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.

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) 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, 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) 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, Jun 20 (TerraViva) The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is putting science to work in boosting food production through a global research portfolio worth five billion dollars launched at the Agriculture and Rural Development Day (ARDD) earlier this week.

CEO of the CGIAR Consortium Frank Rijsberman. Credit: CGIAR

Food security and sustainable agriculture have been identified as priority issues here at the Jun. 20-22 Rio+20 Summit.

New chief executive officer of the CGIAR Consortium, Frank Rijsberman, says science and the environment should be best friends to achieve a food secure future. He told TerraViva that CGIAR’s research programme targets collaboration with a diverse range of partners to ensure that research translates into results on the ground.

The research portfolio, covering a five-year period, focuses on increasing the productivity of small-scale farmers, who provide up to 80 percent of the food supply in developing countries.

An essential part of sustainable agriculture, smallholder farmers are CGIAR’s top priority because when they have access to new agricultural technologies and crop varieties resulting from research, they are able to get more out of their land, labour and livestock.

The ambitious CGIAR research agenda, Rijsberman says, aims to reduce rural poverty, and improve the food security, health and nutrition of hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people. In addition, the consortium has committed itself to ensuring sustainable management of natural resources.

Fifteen new programmes build on CGIAR’s accomplishments over the past 40 years, including research on natural resource management that has helped to conserve water, renew soil fertility, and reduce erosion and greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously increasing farmers’ yields.

Rijsberman said millions more hectares of land would be under cultivation today at the expense of primary forests and fragile environments had it not been for CGIAR’s crop improvement research.

Emphasising that investing in agricultural research was a critical first step to kick-start the innovation engine for a sustainable, food secure future, Rijsberman explained to TerraViva reporter Busani Bafana the ambitious research programme which will bring together investors and the implementers.

Q: Who are the targets of the research portfolios?

A: The portfolio of 15 CGIAR research programmes organises the publicly-funded research of the CGIAR Consortium and its partners in order to meet the challenges related to food insecurity, rural poverty, malnutrition and environmental degradation.

It targets both donors and investors in public agricultural research, by presenting to them an attractive investment portfolio, and the implementers of agricultural research, by organising and coordinating their efforts.

The research targets Africa, Asia and Latin America – with at least half of the projects in Africa.

Q: What specific research gaps does CGIAR seek to fill through the allocation of these funds?

A: Private sector research primarily focuses on the needs of commercial farmers, not the smallholders in developing countries that have different crops, different diseases and different problems accessing markets. CGIAR focuses on the needs of the 500 million smallholder farmers, mostly women, with less than two hectares of land, who provide most of the food in developing countries.

Q: Will CGIAR centres compete to access the funds?

A: The research programmes in this portfolio have been approved by our collective investors (through the CGIAR Fund Council). Funding will be allocated based on performance agreements between the CGIAR consortium and the centres leading the programmes.

Q: Can you briefly comment on the link between sustainable development and agriculture?

A: In response to the food price spikes in 2008, 2010 and 2011 (that pushed some 44 million people into poverty), farmers are trying to produce more food and they are ploughing under new and marginal lands more rapidly than even during the Green Revolution.

Unless agricultural research manages to help raise crop yields sustainably – getting more crop per ha of land – millions more hectares will be ploughed under. That is why agriculture and environment are new best friends, working together for a food secure future while safeguarding the planet.

RIO DE JANEIRO, 18 de junho (TerraViva) Não é mais novidade que o estado ambiental da Terra é catastrófico. Contudo, entender alguns números que descrevem esta catástrofe ainda provoca um choque – por exemplo, que 30% da biodiversidade desapareceu desde 1970, e que 60% desse declínio ocorreu nas áreas tropicais do planeta.

O biólogo inglês Jonathan Baillie no Rio de Janeiro. Julio Godoy/IPS

Jonathan Baillie, um biólogo britânico, membro da Sociedade Zoológica de Londres, e chefe do programa Edge para a conservação das espécies, tem esses números alarmantes na ponta da língua. Baillie, que está no Rio de Janeiro como consultor científico para a organização Globe de legisladores ambientais, disse ao TerraViva que esses números servem como indicador do estado dramático da situação ambiental do mundo.

P: Você pinta um quadro bastante sombrio do ambiente global.

R: A humanidade está se movendo na direção absolutamente errada. Nosso modelo de produção e consumo é insustentável, e a Terra não pode mais lidar com ele. Hoje é preciso um ano e meio para que a Terra absorva o dióxido de carbono produzido e regenere os recursos renováveis que as pessoas usam em um ano. Se continuarmos a consumir os recursos do planeta nessa mesma taxa global, em 2030 vamos precisar de dois planetas para sustentar a população mundial.

P: Que soluções o senhor vê para lidar com esta insustentabilidade?

R: Tenho medo de que apenas uma grande catástrofe, que afetasse diretamente e em massa a vida das pessoas, nos obrigaria a fazer as mudanças necessárias para acabar com este declínio. O que precisamos é ter em conta o capital natural nos sistemas nacionais de contabilidade e a utilização de tecnologias limpas, para transformar comportamentos e padrões de produção e consumo.

P: Os novos números da concentração de dióxido de carbono na atmosfera sugerem que podemos ter chegado a um ponto sem retorno.

R: Uma medida recente da concentração de CO2 no Ártico registra 400 partes por milhão. Este é um pico, um marco ruim, mas é ainda um valor pontual. Durante o ano, esse valor oscila, e chega a um ponto mais baixo. Contudo, esse número significa que a acidificação dos oceanos atinge com frequência um índice que, se permanecer constante, conduziria à destruição de ecossistemas marinhos vitais.

P: Mas não é só a biodiversidade marinha que está em risco.

R: Não, em absoluto. Mais de 20% dos mamíferos estão ameaçados de extinção. Uma parcela semelhante de invertebrados também sofre o risco de extinção. No entanto, as espécies mais ameaçadas são as de anfíbios – cerca de 32% de todas as espécies de anfíbios estão listadas como ameaçadas globalmente. Quase a metade de todas as espécies conhecidas de anfíbios estão em declínio.

P: Então, quais são as soluções que você vê como capazes de reverter essa situação preocupante?

R: É absolutamente necessário incorporar o valor do capital natural nos sistemas de contas nacionais, para levar em conta os ecossistemas e seu uso no cálculo do PIB. É absolutamente necessário usar tecnologias limpas, tais como fontes renováveis de energia, para substituir as fontes antigas e poluentes.

P: O que o senhor quer dizer por capital natural?

R: Por exemplo, estimativas aproximadas dos custos causados pelo desmatamento chegam a US$ 4,5 trilhões por ano. Tais valores, que incluem a captura de carbono pelas florestas, o valor das florestas para lazer e similares, não são levados em conta no cálculo do produto interno bruto.

P: Por tecnologias limpas o senhor quer dizer a chamada bioengenharia, para tentar reduzir a acidificação das águas oceânicas?

R: Não, em absoluto. Nós certamente precisamos tentar todas as tecnologias disponíveis, mas a manipulação artificial da química da água marinha certamente não é uma solução.

P: O senhor é pessimista sobre o futuro da Terra?

R: Eu acredito que somente a ação das gerações mais jovens pode forçar os governos a finalmente cumprirem seus próprios compromissos. As gerações mais jovens vão suportar as consequências das atuais omissões e políticas equivocadas. Por isto, elas têm que forçosamente exigir dos governos que tomem medidas na direção certa, para interromper a destruição da biodiversidade e de outros recursos naturais. Envolverde/IPS

(FIM/2012)

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 18 (TerraViva) That the environmental state of the Earth is catastrophic is no longer news. But grasping some figures that describe this catastrophe still provokes a shock – for instance, that 30 percent of biodiversity has disappeared since 1970, and that 60 percent of this decline has taken place in the tropical areas of the planet.

British biologist Jonathan Baillie in Rio de Janeiro. Julio Godoy/IPS

Jonathan Baillie, a leading British biologist, member of the Zoological society of London, and head of the Edge programme for the conservation of species, has such alarming figures at the tip of his tongue.

