said, “The Rio+20 declaration does not do enough to set humanity on a sustainable path, decades after it was agreed that this is essential for both people and the planet. I understand the frustration in Rio today.”

Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland has said: “This is a ‘once in a generation’ moment when the world needs vision, commitment and above all, leadership. Sadly, the current document is a failure of leadership.”

Both world renowned and distinguished leaders raise important points. But blame and finger-pointing comes easy.

Are the civil society movements so blasé as to expect governments, many with scant respect for human rights or the environment, to suddenly come up with radical agreements and then cough up the billions to implement action?

Did they not look into what happened immediately after the creation of the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972? Or the follow-up to the 1992 Rio summit?

According to British government records unearthed by the New Scientist, the ambitious aims of UNEP were held in cheque by the activities of the Brussels group, which included Britain, the U.S., Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and France, while they piously preached about the environment.

The group was “an unofficial policy-making body to concert the views of the principal governments concerned”, according to a note of one of the group’s first meetings, held in 1971, written by a civil servant in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Instead of making generalised statements damning all countries, is it not possible for the members of the civil society groups and concerned leaders to name and shame those who have watered down texts, and strengthen the hand of negotiators who wanted to effect change?

At a fringe meeting, Gro Harlem Brundtland lamented the omission of women’s reproductive rights in the final document. It is surprising that the full force of the civil society movement was not mobilised to stop this from happening.

Holier-than-thou non-governmental organisations need to turn the searchlight inwards to see if they are really the paragons of virtue they claim to be. Getting two environmental NGOs to work together at times is a daunting task. Some are neither civil nor societies, and can be “some peoples’” movements.

At Rio+20, businesses came of age. An “extraordinary” group of leaders, calling themselves “Friends of Rio”, from across business, NGOs, trade unions and scientific institutions have banded together to find a new path towards sustainable development.

Their message is pretty clear: we cannot leave the future of the planet only to politicians.

Failure of leadership? The 2010 United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP16), which took place in Copenhagen, was a political disaster. By contrast, Rio+20 has produced an agreement, a combined effort of the passionate and plain-speaking Sha Zukang, secretary general of Rio+20, and the Brazilian government.

Rio+20 has witnessed the emergence of a new leadership from countries like Brazil and China. Yes, polluters must pay for past and present inequities. But developing countries will have to wait forever if they think that the debt-ridden, austerity-laden Western nations will put up the money.

To argue about a lack of funds is laughable. In 2011, global military spending amounted to 1.74 trillion dollars. Disarmament is a necessary condition for sustainable development. This spending is not mentioned in the final text.

Some 50,000 protesters in Rio claimed that the green economy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This need not be the case. The shift to a green economy can be used to bring paradigm shifts in thinking and living, beyond anything that we have witnessed so far.

A relentless and sustained united action by thousands of environmental NGOs throughout the world – a green Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter – will and can move mountains.

Don de Silva is a journalist and environmentalist. He is co-ordinator of UNEP’s Regional Information Programmes and has worked with several NGOs to initiate and manage advocacy programmes for sustainable development. He can be contacted at dondes@changeways.net

YEOSU, South Korea, Jun. 21 (TerraViva) Oceans, seas and coasts provide over 200 million jobs globally, while 4.3 billion people get 15 percent of their intake of animal protein from the seas. Travel and tourism, ports and energy production use oceans and seas to create jobs and economic and social benefits for millions of people.

Wendy Watson-Wright, executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC). Credit: Manipadma Jena/IPS

Over the last century a multitude of threats has eroded the ocean’s ability to sustain the benefits it can provide for present and future generations.  Poorly managed human activities have also eroded oceans’ resilience, particularly to climate change.

Sustainable management of marine ecosystems has not been accorded the priority it urgently deserves. At the Earth Summit currently underway in Rio de Janeiro, however, many hope these issues take centre-stage.

On the sidelines of Expo 2012, Yeosu, South Korea, whose theme this year is ‘The Living Ocean and Coast’, IPS correspondent Manipadma Jena asked Wendy Watson-Wright, executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), what steps need to be taken to manage the challenges facing oceans and how much of this to expect at Rio+20.

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Q: What is IOC’s view on the present state of ocean acidification and what are the mechanisms for controlling it?

A: Ocean acidification is definitely one of the most important issues facing the planet today. The oceans are now 30 percent more acidic than before the industrial revolution and as one of my colleagues says, ‘Oceans are already hot, sour and breathless’ – meaning, currently with climate change and absorption of carbon dioxide, the oceans are becoming warmer, more acidic and more hypoxic – with more dead zones in them now.

If we continue with business-as-usual oceans will be 150 percent more acidic by the year 2100. Already we are seeing the impact on marine organisms, their reproductive functions and mortality, which is most evident in the coral reefs.

While we need to stop emitting as much as we are currently, we also need to know more about acidification’s impact on sea organisms. We need more observation. We do have a global ocean observation system, but there is no observation network for ocean acidification which needs to be incorporated.

Q: We need more science, we need more research – how plentiful is funding for such activities?

A: Funding is forthcoming in those countries dependent upon the ocean, like the Small Island Countries – they do not have a lot of money, but are concerned and acting already. So are Monaco, Australia, Canada, the U.S. and Korea.

By hosting Expo 2012 (with the theme) ‘The Living Ocean and Coast’, (South) Korea is successfully directing world attention to the oceans.

As land creatures we tend to think primarily in terms of land; oceans remain out of sight, out of mind. In most national capital cities where decisions are made, oceans do not figure in day-to-day activities so funding is that much (harder) to come by.

Q:  What is UNESCO doing about increasing awareness levels on oceans at the policy-making level and particularly at Rio+20?

[related_articles]A:  At Rio+20 we are trying to heighten awareness that if we do not have sustainable development of the oceans we cannot have sustainable development of the planet. The only reason we are here on the planet is because of the ocean.

I think that (our) planet is misnamed: it should be called planet Ocean and not planet Earth.

Ahead of Rio +20, IOC – the ocean knowledge, data exchange and ocean services arm of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) – led an inter-agency paper, ‘Blueprint for Ocean and Coastal Sustainability’, translated into five languages including Korean. IOC has also been hosting side events, including talks in the European Parliament on oceans in the Rio context.

Q: Where do you see the Yeosu Declaration in the context of Rio+20?

A: The Yeosu Declaration will be adopted on Aug. 12, 2012, after Rio+20 and it is probably good timing. I am hopeful that Rio will come up with something very strong on oceans and then countries sign the Yeosu Declaration saying we must look after oceans if we are to look after humanity – it will bring more attention to the crisis currently facing (the world’s) oceans.

Q: In the midst of the debate on oceans, are we adequately addressing the issue of fisher communities?

A: In our work at UNESCO-IOC we try to involve the local people, particularly in capacity building on coastal issues, for example in the tsunami warning system.  We are also giving importance to getting the oceans into the school education system; we teach the children and they teach the rest when they grow up. But I think all of us could do much better.

Q: Where do we stand on the Blue Carbon issue?

A: We are at the very beginning. Outside the scientific community few know that coastal ecosystems like mangroves and sea grass are much more efficient at sequestering carbon; this knowledge needs to be brought in to the ocean science community, to policy makers and most importantly, to communities who look after these ecosystems. Blue carbon holds a lot of promise.

Q: What, currently, is your most passionate project within IOC?

A: Right now, working towards creating awareness at Rio+20 about the fact that the global oceans observation system is critical. In order to make good science, so necessary for good policy, we need good observation. This, and ocean acidification, marine litter – including the major concern on micro-plastic litter in the marine environment – are my other interest areas.

Q: Will Rio+20 reach a sufficient conclusion on the issue of oceans?

A: I am very hopeful; and there is a lot going on. The World Bank launched its very inclusive global partnership for oceans. The U.N. Secretary General will announce at Rio+20 the Oceans Compact (a strategic vision for stakeholders, including the U.N., to collaborate and accelerate progress towards the goal of Healthy Oceans for Prosperity).

The focus of Rio+20 is civil society. The Brazilian government has launched a wide-reaching web-based dialogue on all thematic including oceans. I am very interested to see the outcome of these (efforts).

(END)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 21 (TerraViva) Agriculture and food security are one area where experts say that even a more general level of agreement, as reached in the final Rio+20 declaration, constitutes progress.

Peruvian farmer Inocencia Chipana shows her coffee beans outside a cooperative warehouse. Credit: Milagros Salazar/IPS

“The European Union considers that the Rio final agreement could have gone much further, (but) when it comes to agriculture and food security, I think the document is consistent enough in that the importance of small family farming for improving global food security is properly recognised,” EU Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos told TerraViva.

According to the commissioner, the main value of the Rio agreement for global food security is that it acknowledges that this is an issue that needs to be addressed from economic, environmental and social points of view and that international collective efforts are needed in this direction.

Other positive aspects in the agreement, according to Ciolos, are the acknowledgement that technology and innovation have to be made available to small farmers, not just to agri-businesses, and the need to cushion farmers from the negative effects of global food price volatility.

Ciolos’ relatively positive assessment of agriculture and food security in the Rio+20 final document is shared by Emile Frison, director general of Biodiversity International.

According to Frison, agriculture was one of the less controversial points in the negotiations but this should be taken as a good sign, meaning that countries have come to accept the urgency of addressing food security as a global problem.

“Malnutrition has finally been recognised as a major concern for the future,” Frison told TerraViva. “And it has been acknowledged that if we want to address the issue of malnutrition, we cannot solve it only by offering pills and supplements, but a more sustainable solution has to be found and this has to come through a more diverse agriculture that provides a more diverse diet and a better health.”

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 21 (TerraViva) Over one billion people in the developing world could benefit from the Sustainable Energy for All initiative to bring electricity and clean-burning cookstoves to those without by 2030, U.N. officials said here June 21.