Baillie, who is in Rio de Janeiro as scientific advisor to the GLOBE organisation of environmental legislators, told TerraViva that such figures serve as indicator of the dramatic state of the world’s environmental affairs.

Q: You paint a quite bleak picture of the global environment.

A: We as humanity are moving in the absolutely wrong direction. Our model of production and consumption is unsustainable, and the Earth cannot longer cope with it.

It is currently taking 1.5 years for the Earth to absorb the carbon dioxide produced and regenerate the renewable resources that people use within one year. If we continue to consume the planet’s resources at the same global rate, by 2030 we will need two planets to support the world’s population.

Q: What solutions do you envisage to deal with this unsustainability?

A: I’m afraid that only a major catastrophe, that would directly and massively affect people’s lives, would force us the make the changes needed to stop this decline. What we need is to take into account the natural capital into the national accounting systems and to use clean technology, to transform behaviours and patterns of production and consumption.

Q: New figures of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere suggest that we may have reached a point of no return.

A: A recent measure of the concentration of CO2 in the Artic put it at 400 parts per million. This is a peak, a bad milestone, but it is still a punctual value. During the year, this value fluctuates, and eventually comes down. But this measure means that the acidification of the oceans reaches once and again a value that, if it were to remain constant, would lead to the obliteration of vital sea ecosystems.

Q: But it is not only marine biodiversity which is at risk.

A: No, not at all. Over 20 percent of mammals are endangered species. A similar share of invertebrates also suffers the risk of extinction. But the most endangered species are amphibians – some 32 percent of all amphibian species are listed as globally endangered. Almost half of all known amphibian species are declining.

Q: So what solutions do you see as capable of reversing this worrisome situation?

A: We absolutely need to incorporate natural capital value into the national accounts systems, to factor the ecosystems and its use into the measured gross domestic product. We absolutely need to put in application clean technologies, such as renewable sources of energy, to substitute the old, polluting ones.

Q: What do you mean by natural capital?

A: For instance, rough estimations of the costs caused by deforestation put them at 4.5 trillion U.S. dollars per year. Such values, which include capture of carbon by forests, the forests’ recreational value and the like, are not taken into account when calculating gross domestic product.

Q: By clean technologies you mean so-called bio-engineering, to try to reduce acidification of ocean waters?

A: No, not at all. We certainly need to try all technologies available, but the artificial manipulation of marine water chemistry is certainly not a solution.

Q: Are you pessimistic about the future of the Earth?

A: I believe that only the action of younger generations can force governments to finally comply with their own commitments. Younger generations will endure the consequences of the present omissions and misguided policies. Therefore they have to forcefully demand governments to take actions in the right direction, to stop depletion of biodiversity and other natural resources.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 17 (TerraViva) If global leaders gathering next week for the Rio+20 conference are under immense pressure to deliver on the 1992 Earth Summit commitments, that pressure has just been doubled by parliaments taking out the environmental accountability whip.

John Gummer, (now Lord Deben), President of the Global Legislators Organisation (GLOBE). Credit: Busani Bafana/IPS

In the words of one British legislator, Barry Gardiner, “we want governments to keep their feet in the fire”.

John Gummer, (now Lord Deben), president of the Global Legislators Organisation (GLOBE), agreed.

Gummer told TerraViva on the sidelines of the first international conference of legislators underway in Rio, Brazil: “International conferences have always been meetings of ministers and chief ministers, but in the whole issue of the environment it has become increasingly true that it is the parliament and legislation organisation making decisions and pushing the agenda forward.”

Gummer said parliamentarians should make governments accountable for promises they made by signing up to international environment agreements. But parliamentarians have been kept out of the loop so that governments have got away with murder when it comes to acting on environmental issues.

“Governments have often signed up to agreements but many times do not do what they promised,” said Gummer.

Commitments to environmental agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol have varied from proaction to inaction at the expense of citizens, now more vulnerable than ever to poverty and climate change.

If governments have failed to deliver on international green agreements, where does that leave the lawmakers?

“Things are done one by one, and we have started by getting governments to realise how important these environmental issues were and Rio in 1992 itself did that over time… and Rio+10 summed up that we have not done as much as we ought to have done. Rio+20 is the moment in which we move the big stage forward and say we can do a great deal more,” Gummer told TerraViva.

Asked about what form of pressure could be exerted on governments to act, Gummer said parliaments were powerful instruments in democracies if the elected representatives did their job properly.

He cited the examples of Mexico and Britain, which have passed progressive climate change legislation. The Chinese People’s Assembly has also piled pressure on its government to implement green commitments.

“We are seeing this big change taking place and what is happening in Rio+20 is to consolidate and make sure we work together and get the best practises. GLOBE is the beginning of a powerful movement throughout the world. Legislators represent people and it is the people who are being destroyed by climate change and other assaults on the environment,” he said.

A major outcome of the four-day global summit, which has attracted 300 speakers of Parliaments, presidents of Congresses and Senates and senior legislators from all over the world, is the Rio+20 Legislators Protocol.

The protocol negotiated during the summit is based on the objectives of strengthening the scrutiny of the work of governments, supporting national legislation to advance and share best legislative practices, and incorporating natural capital accounting into national economic models to enable legislators to better monitor the use of natural capital.
.
The Rio+20 Legislators Protocol will be signed by each of delegations to uphold it and take active responsibility to press their governments to implement it. Legislators will regularly return to Rio to measure what governments have done in line with what they have committed to do.

Given that in some parts of the world, parliaments have been reduced to rubberstamps of the governments, will the protocol be enforceable?

“Yes, it is certainly enforceable in as far as the people who sign it make sure it is enforceable,” said Gummer. “Of course, some governments have very complacent parliaments but we cannot say that about the South African parliament, the British parliament and Australian parliament. What is happening in Mexico, Brazil and China and growing throughout the world is part of the democratic upsurge.

“There is no doubt the environment is something which brings people together and makes them much more active than any subject I can think of.”

GLOBE is expecting Rio+20 to enshrine the concept of natural capital to facilitate that future policies are measured not only by their effect on gross national products but also on natural capital.

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 13 (IPS/TerraViva) – When the Rio+20 summit gets underway in Brazil next week, the estimated 50,000 to 60,000 participants will not only include world leaders, government delegates and U.N. staffers but also a staggering array of activists from the far corners of the world.

The United Nations has identified some of the major participating groups to include farmers, businessmen, trade unionists, consumers, workers, students, indigenous peoples, religious leaders, academics, members of civil society and representatives of the international media.

Flavia Pansieri. Credit: Courtesy of UNV

But there will also be well over a thousand “volunteers” providing their services virtually gratis under the umbrella of UN Volunteers (UNV).

Every year, about 7,500 qualified and experienced women and men of around 160 nationalities serve as UN Volunteers in some 130 countries.

In an interview with IPS U.N. Bureau Chief Thalif Deen, Flavia Pansieri, UNV’s executive coordinator, said UNV is very pleased to be able to contribute to a project, in conjunction with the Brazilian Government and UNDP, “to bring the Rio+20 Conference to the people of Rio de Janeiro”.

Through this social inclusion project, she said, about 1,500 volunteers from less favoured communities and universities will support the organisation of the conference.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What progress have you made in your “volunteer action counts” campaign for sustainable development?

A: Since its launch in April, the “Volunteer Action Counts” campaign has been a tremendous success, with more than 1,000 volunteering stories submitted and over 63 million volunteer actions counted so far on the campaign website.

In Mozambique, for example, over 700 volunteers have been mobilised through an initiative by a UK-based international voluntary organisation to support people living with HIV and AIDS. Among other things, the volunteers tend to vegetable gardens that provide food and medicinal plants for people living with HIV and AIDS.

In Estonia, through the “Let’s do it!” campaign, 50,000 volunteers cleaned up the entire country of illegal garbage in just five hours collecting 10,000 tons of garbage.

In China, India, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand, nearly 5,000 young Habitat for Humanity volunteers laid bricks, mixed cement and wielded hammers to help more than 500 families in just one day.

This simultaneous multi-country build event marked the culmination of a five-month long Habitat for Humanity Youth BUILD campaign to raise funds for, and awareness of, the dire housing situation in the Asia-Pacific region.

Q: How successful is the concept of volunteering in the U.N. system?

A: In 2011, more than 7,300 UN Volunteers worked for peace and development with UNDP and other U.N. agencies around the world, helping people to lead more productive and fulfilling lives through quality education and improved healthcare, or by ensuring equitable access to resources and sustainable practices.

To date, more than 14,000 UN Volunteers have served in more than 40 different peacekeeping and political and peacebuilding operations. Currently, more than 2,400 UN Volunteers are supporting 17 U.N. peace operations. They work in more than 120 functional categories, from human rights advisers to supply managers, electoral observers to press officers.

Q: How difficult is it to find volunteers against the backdrop of a spreading global financial crisis?

A: Volunteerism is a fundamental source of community strength and resilience that exists in all societies throughout the world. Volunteerism is expressed through a wide range of activities, including traditional forms of mutual aid and self-help, formal service delivery, campaigning and advocacy, as well as other forms of civic participation.

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 13 (IPS/TerraViva) Unlocking women’s energies and allowing them to become drivers of change could fuel the motor of sustainable development.

The question is whether world leaders meeting at the Rio+20 summit in Brazil will squander or seize this tremendous opportunity to harness women’s full potential.

Michelle Bachelet. Credit: Courtesy of UN Women

In an interview with U.N. correspondent Isabelle de Grave ahead of Rio+20, Michelle Bachelet, head of U.N. Women, explains the vital link between gender equality and the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainable development.

Q: How does gender and women’s empowerment relate to sustainable development?

A: Twenty years ago, at the (first) Rio Summit, there was a unanimous agreement that sustainable development would never be realised without gender equality and that holds true today.

Gender equality and women’s empowerment are integral to the achievement of sustainable development. Gender equality is the factor which brings together the three dimensions. It determines the access that men and women have to productive resources such as land, finance, and technology, it determines the ability of individuals to take advantage of opportunities such as education and employment, and it circumscribes access to social protection and basic services.

Women farmers make up 43 percent of the agricultural labour force in developing countries and 80 percent in some parts of Africa. If women had the same access as men to agricultural resources, production would increase by 20 to 30 percent, and has the potential to reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 12 to 17 percent.

In terms of the everyday lives of women and girls, the provision of basic services, clean water, energy, housing and transportation can reduce the intense labour of women, promote dignity and enhance quality of life.

Rio+20 provides an enormous opportunity to move forward to a new development paradigm, which appreciates the integral human value of gender equality and women’s empowerment to the achievement of sustainable development.

Q: Participation and leadership is one of the key themes of the UN Women mandate. Will women’s participation in discussions held at Rio+20 be a reflection of progress in this regard?

A: We are advocating for women’s leadership and participation because we know that when you do have women discussing things and when you allow women a strong voice, this frees up space for change.

At this year’s summit there will be a high-level forum of women leaders, and a high-level event for women leaders on the subject famine. The participation of a group of female heads of state and heads of government will bring attention to the relationship between gender equality, women’s empowerment and sustainable development. In this regard we are seeing progress.

But it’s not only about participation in one particular conference that is key, it is about women’s’ participation and leadership in diverse areas, and how we are able to link this to an action plan. That action plan will be the outcome document to be agreed upon by member states at the Rio +20 summit.

Q: Debates and discussions that have taken place ahead of Rio+20 have greatly emphasised the need to streamline the development agenda, by determining the “must haves” that governments will sign up to. In this regard, what challenges do you anticipate for the promotion of gender equality, and women’s rights ahead of the summit?

A: We’ve seen very promising developments in the past few weeks of negotiations, and I’m very pleased that gender equality and women’s empowerment is reflected throughout the text to be agreed upon by member states.

There have been calls from member states to gain greater recognition of women’s rights in relation to water as well as a section on women’s health and sexual and reproductive rights. I hope these will continue and prevail so as to feature alongside women’s right to land and property.

In relation to women’s sexual and reproductive rights, there are always debates in this area. Some countries have different positions on the issue of women’s reproductive rights and health and services.

We believe you can’t isolate one part of the world’s female population. You need to include all the aspects that are essential in terms of achieving gender equality, you cannot ensure the right to participate and be an economic agent and not consider sexual and reproductive health to be important as well. We will continue working to ensure that we get out of the document the best and most comprehensive response to women’s needs.

It is also important that after Rio, when governments will be discussing a new development framework beyond 2015 and the MDGs that women are fully integrated.

I would really like to see a comprehensive sustainable development goal on gender empowerment and the inclusion of gender targets and indicators in all other goals. We believe gender equality has to be mainstreamed – taken into consideration in all areas of development – and recognised as a concrete goal in itself.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 13 (TerraViva) Over the centuries, smallholders have learned to adjust to environmental changes and climate variability. But the climate is now changing too fast and intensely for farmers’ capacity to adapt.

“These farmers cannot be left alone,” Carlos Seré, IFAD’s chief development strategist, told TerraViva in an interview.

Carlos Seré

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How is climate change multiplying the risks for agriculture and for farmers?

A: Over the years agriculture has been evolving with the climate, with population increase, with the changes in consumption. But the variability and unpredictability of climate change effects are now overturning broadly adopted approaches to cultivation and the ‘natural’ evolution is not fast enough to go along with the change in the climate.

As rainfall becomes more erratic, for example, varieties once productive in a certain micro-climate may no longer be. These things are making agriculture riskier with implications for farmers but also for consumers in the rest of the world.

Solutions that we need to take now require enormous coordination (since) what used to happen naturally with the adaptation has now to be addressed actively through investments, through research, and changes in the technology.

I think the international community is now a lot more aware that we need to do much more to manage risks, in a comprehensive manner involving production, consumption, trade. IFAD is working on agriculture risks assessment and management in various countries but of course a lot more capacity building work would be required.

Q: For farmers, one of the most difficult impacts of climate change is the loss of predictability. What kind of help could make them be more productive and climate smart?

A: Planting schedules handed down by generations are no longer valid and farmers can no longer rely on historical averages of rainfall and temperatures. In addition to traditional risks, smallholders now face new threats, such as sea-level rise and the effect of melting glaciers on water supply.

It is not just one intervention which is going to help farmers. First, they need public policy support, and this relates to the rule of law, a functioning jurisdiction and a functioning marketing. But then they also need effective infrastructure, access to the market, and timely information. And they do need functioning services.

Farmers cannot be left alone, we need more interaction and governments’ engagement to provide the right type of services. If smallholders are to be protagonists in intensifying sustainable agriculture, they will need support in dealing with the risks they face.

Q: Where should this support come from?

A: In the past we used to think that all these services have to be provided by government. Nowadays we see that a lot of these roles can be provided by the private sector, which anyway has to be adequately monitored by governments.

IFAD has also recently initiated the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme, which will help channel finance into climate-smart, sustainable investments in poor smallholder communities. It aims to help eight million smallholders become more resilient to climate change by 2020.

The initiative will focus on appropriate agricultural practices, efficient water use, expanded capacities for adaptation and risk reduction among communities, more resilient infrastructure and knowledge sharing on climate-smart practices.

Q: What does Rio+20 mean for smallholder farmers? Do you expect it will listen to their voices?

A: Rio is very ambitious in terms of sustainable development making sure we really address – as we tried to 20 years ago – those economic, social and environmental dimensions (of development). Clearly agriculture is absolutely central to that. Large parts of the world still are very agrarian societies, and agriculture is central to the discussion both in terms of the solutions but also the issues which the world worries about.

But this is not mainstreamed in the discussion. If you look at the draft outcome documents, there hasn’t been an enormous amount of appetite to put agriculture in there and I think that is one of our challenges. One of our major goals is to make sure that agriculture, and particularly smallholder farmers, that their dimension is not lost in the Rio process.

UNITED NATIONS, Jun 12, 2012 (IPS/TerraViva) – Building the cities of the future requires not only smarter planning but a profound shift toward greater equity and social justice, says Joan Clos, executive director of the U.N. Human Settlements Programme, or UN-HABITAT.