Some 2.7 billion people rely on traditional biomass such as wood or dung for cooking and heating. Credit: IPS

However, civil society is critical that the target communities are simply being treated as customers and not partners in this effort.

“Hundreds of millions will gain improved access to energy through grid extension and off-grid solutions, as well as scaled-up renewable energy sources,” said Kandeh Yumkella, director-general of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and head of UN-Energy.

Launched last fall, Sustainable Energy for All has three goals: ensure universal access to modern energy services; double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and double the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

Worldwide, approximately 2.7 billion people rely on traditional biomass such as wood or dung for cooking and heating. Some 1.3 billion have no access to electricity, and up to a billion more only have access to unreliable electricity networks. Most energy-poor communities are concentrated in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

“This initiative is being decided by an unaccountable hand-picked group dominated by representatives of multinational corporations and fossil fuel interests,” Nimmo Bassey, Nigerian environmentalist activist and chair of Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), told TerraViva.

Many of those involved have strong ties to the fossil fuel industry, including banks that finance and profit from new oil and gas development. The Bank of America is the world’s third largest coal financier, according a new FOEI report.

Other key players include Eskom, South Africa’s coal and electricity utility, Brazil’s largest power utility Electrobras, along with oil and gas companies Statoil and Duke Energy. Former CEOs of Shell and BP are also involved. The sole independent representative of civil society is the Barefoot College of India, says the report, “Reclaim the UN”.

FOEI and a broad coalition of 107 NGOs want energy access to be improved through community-controlled small-scale sustainable energy projects.

They are calling on the U.N. secretary-general to open up the process to affected and marginalised communities so they can be full participants.

Bassey and others are increasingly concerned that U.N. organisations are being dominated by corporate interests, particularly in the areas of energy, agriculture and food, water and the financialisation of nature.

“As it stands currently, ‘sustainable energy for all’ will fail spectacularly in its goal of tackling climate change and poverty,” he said.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 21 (IPS) As the global population threatens to explode – from the current seven billion to over nine billion by mid-century – the sharp increase in humans not only means overcrowded cities but also increasing demands on food, water, energy and shelter, foreshadowing devastating implications for a sustainable future.

Efforts to promote sustainable development that do not address population dynamics will continue to fail. Credit: Fahim Siddiqi/IPS

The 21st century is a critical period for people and the planet, with demographic and consumption trends posing tremendous challenges in a finite world, warns a new report released at the Rio+20 summit on June 21 by the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).

Appropriately titled “Population Matters for Sustainable Development,” the report underlines the relevance of population dynamics in the sustainable development agenda “which has been lost over the past decades”.

It puts forward concrete human-centred and rights-based policies to address issues facing the world at large in the 21st century.

In an interview with TerraViva, UNFPA Executive Director Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin said improving the wellbeing of humanity now and into the future requires above all a genuine and immediate shift towards sustainable production and balanced consumption – the hallmark of the green economy.

“Everywhere, but especially in emerging economies, millions more people are becoming richer consumers of goods and services, thus adding to pressures on natural resources. Sustainable patterns of consumption – enabled in part by appropriate technologies – are therefore urgently needed,” he said.

Dr. Osotimehin said new global population dynamics present many challenges but also offer opportunities to secure a sustainable future. Demographic shifts, such as the trend towards living in cities, can reduce strains on the environment by reducing consumption of resources.

“Slowing population growth can have a positive impact on environmental sustainability in the long run. It will also offer nations more time to adapt to changes in the environment. However, this can occur only if women have the right, the power and the means to decide freely how many children to have and when,” he said.

The report says more than two-thirds of the governments of the 48 least developed countries (LDCs) have expressed major concerns with high population growth, high fertility and rapid urbanisation.

In order to bring the population agenda back into the sustainable development discussion, there is a need to recognise that population dynamics have a significant influence on sustainable development; efforts to promote sustainable development that do not address population dynamics have and will continue to fail; and population dynamics are not destiny.

But change is possible through a set of policies which respect human rights and freedoms and contribute to a reduction in fertility, notably access to sexual and reproductive health care, education beyond the primary level, and the empowerment of women.

Dr. Osotimehin said governments also need to integrate population trends and future projections into their development strategies and policies. “Investments that are built on – and take advantage of – demographic trends can help transform populations into rich human capital that can propel sustainable development,” he said.

“Planning for projected changes in population size for trends such as migration, ageing and urbanisation is an indispensable precondition for sustainable rural, urban and national development strategies, as well as meaningful efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 20 (TerraViva) Members of unions and the Landless Movement (MST) dominated the parade of nations, covering with red the Avenida Rio Branco, in the center of Rio de Janeiro, with at least 50,000 people protesting against the green economy.

The Central Workers Union (CUT) brought about 8,000 protesters, according to its national secretary of communications Rosani Bertoti, a family farmer from Xanxerê, in the west of Santa Catarina. “80 buses came only from the state of Rio de Janeiro,” he said.

Green economy is just a facade, “it solves nothing” in respect to what matters to workers: decent employment, collective bargaining rights, autonomous organization, equal wages for men and women and the end the slave labor, she declared, minimizing critics from activists who accuse the CUT of joining forces with the government.

The General Workers Union (UGT) and the Central of Workers of Brazil (CTB) also mobilized many affiliates, but the largest group was without doubt the rural workers of MST, with thousands of flags and red caps.

A new cycle of robbery is what the green economy announces and the perpetrators of environmental destruction “have first and last name,” the multinational companies such as Bunge, Monsanto, Syngenta and Shell, spoke João Pedro Stédile, one of the coordinators of the MST. “Since 1989 did not such a crowd take to the streets to say enough is enough”, a sign that “people are starting to walk with their own legs,” he concluded.

He criticized president Dilma Rousseff for offering 20 billion reais (10 billion U.S. dollars) to the International Monetary Fund “to save European banks”, instead of allocating this money to education and health of Brazilians.

Divina Rodrigues, 48 years and four children, came with another 150 peasants of Alto do Parnaiba in western Minas Gerais, where many have been living in tents for several years waiting for land reform. She herself lived for four years in one of nine camps in the region, with 30 other families. The People’s Summit is important to encourage the fight that goes on, she said.

At least six cars with loudspeakers divided auditory attention of protesters along the Avenida Rio Branco with some percussion groups, as the drumbeat of the World Movement of Women and a small percussion section of a samba school that accompanied the “tank of bread,” a miniature tank covered with flatbread, to advocate redirecting military expenditures to sustainable development projects.

The slogans and speeches repeated the condemnation of “green capitalism”, the commoditization of nature, life and women, American imperialism and transnational corporations. “The water has no owner” reflected the fears expressed in various discussions that the green economy will lead to a widespread privatization of water resources.

A group jumped on the street screaming “who does not jump is a ruralist”, protesting against the agribusiness sector that wants to relax the Forest Code, while another group repeated a typical thought of military paranoia: “In the Brazilian Amazon there is no room for foreign NGOs.”

Amid the mass of workers mobilized by unions, a wide variety of activists, nationalities and ways of manifestation colored the march organized by the People’s Summit, the gathering of civil society in the Rio+20 Conference.

The Chilean educator David Órdenes led youth from Latin American countries that are part of the Collective Cultural Diversity. Children and adolescents are mobilized in defense of common goods of nature, cultural and biological diversity threatened by neoliberalism, he explained to TerraViva.

A group of 30 activists came from El Salvador to exchange experiences with other countries and protest against the green economy that is nothing more than the “recycling of capitalism,” said Angel Ibarra, who believes in a “revolution of the people.” ALBA, Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, the Union of South American Nations, the indigenous struggles and the defense of the Cuban revolution are a sample of how the process is moving forward, though slowly, he said.

Women from various African countries, displaying placards saying “Africa is not for sale”, the Mujeres de la Matria Latinoamericana (Mumala) of Argentina, who struggle against all gender violence, a Haitian who condemned the presence of UN peacekeepers as “a military occupation to recolonise Haiti”, and a representative of the Paraguayan peasant movement speaking of “mourning” in his country for the murder of at least 18 farmers, formed the Babel of militant paraders.

Numerous public servants, asking for the valorization of their work, and university strikers emphasized the character of the union march, which added a new enemy to capitalism and imperialism: the green economy.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 21 (TerraViva) – NGOs present at the Rio+20 conference complain that they were only consulted on the official document at the last minute, when they could no longer make a significant impact.

Representatives of WWF, Greenpeace and Oxfam criticise the final text and exclusion of NGOs from negotiations Thursday, June 21. Credit: Claudia Ciobanu/IPS

Speaking during the opening ceremony of the official segment of the Rio+20 conference June 20, when heads of state were supposed to rubber-stamp the final document presented by Brazil, a representative of NGO groups present here said that “the text is completely out of touch with reality and NGOs at Rio do not endorse this document.”

The NGO representative (identified as Waek Hamidan from Climate Action Network Europe by Brazilian media) said that the text was a failure because it did not address crucial issues such as ending support for fossil fuels and nuclear power, or taking clear steps to address high seas destruction.

He asked that, if the text remains as it was presented Tuesday, mentions of civil society being part of drafting it be removed from the introduction to the document.

NGOs present in Rio have all expressed deep disappointment with the final document, though they do not all necessarily agree with the call to strike out mentions of the text being elaborated together with civil society.

Barbara Stocking, chief executive officer at Oxfam, told TerraViva on June 22 that her organisation supports eliminating the civil society reference from the final text.

“Basically, civil society does not stand with that set of declarations,” Stocking said. “The basics are there, but there is nothing in it really that civil society has been strongly pushing for. There was no proper process of how civil society could be engaged.