Speaking with U.N. correspondent Rousbeh Legatis on the eve of the Rio+20 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, Clos explained how the world’s more than three billion urban dwellers can directly participate in the process of making their cities healthier, more liveable places.

Joan Clos. Credit: UN-Habitat

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Can you talk about the link between urban life and development, and to what extent sustainability of the latter depends on the former?

A: With more than half of the global population living in cities, there is no doubt that we live in an urbanised world and the global challenges of the 21st Century are in urban areas.

It is in cities around the world that the pressures of globalisation, migration, social inequality, environmental pollution and climate change and youth unemployment are most directly felt.

On the other hand, they have for centuries been the cradle of innovation and they currently produce more than 75 percent of the world’s GDP. From this point, sustainable urbanisation is a key driver to achieve global sustainable development and economic world growth.

Q: What role does urban design and planning play in this context?

A: With the current worldwide rapid urbanisation, cities need to ensure a good urban design and planning. We must re-embrace the compact, mixed-use city. Cities and their component neighbourhoods need to be compact, integrated and connected.

This requires a shift away from the mono-functional city of low density and long distances, which is poorly connected, socially divided and economically unproductive.

City-dwellers themselves – particularly the poorest and most vulnerable – must remain the primary beneficiaries. The “right to the city” remains a powerful principle for ensuring that the collective interest of a city prevails.

A human rights-based approach is the only way to uphold the dignity of all urban residents in the face of multiple rights violations, including the right to decent living conditions. This paradigm shift cannot take place without addressing the fundamental issues of equity, poverty and social justice.

Q: UN-Habitat is calling for “Sustainable Cities for All”. What would they look like? Do any already exist?

A: Cities in Asia and Europe offer, generally speaking, some of the best models, with Singapore, Tokyo and Osaka and Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo leading their counterparts.

Siemens Green City Index, for example, provides a comprehensive, rigorous set of measurement principles for sustainable cities along the parameters of low CO2 emissions and energy use, optimal land use, efficient buildings and transport, recycling of water and waste, and air quality and environmental governance.

According to the index, the best examples in North America are San Francisco, Vancouver and New York; in Latin America, Curitiba and Bogota. In Africa, Cape Town and Durban offered the best models.

Q: Citizens are often excluded from planning and decision-making processes. How can their voices be strengthened?

A: We emphasise the importance of citizen participation and the ability of the local community to involve many actors including citizens and groups, civil society and the private sector. In many cases, citizens do not have the information or lack the mechanism to participate in city decisions.

In this context, UN-Habitat will launch the initiative “I’m a City Changer” in Rio during the Rio+20 conference. This will be a platform to intensify exchange of experiences and examples from cities, and a global partnership for sustainable cities, involving multi-stakeholder participation – cities and local governments, civil society, national governments and the private sector.

In the essence of the “I’m a City Changer” campaign, I encourage you all to advocate for the importance of sound national urban strategies, balanced regional development policies, and strengthened urban economic and legal frameworks.

We all have to start being City Changers, and think about how we can achieve cities that are more sustainable, equitable and prosperous for all.

Q: What would be measurable results from Rio+20 for achieving sustainable urban development and to reinvigorate the urban agenda?

A: I strongly believe that the Rio+20 conference will be crucial to connect all the work by prioritising sustainable urbanisation within a broader development framework towards a new multi-level governance architecture; increasing the number of countries that adopt and implement national urban policies to coordinate different ministerial and sectoral efforts.

Now more than ever, the role of regional and local authorities is crucial to delivering practical results that will defeat poverty, protect the natural environment and improve resilience to potential disasters. Our challenge is to connect the dots, so that advances on one can generate progress on others.

UN-Habitat strongly recommends that countries establish National Urban Strategies that shape regional and local level development policies and connect the work at local levels to national policies that aim to ensure that urbanisation contributes to economic growth. As part of this process we also recommend the strengthening of the capacity of local and regional authorities to empower them to implement the plans.

Furthermore, a structurally and qualitatively different type of economic growth is needed. Incentives should direct growth towards more resource-productive, resilient, low-carbon and low risk urban infrastructure, and renewed urban design with a focus on the green economy.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 11 (TerraViva) With heads of state from more than 120 nations and tens of thousands of civil society and international development experts gathering for the U.N. Summit on Sustainable Development next week, it is accepted wisdom that rethinking agriculture is one of most critical issues facing this and future generations.

TerraViva spoke with Kanayo F. Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a U.N. agency that focuses on eradicating rural poverty in developing countries through hands-on interventions like financial services, markets, technology, land and other natural resources.

Kanayo F. Nwanze. Credit: Courtesy of IFAD

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: IFAD, and in general experts on agrarian matters, see the fight against poverty as inextricable from the preservation of the environment. In this context, what do you expect from Rio+20?

A: As it stands, today’s food and agriculture systems are failing smallholders in developing countries. This is because two key points are not understood well enough by policymakers and the general public. First, of the 1.4 billion people living on under 1.25 dollars per day, one billion of them are in rural areas in developing countries, and the vast majority of those depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. So poverty remains a rural phenomenon and small farms play a central role in providing food and employment.

Second, while it is known that agriculture has huge impacts on the environment, it is not fully recognised that small farms in developing countries are managing vast areas of natural resources. For example, 80 percent of farmland in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa is made up of small farms.

The problem is that these farmers, both women and men, are often not empowered to manage their natural resources. They do not have secure access to their land. They are reliant on the weather and do not have access to institutions and markets.

On top of this, smallholder farmers are facing growing threats and risks of volatile food prices and increasing scarcity of natural resources, such as land and water. Changes in climate patterns and expected increases in extreme weather conditions are making life even more difficult for rural communities.

While the Rio+20 negotiations are on-going, IFAD is continuing to work with farmers’ organisations, the Rome-based agencies and other partners, to raise awareness about the challenges facing the world’s smallholders and to promote an action-oriented agenda with agriculture at the centre. We expect the negotiators will take into account the case of smallholder farmers and give them a level playing field.

Q: Can you define the position you are advancing at the Rio+20?

A: We are advocating for three big changes to today’s food and agriculture system. Of course policies need to be in place for poor rural women and men to access new technologies. After nearly three decades of declining support for agriculture, it would seem that our goal of universal food and nutrition security is more elusive than ever.

But amid the dark clouds, there are rays of hope. Because of co-ordinated efforts, the devastation caused by the famine in the Horn of Africa today was less than we have seen under similar circumstances in the past.

And because of commitments to agricultural development made in recent years – from the African Union Maputo Declaration to the G8 L’Aquila summit – we are developing the framework to ensure that food security crises, such as those witnessed today, will someday become history.

We are pushing for massive scaling up of investments in “sustainable smallholder agriculture” that can increase farmers’ productivity and incomes, improve their resilience to erratic weather conditions, and prevent the natural resource base from further degradation.

Sustainable agriculture with smallholders means we do not need to make the false choice between reducing poverty or tackling climate change. In the long run we can do both through approaches that bring agriculture planning, such as increasing crop or livestock production, together with planning in other sectors like environment, energy, and transportation. This is the only way we will get the balance of social, environmental and economic benefits that is the basis of sustainable development.

Second, smallholders are entrepreneurs who don’t have a level playing field for running their businesses. It’s incredible how much they achieve off the sweat of their brows, their traditional knowledge and their unflagging ingenuity.

Smallholders have, for generations, been adapting to changing conditions and now that climate is changing so much more rapidly, there is a lot we can learn from them. We can support them with accessible technologies that can help them adapt to the new and uncertain conditions. But their lives will not change much if they cannot connect to markets.

There are plenty of examples of smallholder farmers driving agricultural production and supplying national and even global markets. They have the potential to increase their production and contribute to feeding nine billion people by 2050.They need a little support and not handouts. Part of this will be changing the perception of the private sector to see smallholders as entrepreneurs in their own right and potential partners for business deals.

Last but not the least is that no one government or organisation can do this alone. We need better partnerships to link smallholder women and men to government institutions, civil society, the private sector and researchers. We need a new paradigm of collaboration that allows us to plan across sectors from agriculture and health, to transportation and education, as well as cross cutting ecological landscapes that do not share the borders of our human communities and activities.