“The dialogues took place just in advance of the actual high-level part of it but there has been no real means to bring that in because the actual text was closed by the time that was finished.”

But Sharon Burrow, secretary general of the International Trade Union Confederation, took a different approach. “I support the ambition and the views, but my challenge is not to remove us from the text but to clarify what co-determination (co-decision) really means when we move forward,” Burrow said.

“We, civil society, trade unions, represent the people and so do politicians. They presented us with a final text on the eve of the summit, that was most frustrating. But it’s not about a word in the text, it’s about the fact that if they’re serious about co-decision, they have to tell us how we will be involved, tell us what is the timeline.”

Kumi Naidoo, head of Greenpeace International, told TerraViva that leaving civil society in the text or not is a theoretical question at this point, as no further changes will be made and the majority of civil society finds the document clearly inadequate and lacking in ambition.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 21 (TerraViva) The outcome of Rio+20 was dismissed as a “complete failure” for its lack of specific targets and deadlines by Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace.

“The bottom line is that on all fundamental things on environment and climate, things are extremely dire,” said Greenpeace head Kumi Naidoo. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS

Greenpeace has been one of the most vocal critics of the outcome of months of discussions on the final declaration at the Rio summit on sustainable development, which has increasingly come under fire by civil society as a sellout.

“There is a lot of spin and theatre to show that the outcome here has been a success,” Naidoo said June 21, one day before the summit officially ends.

“Are there specific benchmarks, are there specific resources (committed)?” he asked. “The reality is that there is a complete failure in that regard.”

Naidoo acknowledged that there were major disagreements among negotiating countries, but addsed that this will not be emphasised in official recaps of the summit. “They were under pressure to put on a nice face and say it was success.”

The Greenpeace head said that the full failure of the outcome should not be put entirely on Brazil, but added that the host nation should accept some blame for its efforts to secure a consensus, no matter how weak.

“Many governments have complained how hard Brazil was pushing to get any agreement at any cost,” he said, adding that the final result was a document with the lowest possible ambition. He also blamed richer nations for defending their own narrow interests.

Some U.N. officials who have been monitoring the negotiating process also said that there was pressure. One told TerraViva that many countries agree the declaration does not offer solutions to the dire crises currently faced by humanity, but were unlikely to say so publicly.

Naidoo stressed that a declaration lacking specific targets will fail to halt worsening problems like climate change, loss of biodiversity and deforestation.

“The bottom line is that on all fundamental things on environment and climate, things are extremely dire. All the signs are that time is running out. Within the context of lack of specific commitments with appropriate resources, we declare the outcome as an epic failure,” Naidoo said.

RIO DE JANEIRO, 20 de junho (Terra Viva) O secretário-geral da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU), Ban Ki-moon, apresentou um cenário assustador para o futuro não muito distante a mais de cem líderes mundiais presentes na abertura da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20, no Rio de Janeiro no dia 20.

Secretário-geral Ban Ki-moon bate o martelo para marcar a abertura oficial da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20. Foto: UN Photo/Mark Garten

Ele destacou três tendências perigosas: muita disputa política, graves problemas econômicos e ampliação das desigualdades sociais. Ban colocou a Rio +20 em um contexto sombrio ao observar que 20 anos atrás, durante a Cúpula da Terra de 1992, havia 5,5 bilhões de pessoas no mundo. “Agora, são mais de sete bilhões. E até 2030, precisaremos de 50% mais alimentos, 45% mais energia e 30% mais de água, apenas para continuar a viver como fazemos hoje”,

Sem sombra de dúvida, advertiu, “entramos numa nova era… Até mesmo uma nova época geológica, onde a atividade humana está alterando fundamentalmente a dinâmica da Terra”. Nossa presença global ultrapassou os limites do nosso planeta, ressaltou.

No dia 19, os delegados de 191 países aprovaram um plano para o desenvolvimento sustentável, intitulado O Futuro que Queremos, que deverá ser aprovado pelos líderes mundiais no dia 22. Contudo, a pergunta permanece: como é que este modelo será dotado de recursos e de uma estrutura institucional? Numa coletiva para a imprensa no início do dia, Ban admitiu que teria preferido um plano de ação mais ambicioso para o futuro. “Eu sei que alguns Estados-membros tinham esperança de ter um documento final mais ousado e ambicioso. Eu também espero que tenhamos um documento final mais ambicioso”, declarou.

“Mas vocês também devem entender que as negociações têm sido muito, muito difíceis, e muito lentas, por causa de todos os interesses e ideias conflitantes”, ponderou Ban, acrescentando que “alguns apresentaram (muitas) ações audaciosas e de grande alcance, enquanto alguns países também tinham os seus próprios pontos de vista e interesses. Então vocês devem entender que este é o resultado de um processo muito longo e delicado de negociação. ”

Dirigindo-se aos líderes mundiais, Ban disse: “vamos acompanhar a Rio +20, com compromisso e ação. Agora é a hora de agir”. E enfatizou que “não vamos pedir aos nossos filhos e netos para convocar uma Rio+40 ou Rio+60. Agora é a hora de ficar acima de estreitos interesses nacionais, e olhar além dos interesses deste ou daquele grupo. É hora de agir com uma visão mais ampla e de longo prazo. Aqui, na Rio +20, podemos assumir o controle do futuro que queremos”. Envolverde/IPS

(FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, 20 de junho (TerraViva) O clichê de que cúpulas gigantescas como a Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20, são “grandes demais para ter sucesso” também pode ser aplicado para as megalópoles dos nossos dias, tais como o Rio de Janeiro: elas são simplesmente grandes demais para se tornarem verdes e sustentáveis.

Barracos perto de cursos de água são uma visão comum em Manila. Foto: Kara Santos/IPS

E ainda assim, este é precisamente o compromisso assumido pelos prefeitos das 59 maiores cidades do mundo, reunidas no chamado grupo C-40. Em um evento paralelo durante a Rio+20, os prefeitos do grupo C-40 lembraram que os maiores centros urbanos do mundo têm “o potencial de reduzir as suas emissões anuais de gases de efeito estufa em mais de um bilhão de toneladas até 2030″, uma quantidade equivalente às emissões anuais de México e Canadá juntos. Agora, os prefeitos querem reduzir as emissões em 45% até 2030.

Atenção para a palavra “potencial” – onipresente nestes dias de admissões humildes de bem conhecidos dados científicos sobre catástrofes concretas, e promessas vagas para enfrentar os problemas em algum momento no futuro. Na verdade, megalópoles em todo o mundo, do Rio de Janeiro à Cidade do México, de Tóquio a Xangai, têm um vasto potencial para reduzir sua poluição, porque elas são grandes poluidoras em primeiro lugar. Uma megalópole por si só constitui um desperdício sem sentido de energia, humana ou não.

Para mudar isso, as cidades precisam lançar uma revolução improvável e possivelmente pouco popular, que poderia afetar praticamente todos os aspectos da vida, dos transportes e a gestão de resíduos, até a geração e o consumo de eletricidade, o abastecimento de alimentos e a gestão populacional. Para uma tal revolução ter sucesso, as cidades deveriam parar de atrair populações rurais em busca de uma vida melhor nos grandes centros urbanos. Se a revolução fosse bem-sucedida, as megalópoles se tornariam capitais de países de contos de fadas, algo improvável de se tornar realidade em nossas vidas.

Vamos começar com o transporte. É sabido que a atividade de transporte é responsável por 13% de todos os gases de efeito estufa gerados pelo homem, e por 23% do dióxido de carbono (CO2) do mundo, provenientes da combustão de combustíveis fósseis. A dependência do petróleo é de assustadores 95%, sendo o setor responsável por 60% do consumo total de petróleo. Para reduzir a sua quota de poluição, as cidades teriam de oferecer transporte público eficiente e, simultaneamente, desencorajar o uso de automóveis particulares, aumentando substancialmente a tributação e os preços dos combustíveis, e limitando o acesso aos centros urbanos.

As cidades teriam de incentivar o uso de bicicletas, aumentar significativamente a eficiência de motores de combustão para reduzir os gases de escape e garantir a segurança para os usuários do transporte público, especialmente nos países em desenvolvimento. Hoje, o crime é um importante fator desestimulante para os cidadãos, particularmente as mulheres, usarem o transporte público.

Seria um eufemismo chamar esse conjunto de metas algo difícil de alcançar, caro, e muito provavelmente impopular. Mas isso é só o começo da lista de coisas a fazer para administrações e planejadores urbanos.

Embora o aquecimento não seja um problema grave nas cidades tropicais, ele o é em países com invernos frios. Nesses locais, otimizar o isolamento térmico dos edifícios é uma obrigação, e também é ter sistemas de condicionamento de ar mais eficientes durante os verões quentes. Isto requer enormes investimentos privados, que precisam do apoio de agências estatais de crédito, e cortes de impostos para torná-los atraentes para os cidadãos. Edifícios-modelo com emissões zero já existem em alguns países industrializados – mas eles são modelos, ainda estão muito longe de se tornarem o padrão da política habitacional.

Além disso, as cidades terão de depender cada vez mais em fontes renováveis – sol, vento, biomassa. Elas devem desencorajar resíduos, especialmente plástico, alumínio e outros compostos não degradáveis. Quando os resíduos são inevitáveis, eles deve ser reciclados. Cidades terão de usar fontes locais e regionais de alimentos para reduzir ainda mais as emissões dos transportes. E assim por diante …

Como já mencionado, a cidade sustentável do futuro não apenas deveria desencorajar a migração vinda do campo, como também teria que incentivar o retorno para as áreas rurais para reduzir a sua própria população. Em outras palavras, a cidade sustentável do futuro teria que espelhar o país sustentável do futuro, que oferece oportunidades para populações em áreas rurais, cruzadas por mais por ferrovias do que por rodovias, o país verde e socialmente justo de nossos sonhos.

Esse país não está logo ali na esquina, e certamente não se tornará possível por meio dessas conferências gigantescas, como a Rio+20. Esse país, os cidadãos terão de construir por conta própria. Envolverde/IPS

(FIM 2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 21 (TerraViva) He was on a flight to the biggest international summit on environment in a decade when Kenyan indigenous rights activist Peter Kitelo’s attention was suddenly drawn to a government advertisement.

Indigenous tribes like these on the remote Indonesian island of Lombok are increasingly threatened by development. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS

It called for national and international investors to put funds into “forest development”. Kitelo could not escape the irony. Here he was, on route to the Rio+20 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, and he was looking at yet another assault on the livelihoods and very existence of indigenous communities.

“Sustainable development is not really sustaining my people,” Kitelo told TerraViva in Rio.

He said that forest communities like his and in other East African countries such as Uganda and Tanzania are discriminated against by central governments and policy-makers who determine the future of their native lands.

“We are being left out, no one talks to the right people in our communities,” he said.

When plans are laid for land development, they are advertised in newspapers and other media, to which native tribes hardly have access. Only when the plans are reaching their final stage will officials come and hold short meetings in villages, which Kitelo says are more an effort to satisfy donor requirements than a genuine effort at engagement.

“Then, even before we know it, our land is not ours anymore,” he said.

Kitelo cited the example of forest development for tourism. The concept talks about preserving the forests, but in the process prevents his people from using the forest. “The whole concept of forest conservation does not allow human interaction, but that is what my people have been doing for generations,” he said.

The Kenyan experience is hardly unique. All over the world, indigenous communities complain that they are being left out of the decision-making processes on their own land.

Laura George, from the Amerindian Peoples’ Association of Guyana, told TerraViva that when new land laws were to be introduced in June 2009, there were no consultations with the indigenous people at all. A year later, a final document was produced.

Government officials attending the Rio conference held a side event and claimed that indigenous populations were in fact consulted.

“When I informed them they weren’t, the officials were not happy, but that is the truth,” George told TerraViva.

This type of discrimination can lead to indigenous communities losing their way of life completely.

“While governments are coming to Rio to talk about sustainable development, in my country, Peru, the pressure is growing day by day from policies of the national government that seek to open up our remote forest territories to transnational companies through road infrastructure projects,” said Robert Guimaraes Vasquez of the Shipibo people in the Peruvian Amazon.

Activists said that even in Rio, indigenous groups faced discrimination, with logistics preventing them from gathering together.

“One group is here, another group is 40 km away. How can we form a common front? We are so far apart here,” George said.

Still, conferences like Rio+20 do offer at least small avenues where indigenous groups can bring their problems to a wider and influential audience.

George and Kitelo both told TerraViva that if governments remain deaf to their concerns, they will seek action within international bodies.

“That could be our last resort,” George said.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 21 (TerraViva) The European Union considers the Rio+20 final document as imperfect, but a good starting point for further work.

Karl Falkenberg, European Commission Director General for the Environment. Credit: Laurent Achedjian/Friends of Europe

Terraviva spoke to the EU’s lead negotiator in Rio, Karl Falkenberg, who is also director general for environment in the European Commission.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How do you find the final document presented by Brazil?

A: I think it’s a good document. It’s not a document that reflects completely the EU’s ambitions, but we understand that we have to make compromises and reflect in the document common positions. But very good messages are highlighted in those common positions, such as that if we want to successfully eradicate poverty, we have to do it by sustainable development, green economy, and creating decent jobs in line with the environmental limits of this planet.

In order to get there, we have described a number of concrete actions in various areas such as water, land use, energy, oceans, sustainable production and consumption, resource efficiency. We have covered all the three pillars of sustainable development: environmental, social and economic; out of that we will develop the SDGs (sustainable development goals) in the next year and a half.

This document is a start, it’s not the outcome, and we would have wanted to take it one step further, but that was not possible.

Q: “Green economy” was replaced with “green economy policies” to reflect global South fears that the North wants to dictate a vision.

A: There have been lots of misunderstandings, particularly about the green economy. The impression in the beginning was that we are saying what green economy is and that their economy is not green and ours is and they have to change their economies to be like ours.

But that’s a misunderstanding. Because we have to change our economy to make it green and developing countries have to change theirs. But we have also made it clear that there is not only one green economy: green economy means that we have to work within the environmental limitations of each of our countries with the resources that we have and we are very different so there are different forms of green economy. It’s just a name for sustainable economy in a way.

Q: What about the other criticism of green economy, that it implies a dangerous financialisation of nature?

A: I think there are still too many people who can only think in terms of working against each other, not with each other. In the green economy we will need companies, we need enterprises. There are very good companies, which take very decisive steps forward in working resources efficiently, offering decent work conditions, taking many responsibilities, and there are many who don’t.

Q: What to do about those? Are voluntary commitments from them enough?

A: Voluntary commitments have often not been effective, that’s why we are clearly calling for a role for governments. A similar framework at the international level is needed and that is why we want to continue to negotiate environmental conventions, on chemicals, waste and others and that is why upgrading UNEP (the U.N. Environment Programme) was so important here: the world has to give itself a strong, efficient institutional framework to handle environmental issues.

Q: Is putting a price on natural capital a good direction?

A: Yes, because policies need to be monitored and measured. What you can’t quantify, you can’t really monitor. The fact that we are moving in the direction of natural capital accounts and the necessary reporting for this by companies is a good way forward.

Q: How did you feel as EU negotiator in a world where the power balance has changed?

A: I was a trade negotiator before being an environmental one, so this is something that I have seen for the past 10-15 years. China, India, Brazil, Russia are clearly emerging powers which are economically very tough competitors to us. The old ideas that we would define developing countries not in terms of competitiveness but in terms of the number of poor is completely outdated.

So differentiation in favour of countries like Burkina Faso or Uganda or Bolivia is still very much reasonable, but differentiation in favour of the biggest polluters, like China, or for very competitive international traders like India and Brazil does not make sense.

So we have to rethink negotiations: we have to involve them much more and they have to take more responsibilities. This is what’s happening now and that’s why negotiations have become much more complicated.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 20 (TerraViva) In the face of opposition from some developing countries, the European Union failed to get all it wanted from the final Rio+20 final agreement. Nevertheless, the Europeans decided to look at Rio as a good start.

“The agreement we have come to is not the best agreement in the world, but it is an agreement for a better world,” Danish Environment Minister Ida Auken told Terraviva.

“The EU came with a very ambitious agenda, and not all of our wishes have been fulfilled,” explained Auken, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU.

“However, the agreement marks progress on some points: the world has come to an understanding on the necessity of the green economy, which is new,” she said. “The first steps on the road towards global sustainability goals have been taken. New actors like cities, companies and civil society are being recognised as important to sustainable devepment.

“Concerning resources, the world has committed itself to reducing waste and to ensuring access to safe and affordable drinking water and sanitation.”

UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg conceded that, “Any text approved by 190 countries from different hemispheres will always involve compromises and dilution.

“But it is important to look at what direction it is pointing us to. And this text pushes us towards a world in which we treasure, measure and protect sustainable development like never before,” he said on June 20, the official start of the three-day conference.

All European decision-makers present in Rio admit a sense of disappointment with the results of the negotiations, but rally behind the common position that the agreement sets the world on the right path to sustainable development.

The main frustrations for the European Union have been the dilution of the commitment to the green economy, which at the moment has been replaced with more vague wording implying that countries keep some leverage over to what extent they choose to go down the green economy path; the postponement of the adoption of sustainable development goals until after 2015; and the rejection of the creation of a new body to handle the implementation of sustainable development commitments.

The final agreement envisages instead a redefined role for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

In Rio, the EU found itself facing big developing countries which rejected the green economy vision as an imposition by the global North on the development path of the South. Additionally, far from strengthening the EU position, the United States reportedly kept a rather low profile in the negotiations.

A less discussed aspect of the final document is the role envisaged for civil society in the implementation of the sustainable development vision.

“While the document recognises the role of civil society in implementing sustainable development, this role should have been made more specific and additional mechanisms for civil society involvement should have been created,” Staffan Nilsson, the president of the European Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC is an EU body meant to enable European civil society groups to make their voices heard by Brussels decision-makers), told Terraviva.

“If there are no actions from civil society, there is less direction for sustainable development,” Nilsson added.

At the same time, he noted that regardless of this weakness in the final document, Rio represents a strong example of civil society having numerous opportunities to make their voices heard and a good starting point for further positive work from both non-governmental and governmental actors on sustainable development.

“Pela primeira vez, organismos multilaterais oferecem ajuda para investir na área de mobilidade em países em desenvolvimento. É uma iniciativa pioneira que substitui a visão de desenvolvimento tradicional que investia em rodovias em prol de um desenvolvimento social e equitativo. A comunidade internacional nunca tinha se comprometido em investir recursos deste porte”, disse à IPS Ramon Cruz, gerente executivo do programa de sustentabilidade do Instituto para Políticas de Transporte e Desenvolvimento (ITDP, na sigla em inglês).

Os compromissos voluntários são resultado da campanha ‘Parceria sobre Transportes Sustentável de Baixo Carbono’ (SloCaT, em inglês), através de uma pareceria internacional que reúne o Programa das Nações Unidas para Assentamentos Humanos (ONU-HABITAT), organizações não governamentais como o ITDP, empresas e bancos de desenvolvimento multilateral (MDBs).
A campanha SLoCaT foi criada em 2009 para defender o transporte sustentável de baixo carbono. No total, foram assumidos 16 compromissos voluntários sobre o transporte sustentável por 13 organizações. Na lista das instituições financeiras estão o Banco Asiático de Desenvolvimento, o Banco Africano, assim como o Banco Interamericano, o Banco Mundial e o Banco Europeu de Reconstrução e Desenvolvimento.