Q: How would you strengthen the role of poor peasant farmers and their organisations in order to reach these objectives?

A: IFAD is one of the largest sources of financing for agriculture and rural development in many developing countries, and we support government programmes that empower smallholder farmers and their organisations to interact more effectively with their governments, with their natural environment and with markets.

We want to enable poor women and men to have a voice in decision making and governance processes and form equitable partnerships and contractual relationships. In 2011, the projects we financed supported 13,000 marketing groups, trained more than 700,000 people in business and entrepreneurship, and 2.1 million people learned about community and natural resource management. We also work with many national and regional farmers’ organisations.

My organisation is also focussed on linking smallholders to markets. Over the past 12 years, the proportion of IFAD-supported projects that include work on value chains has increased dramatically from three percent in 1999 to 46 percent 2009, and this trend continues to rise.

Q: What you are proposing seems applicable especially to rural women.

A: Absolutely. I’ve always said that the average small farmer is a woman with a baby on her back. On average, women constitute 43 percent of the agricultural labour force in developing countries – in sub-Saharan Africa as much as 50 percent – but they are poorly paid, have less secure jobs, less access to education, and have less access than men to agricultural resources such as land, livestock, credit, fertiliser and machinery.

Experience shows how rural organisations, including cooperatives, can help women to overcome the social, economic, and environmental limitations they face through lending services, such as access to markets and information. I must also emphasise that the rural youth of today are the farmers of tomorrow. Investing in young people, both girls and boys, living in rural areas is key to enhancing agricultural productivity and food security.

In effect, organisations of producers and ties to non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the scientific community, and public and private agents also help small producers, both women and men, to express their concerns and interests in order to influence policy formulation.

Last year about half of all participants in projects that we supported were women, and 60 percent of the people trained in business, entrepreneurship and community management were women. Also, a full 83 percent of active borrowers served by IFAD-supported microfinance institutions were also women – a total of about 24 million of them.

Q: In your experience, what are the conditions necessary to broaden the long-term benefits to farmers and their communities of development projects intended to combat poverty while advancing environmental preservation?

A: I think the 10 principles of our environment and natural resource policy demonstrate how deeply we believe in integrated approaches to achieve the balance of social, environmental and economic benefits we must achieve. Here they are.

1. Scaled-up investment in sustainable agriculture

2. Recognise economic, social and cultural values of natural assets;

3. Promote “climate-smart” rural development;

4. Build smallholder resilience to risk and natural-resource-related shocks;

5. Engage in value chains that drive green growth;

6. Improve governance of natural assets;

7. Promote livelihood diversification;

8. Promote role of women and indigenous peoples;

9. Increase smallholder access to green finance; and

10. Reduce IFAD’s environmental footprint.

NACIONES UNIDAS, jun (IPS) – Será imposible hablar de sostenibilidad en Río+20 sin escuchar qué tienen para decir los pequeños agricultores del mundo, sostuvo el director de la Oficina de Asociación y Movilización de Recursos del Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola (FIDA), Mohamed Béavogui.

Los pequeños productores tienen mucho para aportar, por ejemplo en crisis alimentarias como la del Sahel, zona árida entre el desierto del Sahara en el norte y las sabanas de Sudán en el sur.

Río+20 debe escuchar a los pequeños agricultores del mundo, dijo Béavogui a IPS. Crédito: Cortesía del entrevistado

La Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible, conocida como Río+20, se realizará del 20 al 22 de este mes en Río de Janeiro.

Unos 18 millones de personas en el Sahel corren riesgo de inseguridad alimentaria y desnutrición, alertó la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO).

Las sequías recurrentes, la degradación ambiental, los altos precios de los granos, la caída de las remesas de los emigrantes, el desplazamiento de personas y la pobreza crónica crearon una situación que, entre otras cosas, causó una caída de 26 por ciento de la producción de cereales respecto de 2011.

Hallar soluciones a largo plazo es clave en este contexto, subrayó Beavogui.

Entrevistado por IPS, el funcionario del FIDA dijo que el mundo puede aprender de los pequeños productores para promover una agricultura sostenible.

IPS: Regiones como el Sahel parecen ser azotadas por el hambre en forma recurrente, generalmente por razones predecibles. ¿Qué cambios estructurales se pueden hacer para romper este ciclo?

MOHAMED BÉAVOGUI: Primero, debemos invertir en la promoción de una mayor capacidad para llevar a cabo actividades de autoayuda en determinadas comunidades, en respuesta a la escasez de producción, así como coordinar e implementar más efectivamente las actividades de asistencia gubernamentales e internacionales.

En segundo lugar, hemos aprendido que en las áreas donde se han realizado intentos de adoptar enfoques sostenibles de largo plazo, como la regeneración de tierras, la solución de los problemas de disponibilidad de agua y la irrigación por goteo, los efectos adversos de las sequías han sido menores.

Pero esto significa que debemos trabajar todos juntos. Los gobiernos deben impulsar las políticas adecuadas para permitir que se obtengan los insumos, necesarios particularmente semillas resistentes a las sequías, así como políticas que permitan la adopción de buenos servicios de extensión y mejor acceso, particularmente para las mujeres y los jóvenes.

Debemos, por tanto, invertir mejor en carreteras para permitir el transporte de alimentos desde las zonas de alta producción hasta las que presentan déficit.

IPS: El FIDA ha apoyado la agricultura orgánica en proyectos piloto, como el de productores de cacao en Santo Tomé y Príncipe, como forma de apuntalar mercados más lucrativos. ¿Se están expandiendo estos mercados y ofrecen alguna oportunidad para una asociación público-privada que realmente beneficie a los pequeños agricultores?

MB: Sí, es una buena forma de contribuir a la creación de riqueza para los pequeños productores rurales.

Tuvimos experiencias muy exitosas en Santo Tomé y Príncipe, Sierra Leona, Uganda y en muchas partes de América Latina.

¿Pero qué hemos aprendido? ¿Cuáles son los factores de éxito para poder llegar allí? Y cuando digo “allí” me refiero a la situación en la que el agricultor obtiene un precio justo por su producto, incrementando sus ingresos de forma respetable, y su socio, el empresario privado, también está satisfecho y haciendo dinero. Porque esa es la realidad: todo se trata de hacer dinero, pero de forma justa.

Entonces, el primer factor de éxito es pensar a largo plazo. Debemos trabajar con verdaderos profesionales del sector privado, socios, comprometidos con el desarrollo, con los seres humanos. Además de los negocios y el comercio, es fundamental para esto algún tipo de enfoque ético al trabajo. Así que, en resumen, necesitamos un compromiso genuino de todos.

El segundo factor de éxito es trabajar con productores organizados para asegurar una masa crítica. Permitirles tener, primero, el tamaño suficiente para la oferta y, en segundo lugar, minimizar los costos de procesamiento y de mercadeo.

En tercer lugar, necesitamos asegurar la calidad para tener buen acceso a los mercados y buenos precios, y necesitamos optimizar la logística para reducir otra vez los costos, así como una fácil transferencia del conocimiento especializado y de las buenas prácticas.

IPS: La igualdad de género es una prioridad para el FIDA. ¿Les están dando los gobiernos a las mujeres, sobre todo a las jóvenes y del ámbito rural, la atención y el apoyo que necesitan?

MB: Creo que tenemos un largo camino por recorrer en ese sentido. Las políticas están cambiando. En África, las nuevas constituciones les están dando más espacio a las mujeres.

Si se ven los gobiernos, hay cada vez más mujeres en posiciones de alto nivel, y lo mismo ocurre en diferentes corporaciones.

Donde creo que todavía hay mucho trabajo por hacer es en el caso de las mujeres de las zonas rurales.

En los papeles hay mucha discusión sobre cómo ayudamos a las mujeres, pero cuando se analizan las actividades, en los hechos, se ve que los servicios de extensión para la agricultura están dirigidos frecuentemente a los hombres.