Modelos inovadores de transporte podem ser mais sustentáveis. Crédito: IPS/TerraViva

“Só o Banco Asiático, na última década, realizou 80% de seus investimentos em rodovias e apenas 2% para transporte sustentável. A grande novidade é que estes bancos estão enfocando no transporte público e de massa ”, argumentou Ramon Cruz.
Segundo o gerente do ITDP, um dos grandes desafios para a economia verde é promover uma mobilidade integrada com sistemas de transporte intermodal com corredores de ônibus (BRT – Bus Rapid Transit) e sistemas intermodais de transporte interligando trens, metrô e ciclovias, especialmente nas economias emergentes.

“Esta é uma forma eficiente se um país quer reduzir as suas emissões de carbono e contribuir para evitar as mudanças climáticas. Pensar num mundo mais sustentável é preciso pensar nos centros urbanos”, destacou Cruz.

Nas cidades, a maior parte das viagens diárias de seus moradores é de 2 km e podem ser perfeitamente feitas em bicicleta. “As cidades devem incluir o pedestre. A gente quer uma cidade que o pedestre possa desfrutar”, salientou.

Ramon Cruz defende ainda que os centros urbanos tracem estratégias de mobilidade a partir de suas demandas e carências.
O rápido ritmo de urbanização do mundo inteiro está transformando o setor de transportes. Enquanto a América Latina é uma região altamente urbanizada, as cidades da África e especialmente da Ásia continuam a explodir em tamanho e em adensamento urbano.

A previsão, segundo a SloCaT, é de que somente China e Índia incluirão 500 milhões de pessoas à sua população urbana nos próximos 20 anos. Essa expansão exigirá sistemas de transportes que possam prevenir ou controlar os padrões de expansão desordenada e o congestionamento e garantir um acesso adequado a bens e serviços.

“Este enorme compromisso com relação aos transportes é uma importante contribuição para colocar em funcionamento esforços colaborativos de financiamento de longo prazo e podem ajudar a uma implementação eficaz e mensurável das metas de desenvolvimento sustentável”, afirmou Brice Lalonde, um dos dois coordenadores executivos da Conferência Rio+20. (TerraViva)
(FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 20 (TerraViva) More than 300 lawmakers have signed the Rio+20 Legislators’ Protocol to keep an eye on politicians who make promises on sustainability commitments they never keep.

Legislators' summit opens at the Tiradentes Palace, Rio de Janeiro. Julio Godoy/IPS

The Legislators’ Protocol – the highlight of the first World Summit of Legislators held ahead of the Rio+20 conference – was signed by lawmakers from 85 countries calling for political commitment to achieve economic growth, sustainability and justice and no regression on environmental law commitments.

For African lawmakers, the protocol has set the stage for battles ahead to get home governments to account for environmental commitments, support best legislative practices and integrate natural capital in national accounts.

“We have a lot of organisations putting efforts on conservation but there has been a gap because most of these efforts have not seen political legitimacy which is through pieces of legislation to support them,” said Stephen Kampyongo, a legislator and member of the Zambian Parliamentary Conservation Caucus.

“We have to reinforce our role and hold our executive government accountable for commitments they make and scrutinising the commitments of our government and ensure they are implemented.”

Co-Chair of the Zambian parliamentary caucus, Mwanda Imenda, said deforestation was a problem that needed urgent address in her country. Lawmakers have to lobby for the government to act on protecting the environment.

“This will not be easy but as the summit urged, the battle has just began and we are ready,” Imenda told TerraViva.

South Africa has enacted a raft of environmental laws, making it a model for other African countries. Presenting a paper on the case of South Africa, parliamentarian Ruth Bhengu cited South Africa’s proactive National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), which was the framework law for the environment.

An amendment to this act created the environmental Management Inspectorate known as the “Green Scorpions” under which people can be charged for crimes against the environment.

“Reported convictions of environmental criminals have increased, although we remain concerned about the incidents of rhino poaching I our protected areas,” Bhengu said.

For Byarugaba Bakunda, from Uganda, the protocol would be a rallying point for government and parliamentarians to tackle nagging environmental issues of deforestation and drought in the country.

Each of the legislators who attended the summit collected a printed pledge to which they will add their names to affirm their renewed commitment to progressive environmental legislation, poverty alleviation and ensuring effective scrutiny of public policy on environmental laws.

Andre Misiekaba, a member of the National Assembly of Suriname in the Caribbean, said the signing of the Legislators’ Protocol gave the summit a unique mandate in raising awareness about sustainable development in global parliaments.

“We have made a strong statement to our governments and we must act on what have agreed on by putting in place legislation to save our world,” said Misiekaba.

Hasan Tuluy, vice president of the World Bank for Latin America and the Caribbean, described the Legislators’ Protocol as a milestone in enacting national laws based on the Rio agenda. He urged countries to adapt new synergies between the twin goals of economic development and environmental responsibility.

RIO DE JANEIRO, 20 Junho (TerraViva) – No primeiro dia da Rio+20 com a participação dos chefes de Estado e de Governos após uma semana de duras negociações entre as delegações internacionais, a presidente do Brasil Dilma Rousseff, país anfitrião da Conferência, defendeu o princípio de responsabilidades comuns, porém diferenciadas entre países ricos e em desenvolvimento.

Dilma Rousseff discursou na cerimônia de abertura no Riocentro, no final da tarde desta quarta-feira, 20 de junho, e criticou a retirada da proposta de criação de um fundo de U$S 30 bilhões para financiar a transição dos países para uma economia verde.

A presidenta Dilma Roussef na abertura oficial da Conferência Rio+20. Crédito:Fábio Rodrigues Pozzebom - Agência Brasil

“A transferência das indústrias poluentes do norte para o sul do mundo, deixou uma conta pesada socioambiental para o mundo em desenvolvimento. A proposta do fundo para mitigar as ações ainda não se materializou nos níveis prometidos e necessários a apesar do esforço de algumas nações. Na construção do desenvolvimento sustentável, os Estados tem responsabilidades comuns, porém diferenciadas”, declarou Rouseff.

A versão final do documento ‘O Futuro que Queremos’ foi aprovada por consenso, na tarde desta terça-feira, 19 de junho, pelos negociadores dos 193 países, um dia antes da vinda dos dirigentes mundiais. Contudo, o documento que foi enviado para aprovação dos líderes deixa de fora o fundo bilionário proposto pelo G77 e não define metas tangíveis de desenvolvimento sustentável para substituir as Metas do Milênio que expiram em 2015.

Crise afeta cooperação entre países

A crise afetou o compromisso de países na área da solidariedade e da cooperação internacional. Dessa forma, a presidente brasileira admitiu que o compromisso para assegurar recursos foi afetado pelo abalo econômico.

“Nesse momento, o mundo atravessa os efeitos da mais grave crise econômica e financeira mundial. As importantes economias registram crescimento muito lento ou estão em retrocesso e sofrem cortes nas suas contas públicas. A disposição política para acordos vinculantes ficou muito fragilizada. Não podemos deixar isso acontecer. Essa conferência é prova de que deve ser grande nossa vontade de acordar”, declarou Rousseff.

Ainda que as Metas de Desenvolvimento Sustentáveis – conhecidas como SDGs na sigla em inglês, Sustainable Development Goals – não tenham sido definidas, a versão final do documento da Rio+20 enviada à cúpula de alto nível da Conferência conseguiu traçar o “mapa do caminho” para levar a definição dos SDGs, avaliaram os negociadores da delegação brasileira.

“Precisamos de uma nova visão futura para consolidar as metas de desenvolvimento sustentável. O desenvolvimento sustentável é a melhor resposta para a mudança do clima. Isso demanda um maior esforço e comprometimento dos países ricos para o esforço global. O custo da inação será maior que as medidas necessárias”, argumentou a presidente.

Segundo defendeu Dilma Rousseff, a tarefa imposta aos líderes mundiais na Rio+20 é desencadear um “movimento de renovação de ideias e processos para enfrentar os dias difíceis que vivem a maior parte da população”.

A Rio+20 deve gerar objetivos firmes, avaliou a presidente. A erradicação da pobreza no mundo se tornou o “maior desafio global” que o planeta enfrenta.

O texto final da Rio+20 aprovado representa um consenso e foi resultado de um “grande esforço” brasileiro de conciliação.

Quando o Brasil assumiu a liderança nas negociações, no último fim de semana, pois o prazo para um consenso se encerrou no último dia 15 de junho, documento final tinha apenas 40% do texto acordado. Após uma madrugada de negociações, a versão final ficou mais enxuta com 49 páginas e 283 parágrafos.

Marco de um novo multilateralismo

O ministro das Relações Exteriores, Antônio Patriota, avaliou o consenso alcançado pelos negociadores como uma “vitória do novo multilateralismo”.

Segundo Patriota, o documento mostra uma “visão do desenvolvimento sustentável” para o futuro com uma abordagem tridimensional dos pilares ambientais, sociais e econômicos.

Patriota admitiu não ter sido fácil driblar as tensões e divergências entre os negociadores e destacou que o fato de se chegar a um consenso já representa um resultado satisfatório da conferência.

“Enfrentamos dificuldades para fechar o texto. Temos um texto de consensos que apontam direções. O papel do Brasil como anfitrião era o de buscar o consenso”, argumentou o ministro.

O princípio das responsabilidades comuns, porém diferenciadas, defendido por Dilma Rousseff foi resultado de uma “longa batalha”, admitiu Patriota.

O fortalecimento do Programa das Nações Unidas para o Meio Ambiente (PNUMA) e a sua elevação a um status de agência da ONU, um dos pontos de discórdia entre os países, é mencionado na versão final mas sem definição que tipo de upgrade terá.

“Sobre o debate de governança do desenvolvimento sustentável, o fortalecimento do PNUMA sempre foi um assunto polêmico e nunca teve consenso. Daqui saem recomendações para a Assembleia Geral da ONU votar”, disse a ministra do Meio Ambiente, Izabella Teixeira.

Dentre as recomendações, a composição do conselho executivo do PNUMA passará a ser universal e não terá apenas 52 membros como atualmente. O orçamento também deverá ser aumentado.

Uma das negociações mais difíceis foi obter uma definição da chamada ‘economia verde’, reconheceram os negociadores brasileiros.

“A economia verde era um debate sensível e não havia clareza sobre o conceito. O texto sai com um consenso admitindo que neste caminho de desenvolvimento sustentável, a economia verde é um instrumento para a concepção dos SDGs”, declarou a ministra Teixeira.

Versão criticada por ONGs

A versão final é criticada por membros da sociedade civil que veem o documento com “profunda decepção”. Esta é a análise do diretor executivo de conservação da Rede WWF Internacional, Lasse Gustavsson, em entrevista exclusiva à IPS.

“É extremamente decepcionante. Tivemos os melhores diplomatas do mundo discutindo um documento que não se compromete com quase nada. Foi uma negociação absolutamente burocrática”, criticou Gustavsson.

“Agora precisamos que os chefes de Estado e de Governo venham à Conferência para resgatar o documento final. A Rio+20 ficará na história como a Conferência que favoreceu o aumento da pobreza, a degradação do meio ambiente e o aumento de conflitos. Não há visão, dinheiro nem compromissos”, enfatizou o diretor do WWF. (IPS/TerraViva)

(FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 20 (TerraViva) The president of the U.N.’s highest policy-making body is one of the strongest advocates of the Rio+20 summit – and is determined to work towards its eventual success.

U.N. General Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser (left). UN Photo/Violaine Martin

“Since the beginning of my presidency,” General Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser told IPS, “I have continued to advocate the importance of Rio+20 in meetings and bilateral discussions with world leaders and important partners, at the seat of the U.N. General Assembly in New York and during my travels aimed at overcoming differences and bridging the remaining gaps.”

He said Rio+20 is about setting the world on the right course for sustainable development for future generations, particularly addressing the challenges of poverty and environmental degradation.

“If Rio+20 fails, we all lose,” he warned.

But he cautioned that the adoption of the blueprint for sustainable development, “The Future We Want”, does not end Friday when world leaders pack up their bags and head home.

“The real work,” he told IPS, “commences after the conference is over as we come together in the General Assembly to articulate concrete action on key areas of concern and importance.

“Of particular importance is that there should a listing of the commitments made by all stakeholders in the outcome of Rio+20 with clear modalities and a time frame for implementation.”

Genuine political will and a sense of global solidarity have the power to bring convergence of intergovernmental positions.

“As you know, personally, I am a born optimist. I have learned over the years of my multilateral diplomatic experience that one has to be optimistic when you are working with 193 sovereign member states,” Al-Nasser added.

Addressing world leaders Wednesday, he reminded them that in 1992, Rio was the birthplace of not only Agenda 21, but of the three influential Rio Conventions: on climate change, biodiversity and desertification.

“I would urge member states to realise their important commitments made in the Agenda and these conventions,” he told TerraViva.

RIO DE JANEIRO, 19 de junho (TerraViva) Em meio a raiva, recriminações e acusações de “táticas de mão pesada”, os negociadores finalmente aprovaram um plano de ação global para o desenvolvimento sustentável, depois de longas maratonas de debates, em mais de seis dias cansativos.

Crianças afetadas pela seca formam fila para receber alimentos em Mogadíscio. Os pobres são os mais afetados pelas mudanças climáticas e outros problemas. Foto: Abdurrahman Warsameh/IPS

A proposta de um fundo global de US$ 30 bilhões para o desenvolvimento sustentável, iniciada pelos países em desenvolvimento, foi derrubada antes mesmo de sair do chão. Os Estados Unidos e os 27 membros da União Europeia (UE) se recusaram a aprovar a proposta, deixando em dúvida sobre como um projeto ambicioso para o desenvolvimento sustentável, intitulado O Futuro que Queremos, deve ser financiado ao longo da próxima década.

“Sem compromissos de financiamento, o resultado da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20, pode repetir documentos anteriores sobre o tema, anunciados com muito alarde e com um grande custo pelos líderes mundiais,” afirmou ao TerraViva o embaixador Palitha Kohona, representante permanente do Sri Lanka na Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU). O financiamento é essencial para a maioria dos países em desenvolvimento poderem implementar as elevadas aspirações expressas no documento final de 49 páginas.

“Se os países em desenvolvimento não estiverem incluídos, o documento final continuará a ser uma lista piedosa de sonhos não realizados. O futuro que todos nós queremos deve ser um futuro que todos nós podemos ter “, ressaltou Kohona, ex-chefe da Seção de Tratados da ONU, que tem acompanhado de perto as negociações tanto da Rio+20 como da politicamente desastrosa conferência sobre mudança climática em Copenhague em 2009. Mas nem tudo está perdido, de acordo com Martin Khor, diretor executivo do South Centre, um “think tank” para nações em desenvolvimento sediado em Genebra. “O documento é bastante justo e equilibrado, dado o atual estado negativo de cooperação internacional para o desenvolvimento”, ponderou.

Khor disse ao TerraViva que pelo menos o documento final reafirmou os princípios do Rio, incluindo as responsabilidades comuns mas diferenciadas, o que é precioso para os países em desenvolvimento, por representar a equidade na partilha dos custos da mudança para uma economia ecológica. “Até quase o último dia, parecia que alguns países desenvolvidos se recusariam até mesmo a reafirmar o que foi definido no Rio há 20 anos”, observou. É um triste estado de coisas, lamentou, que uma reafirmação da conferência anterior, que em épocas anteriores teria sido automática, agora seja considerado um sucesso da Rio+20. “A falha é que não há nenhum compromisso por parte do Norte industrializado para um novo financiamento ou para a transferência concreta de tecnologia”, acrescentou.

No entanto, o Grupo de 77 (G-77), bloco de países em desenvolvimento mais a China, conseguiu obter uma decisão para iniciar um processo na Assembléia Geral da ONU, para considerar um novo mecanismo financeiro e de tecnologia. Contudo, realmente vai ser uma luta dura configurá-los. “A crise econômica mundial lançou uma sombra sobre a Rio+20. No entanto, o G-77 obtive uma vitória ao ter a maioria de seus problemas aceitos no documento”, destacou Khor. “Acreditamos que o texto contém um alto volume de ação. E, se esta ação for implementada, e se as medidas de acompanhamento forem adotadas, ele vai realmente fazer uma diferença tremenda para gerar uma mudança global positiva”, indicou.

Claro, acrescentou Khor, este documento é o produto de intensas e prolongadas negociações. E, portanto, é um texto de compromisso. “Como todas as negociações, há alguns países que acham que o texto poderia ser mais ambicioso. Ou outros que sentem que suas próprias propostas poderiam ser melhor refletidas. Enquanto outros ainda podem preferir ter sua própria linguagem. Entretanto, vamos ser claros: negociações multilaterais exigem dar e receber”, opinou.

Meena Raman, especialista em negociação da Third World Network sediada na Malásia afirmou que “o documento final não tem a ambição necessária para salvar o planeta, ou os pobres, mas isso não nos levou para trás, sobretudo levando em conta os nossos receios iniciais de que a Rio+20 poderia ser a Rio-40”. “Esse resultado acanhado sinaliza uma falta de coragem política, liderança e compromisso dos países desenvolvidos e aqueles que fazem campanha para o futuro que realmente queremos teremos de redobrar os nossos esforços”, completou.

Kohona enfatizou que “não vai ser inteligente disfarçar má vontade com uma terminologia inteligente. Nós todos sabemos como os países doadores mobilizaram grandes fundos num prazo muito curto para lidar com a crise financeira pela qual eles próprios eram os responsáveis”. “O meio ambiente pode estar chegando a um nível de crise muito mais grave”, alertou. Envolverde/IPS

(FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 20 (TerraViva) Imagine a green city, literally, and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil presents itself as a perfect example. Fruit trees sandwiched between closely packed skyscrapers lining the city streets create a cool, natural and relaxing environment.

The sack farming method is used in many slums in Africa. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

The green lawns and parks within the city centre compliment the beautiful forested hills visible across a horizon of buildings. Despite the unending traffic jams, Rio can in many ways be considered an environmentally friendly city.

However, environmentalists and city managers attending the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development known as Rio+20 here say that apart from increasing tree cover within cities, a green urban future lies in good infrastructure, less pollution, affordable and sustainable housing, and better amenities to improve quality of living.

At a side event organised by the Asian Development Bank, there was consensus on the need to mobilise funding from all sectors with an aim of developing environmentally-friendly urban future.

“Many cities collect revenues from parking spaces and taxes from the private sector. Yet this is not enough because of other varied priorities. What we need is full participation of the private sector, where they should not give loans, but instead give grants,” said Arnab Roy, commissioner of the Kolkota Municipal Corporation in India.

At another event organised by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), experts cited expanding urban agriculture as a strategy to address food and nutritional security.

“One interesting observation is that in relation to tree dynamics in peri-urban areas which we’ve noticed from the agroforestry perspective is that many of these areas, particularly in the tropics, have been transformed into agroforests,” said Dennis Garrity, the former director general of the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).

“Such areas are currently producing fruits and vegetables, fuel wood, timber and other tree commodities that are in demand especially within the same urban areas,” he added.