IPS: Hay un creciente reconocimiento de que la agricultura sostenible es central para el desarrollo humano. ¿Qué espera que se logre en Río+20 en este aspecto?

MB: Nosotros con el FIDA estamos insistiendo en que no podemos lograr sostenibilidad sin involucrar a los principales actores. Tenemos unos 2.000 millones de pequeños agricultores en todo el mundo.

Estas personas están trabajando todos los días las tierras que tenemos en el planeta, se ocupan de nuestras aguas, de nuestros bosques, de nuestro ganado. De hecho, de nuestra naturaleza.

Así que es imposible hablar de sostenibilidad de nuestro ambiente sin involucrar realmente a estas personas.  Pueden ayudarnos a tener una agricultura sostenible, que nos permita producir suficiente alimento y al mismo tiempo preservar nuestra naturaleza.  (FIN/2012)

ROME, Jun 7, 2012 (IPS) – While governments make a last desperate attempt to agree on a plan of action for next week’s Rio+20 summit on sustainable development – including plans on the transition to a green economy and a set of sustainable development goals – the real economy is already turning green, according to Italy’s minister of environment, Corrado Clini.

Corrado Clini, Italian Minister of Environment. Credit: Italian Ministry of Environment

It is extremely hard for governments with vastly different interests and priorities to settle on a common approach to sustainable development, which is why negotiations on the outcome document have been progressing very slowly, Clini told IPS.

The most recent meeting of the Preparatory Committee to finalise the plan of action for next week’s conference failed to reach an agreement. The next, and last, three-day session of the Committee will take place Jun. 13-15.

But while politicians are struggling to move towards a new, environment-friendly development model and agree on a common agenda, national investments in renewable energies and energy efficiency are already in place and growing fast, he said.

Clini said that one of the more realistic expectations for Rio +20 is that it will at least “recognise and reflect this global trend that is already (underway).”

Excerpts of the interview follow.

Q: How do you explain the discrepancy between political action and economic progress?

A: Governments will come to a weak agreement, but civil society and private companies are progressing rapidly towards more sustainable standards. The quality of market products – like light bulbs, cars, boilers and now even materials in the building industry – are (moving) towards common standards that are more respectful of the environment. This is true also for emerging economies, where (environmental) standards are higher.

The great expectation after the first Rio conference back in 1992 was that the economy would incorporate sustainability. Over the last twenty years we have seen that this was not accomplished from a political point of view, while technologies made a lot of progress. Technology and politics are two parallel areas progressing at an asynchronous pace.

Q: Do you see any possibility of a convergence between these two areas?

A: There are some interesting combinations. These occur when politics “absorb” progress that is already happening. The European Union’s policy on more efficient lighting systems is an example of absorbing an already consolidated evolution of technology. That phenomenon is also happening in China, where the government is making the most of existing technologies.

So you have the combination of what is already mature in the market with national policies that make progress possible. That should be our goal, and that is what we are already trying to do with biofuels on a global level. It is a complex, but interesting process.

Q: The Italian coalition Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), which encompasses over 70 civil society organisations, is asking world leaders to equate the green economy with an equal distribution of resources. Is that possible?

A: That is the ambitious goal of so-called ‘inclusive green growth’. The European Union is committed to this comprehensive approach that, many years ago, was called the ‘new world order’.

The answer cannot, of course, come from the Rio conference. Rio +20 will provide us with an updated list of issues, not with the solution to these issues. The EU has its proposals, but not all member countries necessarily share those views.

Q: What are your expectations for next week’s conference?

A: Political outcomes of Rio +20 (such as the weak outcome document) are quite predictable. But there is hope for some other aspects.

The Rio conference can be important for Europe, which needs to build new global partnerships with emerging countries, like China, as it moves towards a low carbon economy. Brazil, with its fossil resources, can also be a key ally in efforts to promote (economic) growth that protects natural resources.

This week the EU environment commissioner (Janez Potočnik) launched the European Resource Efficiency Platform to provide advice on policy measures to (nudge) the European economy towards a more sustainable growth path. The primary task of the platform will be to determine how to achieve the goals set out in the EU Commission’s Roadmap to a resource-efficient Europe, including the issue of decoupling resource use and its impacts from economic growth.

Resource efficiency is a key issue for a growth that is sustainable and inclusive. I think that Rio+20 could give the EU the courage it needs to continue on this path.

Finally, key members of civil society in developing countries could emerge and gain global visibility. I think that civil society in emerging counties would greatly benefit from this.

(END)

Bulawayo, Zimbábue, 4/6/2012, (IPS) – Uma agricultura sustentável claramente definida deveria ser uma prioridade na agenda da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável, afirmou Sameer Dossani, coordenador de campanhas internacionais da ActionAid, em entrevista à IPS.

O atual sistema alimentar mundial é insustentável e não permite que os agricultores tenham vidas dignas, afirma Sameer Dossani, da ActionAid. Crédito: Busani Bafana/IPS

Esta organização estará entre os 50 mil participantes previstos para o encontro. A Conferência, conhecida como Rio+20 por acontecer duas décadas depois da Cúpula da Terra, será realizada de 20 a 22 deste mês no Brasil, na cidade do Rio de Janeiro. A ActionAid International será um dos 50 mil participantes esperados para o encontro.

IPS: Está funcionando o conceito de desenvolvimento sustentável? Vinte anos depois da Cúpula da Terra ainda estamos falando sobre isso.

Sameer Dossani: É verdade que alguns atores, talvez especialmente a Convenção Marco das Nações Unidas sobre Mudança Climática, parecem estar investindo muito dinheiro e tempo em processos que não vão a parte alguma. Sem dúvida, questionamos a eficiência destes processos e chamamos a comunidade internacional para abordar estes assuntos de maneira mais lucrativa. Entretanto, o desenvolvimento sustentável e os temas relacionados que serão discutidos no Rio de Janeiro são de vital importância para as comunidades, e manter o statu quo não é uma opção. Passar para o desenvolvimento sustentável é inevitável. Seja por uma mudança planejada estrategicamente ou de maneira gradual, ou que se dê em consequência de crises econômicas e de um aumento dos desastres climáticos, é uma questão que todos devemos decidir.

IPS: A pobreza mundial não está diminuindo, muito pelo contrário. Somos realistas quando falamos da necessidade de justiça social e climática?

SD: Não podemos falar de uma redução significativa da pobreza, mas sim abordar a questão da justiça. Para citar Nelson Mandela: “A pobreza não é uma acidente”. No mundo há muita pobreza, mas também muita riqueza, mais que suficiente para enfrentar estes problemas.

IPS: O mundo está pronto para mudar de rumo e abordar a mudança climática?

SD: O mundo tem que estar pronto. A alternativa é nefasta: maior frequência e intensidade dos desastres naturais vinculados ao clima, aumento dos conflitos pelos recursos, incapacidade das comunidades pobres para pagar os recursos cada vez mais escassos e caros, e, em última instância, a ameaça de perder cidades e áreas rurais pelo aumento do nível do mar.

IPS: Quais avanços foram alcançados desde a adoção da Agenda 21, o plano de ação para o desenvolvimento sustentável assumido na Cúpula da Terra de 1992?

SD: Alguns países europeus deram passos para reduzir as emissões, enquanto nações em desenvolvimento adotaram medidas para garantir que as comunidades mais pobres tivessem pelo menos acesso básico a direitos humanos primordiais, como o direito aos alimentos. A Lei Nacional de Garantia de Emprego Rural da Índia é um exemplo. Lamentavelmente, nem as iniciativas de desenvolvimento nem as reduções de carbono bastaram para garantir que todos possam gozar do direito de levar uma vida digna, e que aqueles suficientemente privilegiados para levar um estilo de vida de classe média não contaminassem o mundo para as futuras gerações. Também houve alguns avanços “falsos”, como a promoção de mecanismos que não abordam os problemas, e que às vezes parecem fazê-lo. A promoção dos biocombustíveis, por exemplo, não só não aborda o problema das emissões de carbono (a maioria dos que estão em uso ainda emite grandes quantidades de carbono), como também coloca os cultivos alimentares em competição direta com os que são usados para elaborar combustível. Esta prática tem que acabar. Como primeiro passo, os países deveriam pôr fim aos subsídios e incentivos aos biocombustíveis.