In cities like Rio, fruit from trees growing in the streets is available for public consumption, a fact that experts at the U.N. conference said had great importance for city dwellers in terms of nutritional value.

In other cities where farmers have intensified urban farming, particularly in peri-urban regions, such tree products are a good source of income.

“It is interesting that one of these rapidly growing systems of agroforestry is the market demand for higher value products. In many cities and city environs, it is the demand that stimulates farmers to intensify tree crop production, thus creating the diversity of agroforestry systems in places where it never existed,” said the former ICRAF chief.

He cited cities in developing countries such as Nairobi, Kenya, Jakarta, Indonesia, Kampala, Uganda and many other areas where urban farming and tree cultivation is intensifying.

Other players at the event included the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture (IPSA) and Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI).

According to Alexander Müller, assistant director general of natural resource management and environment at FAO, different organisations in such a multilateral forums like Rio+20 have different issues to address ranging from food, biodiversity, and calories, among others, but all of them boil down to one issue, which is a greener environment.

“We have to find solutions that have global objectives but can be operationalised at a local reality. We also have to define new objectives with global objectives but with local realities,” said Müller.

He observed that Lagos, Nigeria, for example, is expected to grow by 400 percent in the next 40 years, bringing major challenges.

“Climate change will act as a multiplier of the already existing challenges. We must therefore ensure that we have sustainability of food security, and sound ecosystems,” said Müller.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 20 (Terra Viva) U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon provided a frightening scenario of the not-too-distant future to over 100 world leaders present at the opening Wednesday of the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in Rio de Janeiro.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon bangs the gavel to mark the official opening of the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

He singled out three dangerous trends: too much political strife, grave economic troubles, and widening social inequalities.

Ban put UNCSD, also known as Rio+20, in its grim context when he noted that 20 years ago during the 1992 Earth Summit, there were five-and-a-half billion people in the world.

“Now there are more than seven billion. And by 2030, we will need 50 percent more food, 45 percent more energy and 30 percent more water just to continue to live as we do today.”

Beyond a shadow of doubt, he warned “we have entered a new era … a new geological epoch, even, where human activity is fundamentally altering the Earth’s dynamics.”

Our global footprint has overstepped our planet’s boundaries, he cautioned.

On Tuesday, delegates from 191 countries approved a blueprint for sustainable development, titled “The Future We Want,” which will eventually be endorsed by world leaders on Friday.

But the question remained, how is this blueprint to be implemented without new funds and in the absence of an institutional framework?

At a press conference earlier in the day, Ban admitted he would have preferred a more ambitious action plan for the future.

“I know that some member states hoped to have a bolder and more ambitious outcome document. I also hope that we should have a more ambitious outcome document,” he admitted.

“But you should also understand that the negotiations have been very, very difficult and very slow because of all the conflicting interests and ideas.

“Some have presented (many) far-reaching and bold actions, while some countries also had their own views and interests. So you should understand that this is the outcome of such a long and very delicate process of negotiation.”

Addressing world leaders, Ban said, “Let us follow up on Rio+20 with commitment and action. Now is the time for action.

“Let us not ask our children and grandchildren to convene a Rio+40 or Rio+60. Now is the time to rise above narrow national interests – to look beyond the vested interests of this group or that. It is time to act with broader and long-term vision. Here at Rio+20, we can seize the future we want.”

RIO DE JANERIO, Jun 20 (TerraViva) Even before the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development opened here, one effect of the summit was already reverberating through the streets of Rio.

The public transport system in countries like Sri Lanka needs to work more efficiently if it is to be made sustainable. Credit: Indika Sriyan/IPS

As some 50,000 delegates, activists and others tried to get to various meetings and events, at many locations, like along the famous Copacabana beachfront, traffic slowed to a snail’s pace. Even government officials travelling to the opening of the conference complained of the traffic on social media.

Experts here say that Rio’s summit-related traffic woes are yet another example of decades of planning that prioritised cars over efficient public transport networks.

This mentality has propelled the transport sector to be the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. The combined cost of congestion, air pollution, road accidents and transport-related climate change could be as high five to 10 percent of GDP per year.

“It is everywhere. We see it at home, we see it when we travel, and we see it in Rio,” Michael Replogle, global policy director and founder of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP), a U.S.-based organistaion that promotes sustainable transport systems, told Terra Viva.

To address this problem, eight of the world’s leading development banks, including the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, have pledged 175 billion dollars in loans and grants for sustainable public transport systems to cut down on congestion and emissions over the next decade.

“It signals a shift in the priorities (of the banks) towards supporting sustainable public transport networks,” Replogle said.

Cornie Huizenga, convener of the Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport, told TerraViva that organisations promoting sustainable transport had lobbied hard in Rio to get the topic into the Rio declaration. Now that it has been included, they also got 18 voluntary commitments to improve sustainable transport systems.

“The next step was the money, that is where the banks came in. Now this funding will be available for countries who want to invest in sustainable public transport systems,” Huizenga said.

Both experts agreed that Asian and Latin American countries would have to take the lead in shifting to sustainable public transport systems for the move to have a significant global impact.

In the next two decades, half a billion people will be added to the urban populations in India and China. Proper planning of urban transport systems is vital to avoid this explosive growth, which will only add to congestion and emissions, they warned.

Replogle said that there were already signs that some Asian countries like India and China had realised the importance of an efficient public transport system.

U.N. officials said that the new commitments were likely to help poorer countries with scarce resources to at least try to make the shift.

“These unprecedented commitments have the promise to save hundreds of thousands of lives by cleaning the air and making roads safer, cutting congestion in hundreds of cities. They will create more efficient passenger and freight transportation, spurring sustainable urban economic growth,” said Joan Clos, executive director of UN-HABITAT, announcing the commitments.

RIO DE JANEIRO, 19 de junho (TerraViva) Três países industrializados – Estados Unidos, Canadá e Japão – e a Rússia bloquearam um avanço substancial na proteção dos oceanos na Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20, no Rio de Janeiro, de acordo com ativistas ambientais.

O projeto final da declaração conjunta a ser aprovada pela sessão plenária da Rio+20 expressa um compromisso geral para “proteger e restaurar a saúde, produtividade e resistência dos oceanos”, mas deixam de abordar diretamente as questões mais prementes da conservação marinha. Estas incluem um regime de governança eficiente para o alto mar, por meio da criação de áreas marinhas protegidas, da redução da pesca de espécies ameaçadas, e da proteção das de alto mar contra a chamada biofertilização, proposta por alguns cientistas como forma de impedir ou reduzir a acidificação da água do mar causada pela mudança climática.

Neste recife em Bonaire, o coral verde-oliva está vivo, mas o coral cinza malhado está morto. Crédito: Living Oceans Foundation/IPS

Outra questão vital é a garantia de acesso e a distribuição dos benefícios dos recursos marinhos entre as nações. Os cientistas concordam que a biodiversidade marinha está severamente ameaçada devido à mudança climática, que está aumentando a acidificação da água do mar, a pesca predatória, principalmente pelos países industrializados, e a poluição em geral.

De acordo com Susan Brown, diretora de política global e regional do Fundo Mundial para a Natureza (WWF), “quatro países são culpados pelo mundo não avançar na proteção dos oceanos.” Estes quatro países – Estados Unidos, Canadá, Japão e Rússia – “bloquearam todas as tentativas para alcançar um acordo ambicioso em matéria de proteção dos oceanos. Estamos profundamente desapontados”, afirmou Brown ao TerraViva.

Outros especialistas concordam com as opiniões de Brown. Susan Lieberman, vice-diretora de política internacional do Pew Environment Group, disse que a declaração final da Rio+20 “reconhece que há inúmeras questões urgentes a resolver para garantir a saúde dos oceanos, (mas) ao mesmo tempo é pedido um par de anos para começar a fazer algo. É uma vergonha”, acrescentou.

Susanne Fuller, da Alliance High Seas, lamentou que “nenhum compromisso real foi assumido no Rio de Janeiro para proteger os oceanos”.O que a Rio+20 decidiu “é uma promessa de que vai esperar três anos para decidir se deve ou não agir. Nós não temos tempo para esse absurdo “, enfatizou.

Outros cientistas participantes na Rio +20 falaram sobre a situação preocupante dos oceanos. Axel Rogers, professor de biologia marinha na Universidade de Oxford, relatou ao TerraViva sobre sua pesquisa recente no sul do Pacífico. “Eu vi devastação além da imaginação. Arrastos de águas profundas com redes finas estão simplesmente destruindo toda a vida e o solo marinho. Existem grandes áreas do sul do Oceano Pacífico que já estão privadas de qualquer vida”, alertou.

Até mesmo os líderes de instituições internacionais expressaram seu desapontamento com o acordo alcançado no Rio de Janeiro, no que se relaciona com a proteção dos mares. Monique Barbut, ex-diretora-executiva da Global Environment Facility, maior instituição financeira pública para projetos ambientais, contou que tinha “reservas” sobre o acordo, especialmente em relação à proteção dos oceanos.

Em muitos casos, destacou, “só uma moratória imediata da pesca e embargo sobre o consumo” permitiria a recuperação de espécies marinhas ameaçadas, como o atum de barbatana azul do Mediterrâneo. E tal moratória imediata é simplesmente impossível – vários países-membros da União Europeia, em especial França e Espanha, nunca aprovariam essa ação. Envolverde/IPS

(FIM/2012)

The 1992 Earth Summit was one of the great moments of collective optimism. Maurice Strong of Canada, who founded the U.N. Environment Programme, managed to move on three fronts simultaneously. First, the customary one, was to call together the heads of state.

The second, novel one was achieving the participation of large companies, through the creation of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, because without a commitment from the private sector, it would have been more difficult to reach a global agreement on the climate.

But the third was the most revolutionary: for the first time, a United Nations conference was going to open its doors to civil society.

Until Rio, only international non-governmental organisations that had consultative status with the Economic and Social Council (around 800 at the time) could participate. More than 3,000 civil society representatives, many from the local and national level, were at the Earth Summit.

Obviously, the reaction of many governments was negative, and they managed to get the NGOs to meet in their own parallel and simultaneous forum, while only a few representatives attended the assembly of delegates. Since then, that has been the space carved out for civil society.

IPS has covered environmental issues since it was founded in 1964, and it had a great deal of credibility. I was director general at the time, and I went to talk to Strong to help him see that two simultaneous meetings held 40 km apart were certainly not what he would have wanted.

I then presented him with the idea that IPS could produce a daily newspaper about the conference which, distributed at both gatherings, could serve as a tool for communication and participation.

But I wanted to make sure that IPS could cover the conference and distribute the newspaper. Strong supported the idea, but warned me that if any country protested, only U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali could save me from being expelled, since only member states could circulate printed matter at a conference.

From Boutros-Ghali, a master of diplomacy and cryptic phrases, I was unable to obtain a definite guarantee. But I understood that he was in favour of it, as long as we did nothing that was indefensible. During the conference, he ignored protests from several countries about the presence of a non-governmental actor.

That is how TerraViva came out for the first time, with a 20- to 56-page Spanish edition (comprehensible to Portuguese-speakers), and a 12- to 14-page English edition. It was like putting together a real newspaper, and for IPS it was a new, creative experience, which gave birth to a high-level group of professionals.

Since 1992, TerraViva has been produced at U.N. conferences and other major events, which eventually included civil society gatherings like the World Social Forum.

TerraViva has played an unprecedented role in bolstering democracy and transparency at intergovernmental meetings.

Diplomats act on instructions from their governments, and when they have differences with other diplomats, these do not continue to rankle as personal issues outside of the meting. But when TerraViva reported that such-and-such a delegate had taken a stance that civil society did not accept, the participants in the NGO forum sought out the delegate in question and argued with him or her even in his or her hotel room.

Diplomats thus had to pay a formerly unknown personal price, and were forced to inform their governments when a certain position did not have the support of civil society.

Unfortunately, we have all-too-sufficient evidence that governments do not always listen to the voices of their voters.

On the climate front, after 20 years of twists and turns, we are returning to Rio with great expectations. But we have lost precious time in which the deterioration of the planet has accelerated and has become more glaring.

At the same time, the public has become more ecologically-minded than ever.

If Rio+20 fails to produce significant concrete results, the political system’s deficit of democracy will be evident. And TerraViva, once again, is here to generate participation and awareness – fundamental pillars of democracy.

* Roberto Savio is president emeritus of IPS, and was editor of the TerraViva produced at the 1992 Earth Summit.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 20 (TerraViva) The cliché that mammoth summits like Rio+20 are “too big to succeed” can also be applied to the megacities of our day such as Rio de Janeiro: they are simply too big to become green and sustainable.

Shanties near waterways are a common sight in Manila. Credit: Kara Santos/IPS

And yet that’s precisely the commitment made by the mayors of the 59 largest cities of the world, reunited in the so-called C-40 group.

At a side event during the U.N. conference on sustainable development here, the mayors of the C-40 group recalled that the largest urban centres of the world have “the potential to reduce their annual greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) by over one billion tonnes by 2030″, an amount equivalent to the annual emissions of Mexico and Canada combined.

Now the mayors want to reduce emissions by 45 percent by 2030.

Mind the word “potential” – omnipresent in these days of meek admissions of well-known, concrete catastrophic scientific data and vague promises to tackle the problems some time in the future.

Indeed, megalopolises across the world, from Rio de Janeiro to Mexico City to Tokyo to Shanghai, have vast potential to reduce pollution because they are big polluters in the first place.

A megalopolis per se constitutes a senseless waste of energy, human and otherwise. To change that, cities need to launch an improbable, most likely rather unpopular revolution that would affect practically all aspects of life, from transport to waste management to the generation and consumption of electricity, to food supply and population management.

If such a revolution is to succeed, cities must cease to lure rural populations searching for better lives in large urban centres. If such a revolution is to succeed, megalopolises would be capitals of fairytale countries, unlikely to come true in our lifetimes.

Let’s begin with transport. It is well known that transport activity is responsible for 13 percent of all anthropogenic GHGE, and for 23 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Transport’s dependency on oil is a staggering 95 percent, and it accounts for 60 percent of all oil consumption.

To reduce their share of such pollution, cities would have to offer efficient public transportation, and simultaneously discourage the use of private automobiles by substantially increasing taxation and fuel prices, and limiting access to urban centres.

Cities would have to encourage the use of bicycles, significantly boost the efficiency of combustion engines to reduce exhaust fumes, and guarantee safety for users of public transport, especially in developing countries. Today, crime is a major discouraging factor for well-to-do citizens, particularly women, to use public transport.

To call such a set of goals difficult to achieve, expensive, and most likely unpopular would be an understatement. But that’s only the beginning of the to-do list for city planners and administrations.

Although heating is not a pressing problem for tropical cities, it is in countries with cold winters. In such places, optimising the thermic isolation of buildings is a must – as it is to have more efficient air conditioning systems during hot summers.

This requires enormous private investments, which would need support by credit state agencies, and tax cuts to make them attractive to citizens. Zero-emission model buildings are already in place in some industrialised countries – but they are models, still a far cry from becoming standard housing policy.

Furthermore, cities would have to rely ever more on renewable sources – sun, wind, bio-mass. They must discourage waste, especially plastic, aluminium, and other non-degradable compounds. When waste is unavoidable, it must be recycled.

Cities would have to rely on local and regional food sources to further reduce transport emissions. And so on…

As already mentioned, the sustainable city of the future must not only discourage migration from the countryside, it would have to encourage migration back to rural areas to reduce its own population.

In other words, the sustainable city of the future would have to mirror the sustainable country of the future, one that offers opportunities to populations in rural areas, one crisscrossed more by railroads than by highways, the green, socially equitable country of our dreams.

That country is not around the corner, and it certainly won’t be made possible by such mammoth conferences such as Rio+20. That country, the citizens will have to build themselves.

RIO DE JANEIRO, 20 junho (TerraViva) “Quando os chefes de governo deixam de exercer sua liderança, eles deixam de ser importantes.” Esta foi a maneira como a canadense Severn Suzuki expressou seu sentimento em relação à Rio+20, a Conferência das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável, que acontece no Rio de Janeiro até o dia 22.

Vinte anos depois, a menina que ficou conhecida por reivindicar com propriedade, na Eco 92, que os governantes de todo o mundo tomassem atitudes urgentes para que seus filhos tivessem garantido o direito de viver em um mundo como o que ela conhecia, com qualidade de vida e a biodiversidade preservada, reafirmou sua convicção de que a mudança para a sustentabilidade é uma questão de amor entre as gerações, que vai acontecer independentemente da vontade política.

Severn Suzuki, 20 anos depois "a luta continua". Crédito: Cortesia AES

Severn participou, no dia 19, do Encontro Internacional da Carta da Terra na Rio+20. O evento debateu a importância do documento, que é um compromisso da sociedade civil pelo desenvolvimento sustentável. Aos 32 anos, a canadense, que no encontro anterior era uma menina de apenas 12 anos, cresceu, tornou-se uma ecóloga e é mãe de dois filhos. Ela falou sobre a sensação de integrar uma nova sociedade que a maternidade proporciona.

“Quando estava grávida, percebi que as pessoas me tratavam de forma diferente, mais gentil. Me dei conta de que eu estava em uma nova comunidade, na comunidade dos pais. Se você é um pai ou mãe, você precisa cuidar de algo além de si mesmo. Temos algo que nos conecta com um propósito maior”, testemunhou. Esta relação afetiva é, segundo ela, a porta de entrada para ações mais sustentáveis. “Temos que nos reconectar com o que nós fazemos e como isso vai impactar os outros, que são os nossos filhos”, indicou.

A falta de ambição dos compromissos estabelecidos no documento preliminar, que será debatido pelos chefes de Estado nos próximos dias, foi apontada por ela como um ponto decepcionante. “Fico desapontada de saber que a declaração que vai sair da Conferência não vai ter metas ambiciosas como houve na Eco 92. Esse documento nunca teve tanta relevância quanto agora”, observou.

A dificuldade no consenso é, para ela, a demonstração do fracasso em se entender profundamente o que está sendo debatido. “Todo mundo fala de economia verde, mas isso está se tornando uma questão de divisão. Como determinar a estrutura que vai nos levar adiante, se não conseguimos concordar com os valores e princípios que serão a base dessa estrutura? Se nós não concordarmos em princípios básicos, essa economia verde não vai valer nada”, ressaltou.

Lembrando movimentos como a primavera árabe e o Ocupe Wall Street, Servern destacou que com os adventos da internet e das mídias sociais, o poder revolucionário da sociedade cresceu. “O espírito das pessoas está começando a sobressair no mundo. É um momento na história em que a revolução está no ar. Temos o potencial para viver tempos revolucionários e devemos aproveitar essa oportunidade”, enfatizou.

Apesar da sensação de fracasso em relação aos eventos oficiais, ela se disse feliz com o grande número de pessoas presentes na Cúpula dos Povos e com o fato de o evento como um todo ter reunido quase 50 mil pessoas de todo o mundo. “Já faz 20 anos e nós ainda estamos aqui, trabalhando juntos pela sustentabilidade”, comentou. Demonstrando esperança, finalizou: “vou sair daqui sabendo que a energia e o espírito que cresceu nas últimas duas décadas não vai mudar”. (IPS/TerraViva)

(FIM/2012)