IPS: Quais são suas expectativas quanto à Rio+20?

SD: Gostaríamos que na cúpula os países assumissem um forte compromisso para uma agricultura sustentável claramente definida, bem como para traçar um processo que represente uma virada da agricultura industrial para um modelo que coloque as vidas e o sustento dos produtores e da população rural à frente de outras preocupações, incluído o lucro. Uma vez que se acorde isto, a ActionAid exortará os países – especialmente os do Grupo dos 20 (ricos e emergentes) – a garantirem que haja financiamento suficiente para ajudar as comunidades a passarem para uma agricultura sustentável, resiliente ao clima. Os US$ 100 bilhões comprometidos pelos líderes dos países ricos na 15ª Conferência das Partes (COP 15) da Convenção Marco das Nações Unidas sobre Mudança Climática, de 2009 em Copenhague, seriam um bom ponto de partida para começar a falar sobre os fundos adicionais necessários. Envolverde/IPS

(FIN/2012)

Nova York, Estados Unidos, 1/6/2012, (IPS) – A Cúpula da Terra de 1992 no Rio de Janeiro se viu em grande parte desbaratada pela divisão Norte-Sul: uma batalha entre uma coalizão de nações industrializadas ricas e o Grupo dos 77 (G-77), atualmente integrado por 134 países em desenvolvimento.

Crédito: Cortesia Branislav Gosovic

De certa forma, as atuais divisões são mais profundas do que por ocasião da Conferência sobre Ambiente Humano realizada em Estocolmo em 1972, a primeira cúpula ambiental, e do que a Cúpula da Terra, duas décadas depois, disse Branislav Gosovic, ex-integrante da Comissão Brundtland sobre Meio Ambiente e que integrou a delegação do Centro Sul na conferência de 1992.

“A divisão afetará o processo e o resultado da Rio+20″, afirmou Gosovic, referindo-se à Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Rio+20) no Rio de Janeiro, de 20 a 22 de junho. Branislav Gosovic é autor de The Quest for World Environmental Cooperation: The Case of the U.N. Global Environment Monitoring System (A busca da cooperação mundial para o meio ambiente: o caso do Sistema Mundial de Monitoramento Ambiental das Nações Unidas).

IPS: Como participante da Cúpula da Terra de 1992, tem alguma confiança ou está cético com relação ao resultado da Rio+20?

Branislav Gosovic: Não sou otimista quanto a êxitos ou grandes avanços. A reunião acontecerá em um momento difícil para a economia global e nacional e após 20 anos de predomínio de uma globalização neoliberal. No primeiro caso, os chefes de Estado estarão preocupados com a resposta à atual crise que não sabem como manejar nem superar. E o segundo prejudicou a agenda sobre desenvolvimento sustentável e paralisou, ou fez retroceder, alguma das políticas e dos avanços conceituais realizados no período anterior com vistas à (e na) cúpula do Rio de Janeiro.

IPS: Qual sua opinião sobre o documento da Rio+20 que é negociado?

BG: Mantém muitas ideias e muitos objetivos vivos. Entretanto, semanas antes do encontro, parágrafos entre parênteses (o que indica desacordos) e palavras ambíguas sobre questões muito importantes mostram a falta de consenso e que a comunidade internacional caminha para um período de seca. Porém, me atrevo a ser otimista quanto ao longo prazo e após um período de globalização neoliberal, dada a maturação de muitos temas e a preocupação e o agravamento dos problemas globais identificados em Estocolmo há 40 anos, que a Rio+20 possa marcar o começo de 20 anos mais promissores para a cooperação internacional rumo a “Estocolmo+60, isto é, Rio+40.

IPS: Qual a melhor forma de conseguir isso?

BG: É preciso muito trabalho, compromisso e liderança de alguns países que estão em posição de oferecê-lo e participação das forças sociais em um movimento global genuíno. E o mais importante, acarretará grandes mudanças estruturais e paradigmas sobre como a sociedade se organiza, em escala nacional e global, uma chave que abrirá a porta para cumprir muitos dos atuais objetivos esquivos ou inalcançáveis. Não há motivo de surpresa no fato de tais mudanças sofrerem resistência e serem combatidas com unhas e dentes e por todos os meios disponíveis pelos que se opõem a elas.

IPS: Acredita em uma repetição da divisão Norte-Sul de 1991 nas atuais negociações do plano de ação da Rio+20, intitulado O futuro que queremos?

BG: A divisão Norte-Sul existe há mais de 60 anos, desde os primeiros dias da Organização das Nações Unidas. Afetou e determinou o resultado de Conferência de Estocolmo e a forma como foi conceituada a agenda ambiental, como um plano de desenvolvimento sustentável. Esteve presente no informe e na primeira reunião da Comissão Brundtland, isto é, a Comissão sobre Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento, e depois na Rio 92 e em Johannesburgo 2002. E tal como mostra o atual rascunho do documento final, terá um papel central na Rio+20. Pode-se argumentar que as questões ambientais usufruíram a agenda internacional para o desenvolvimento e vice-versa. Os problemas ambientais globais não podem ser atendidos nem resolvidos sem a participação do Sul e dos países em desenvolvimento, e sendo sócios iguais na empresa. Não se pode fazer desaparecerem as cúpulas gêmeas sobre meio ambiente e desenvolvimento, a Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Meio Ambiente e a Chamada Cúpula da Terra, como fazem alguns países industrializados tentando encontrar divisões e diferenças no Sul. Continuarão fazendo isso até que o Norte mude sua política e assuma sua posição de solidariedade e tenha uma adesão genuína aos princípios do Rio, de “responsabilidades comuns e diferenciadas”. Por outro lado, observa-se os esforços para transformar a agenda ambiental em uma grande oportunidade empresarial e de criação de emprego, para projetar uma imagem de determinados países em desenvolvimento importantes como principal ameaça para o meio ambiente global. Também para enfrentar nas negociações sobre mudança climática pequenos grupos de Estados em desenvolvimento vulneráveis, em um esforço de nunca acabar tendente a dividir o Grupo dos 77. Definitivamente, o conflito Norte-Sul está vivo e se movendo, dirá presente na Rio+20 e se manterá no futuro imediato.

IPS: Como se compara a Agenda 21 e o documento da Rio+20 com o histórico informe da Comissão Brundtland de 1987? Houve avanços substanciais desde então e desde a Conferência de Estocolmo?

BG: O documento da Rio+20 é resultado de um processo de negociações. Nesse sentido, não se pode comparar com o Informe Brundtland nem com o da Cúpula da Terra, ambos elaborados por equipes dedicadas a essa tarefa durante um longo tempo. Por outro lado, a maioria dos temas presentes no Informe Brundtland e na Agenda 21 podem ser encontrados no documento da Rio+20, embora redigidos de tal forma que revela a falta de consenso e de compromisso para agir. Houve avanços em numerosas áreas, mas, nas questões cruciais e nos conflitos subjacentes, quase não existiu movimento. Isso continuará sendo de interesse e desempenhará um papel importante na Rio+20. Um desses conflitos tem a ver com as divisões Norte-Sul, a agenda internacional para o desenvolvimento, e a questão relacionada da ordem global e política existente, que está sendo questionada. O outro conflito, menos visível, tem a ver com a natureza da ordem socioeconômica dominante, ou o paradigma, que é questionado por não ser sustentável do ponto de vista social nem ambiental. Este conflito estará presente no Norte e no Sul. Houve poucos progressos na prática sobre questões fundamentais desse tipo. Envolverde/IPS

(FIN/2012)

UNITED NATIONS, May 30, 2012 (IPS) – As Africa’s Sahel region faces a new food crisis, smallholder famers hold the key to making future development policies sustainable.

That is why it “is just impossible to speak about sustainability” at the Rio+20 conference next month without listening to what smallholder farmers have to say, says Mohamed Béavogui, head of the International Fund for Agricultural Development‘s Partnership and Resource Mobilisation Office.

Some 18 million people in the Sahel region are at risk of food insecurity and malnutrition, warns the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

Recurring droughts, environmental degradation and high grain prices accompanied by decreasing migrant remittances, as well as displacement and chronic poverty are creating a situation that has resulted among others things in a 26-percent decline in cereal production compared to 2011. Finding long-lasting solutions is pivotal in this context, said Beavogui.

Mohamed Beavogui Credit:Courtesy of Mohamed Beavogui

And these solutions are already there, developed by smallholder farmers over centuries.

Promises were made by the G8 group of wealthy donor nations to scale up international agriculture-related foreign aid, especially in Africa, but they remain unfulfilled.

Speaking with U.N. Correspondent Rousbeh Legatis, Beavogui laid out what the world can learn from smallholder farmers to promote sustainable agriculture as a key element of future sustainable development.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: Regions like the Sahel seem to be hit by famine every few years, often for predictable reasons. What structural changes can be made to break this cycle?

A: Firstly, we should invest in providing targeted communities with greater capacity to implement self-help activities in response to production shortfalls, as well as more effectively coordinate and implement governmental and international relief activities.

Secondly, we have been learning that in areas where attempts were made to build long-lasting sustainable approaches like re-greening of land, solving the issues of water availability, drip irrigation, bounds, the adverse effects of droughts have been less than in areas where this kind of work has not been undertaken.

But this means what? It means that we should work all together. Governments should encourage the right policies that allow to have the right inputs, particularly drought-resistant seeds, as well as policies that allow good extension services to be adopted and easy access – particularly for women and young people.

We should furthermore invest in better roads to allow the transportation of food from the high production zones to the deficit zones.

Q: IFAD has supported organic farming pilot projects, such as among cocoa producers in Sao Tome, as a way to leverage higher-paying markets. Are these kinds of markets – organic, fair trade – expanding, and do they offer an opportunity for public-private partnerships that really benefit small farmers?

A: Yes, it is a very good way to contribute to the creation of wealth for the rural smallholder farmers.

We have had very successful experiences in Sao-Tomé, Sierra Leone, Uganda and in many other places in Latin America and so on.

But what have we learned? What are the success factors in order to get there? When I say “there” I mean the situation whereby the farmer is getting the fair price on its product, increasing his or her income in a very respectable manner and the partner, the private company, is also satisfied that it is making money. Because that is the reality: it is about making money, but in a fair manner.

So the first success factor is that we should think long-term. We should work with real private sector professionals, partners, committed also to development, to just human beings. Besides business and trade, fundamental to this is that we need some kind of ethical approach to the work. So in short, we need genuine commitment from everyone.

The second success factor is that we need to work through organised producers to ensure a critical mass. Allowing to have, firstly, the size for delivery and, secondly, minimised processing and marketing costs.

Thirdly, we need to ensure quality to have good access to markets and good prices and we need to optimise logistics to reduce cost again, as well as an easy transfer of knowhow and good practices.

Q: Gender equality is a priority for IFAD. Are governments giving women, especially young and rural women, the attention and support they deserve?

A: I think we have a long way to go in that area for the time being. Policies are changing. If you look at what is happening now in Africa, the new constitutions are giving more and more space to women. You look at the governments, you are having more and more women getting to high-level positions, women are getting also better positions in different corporations.

The issue where I think there is a lot of work to do yet and which need a bigger push is really women in the rural areas.

In the documentation, there is a lot of talk about how do we help women, but when you go into actual activities, you will see that the extension service for agriculture is geared very frequently towards men. That issues like land are first devoted to men. So, that is where we have to work and to continue supporting.

Women in Africa particularly are the ones who produce food, who process and market food. Commodities are dealt with by men, but food is the responsibility of women. So, in IFAD we have been investing a lot in this area. The major partners in our programmes are women first and young women also.

Q: There is a growing recognition that sustainable agriculture is central to sustainable human development. What do you hope could be accomplished at the Rio+20 summit in this regard?

A: What we as IFAD are pushing is that you cannot build sustainability without involving the main actors. We have about two billion smallholder farmers around the world. These people are working on the lands we have every day, they are dealing with our waters, with our forests, with our livestock, they are in fact dealing with our nature.

So it is just impossible to speak about sustainability of our environment without really involving these people.

They can help us to have a sustainable agriculture; an agriculture that allows us to produce enough food and in the same time to preserve our environment, our nature.

Smallholder farmers are dealing with our local knowledge. They are good managers of risks, have very good experiences and solutions in terms of alternative responses to droughts, floods etc.

Sometimes, if you look at these farms you will see that he or she plants different types of species to manage the risk. One (plant) will respond to droughts, in case there are droughts, and you have others who would respond to floods, and if there is a flood, that production will survive. So they have this type of responses that are extremely efficient. So we have a lot to learn from them. (END)

UNITED NATIONS, May 29, 2012 (IPS) – The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro was to a large extent derailed by a North-South divide: a battle between a coalition of rich industrial nations versus the world’s developing countries led by the Group of 77.

“North-South divide is deep and intense,” says Branislav Gosovic, who was a member of the South Centre delegation to the Earth Summit in June 1992.

In some ways, he pointed out, the current divisions are more so than at the time of the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) in Sweden, the first major international conference on the environment, and the subsequent Earth Summit 20 years later.

Branislav Gosovic Credit:Courtesy of Branislav Gosovic

“And no doubt the (North-South) division will affect the proceedings and outcomes of Rio+20,” predicted Gosovic, author of “The Quest for World Environmental Cooperation: The Case of the U.N. Global Environment Monitoring System,” and who served on the staff of the 1983 Brundtland Commission which raised awareness of the world’s environmental and development problems.

Gosovic said tensions remain high between North and South, as witnessed at the UNCTAD XIII meeting in Qatar last month.

In an interview with IPS U.N. Bureau Chief Thalif Deen, he said that issues outstanding since 1964, when the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was launched, continue to spoil the North-South dialogue.

“These will be present at the Rio+20 encounter,” he added.

The Rio+20 summit, formally known as the U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), will take place in Brazil Jun. 20- 22.

Stressing the importance of the 1972 conference, Gosovic also insists on calling Rio+20 by another name: Stockholm+40.

As weeklong negotiations began Tuesday, in another attempt to finalise what is known as the “outcome document” for the summit, the 193-member Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) remained divided.

The deadlock between North and South is over several disputed issues, including financing and transfer of technology.

“It should not be surprising that developing countries are rather suspicious of the ultimate motivations and practical implications of the recently launched concept of ‘green economy’ and of the institutional moves to create a specialised agency on environment,” said Gosovic.

These, he said, would be outside the scope of the U.N. General Assembly, and more dependent for funding on developed countries and corporations.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: As someone who participated in the 1992 Earth Summit, how confident or sceptical are you on the final outcome of Rio+20?

A: I am not optimistic about great achievements and major breakthroughs at Rio+20. This gathering is taking place at a difficult moment in global and national economies, and after 20 years of neoliberal globalisation predominance.

The former means that the heads of state will be preoccupied with responses to the current crisis they are not sure how to manage and overcome; the latter has done damage to the global sustainable development agenda, and has stalled or rolled back some of the policy and conceptual advances made in the earlier period, up to and at (the summit) in Rio.

Q: How much faith do you have in the Rio+20 outcome document currently under negotiation?

A: The document negotiated keeps many of the ideas and objectives alive. But, weeks before the event, bracketed paragraphs (indicating disagreement) and ambiguous wording on key issues signal lack of agreement and mean that the international community is in for a continuing period of drought.

However, I dare be optimistic that in the longer run and following the neoliberal globalisation interlude, given the maturing of many issues and concerns and aggravation of global problems identified 40 years ago at Stockholm, Rio+20 may mark the onset of a more promising 20-year period of international cooperation on the way to the “Stockholm+60 i.e. Rio+40″ gathering.

Q: How best can these be achieved?

A: This will require hard work, commitment and leadership of some countries that are in a position to offer it, and involvement of social forces in a genuine global movement.

And more importantly, it will entail major structural and paradigmatic changes in how the human society is organised, nationally and globally, a key which will open the door for achieving many of the currently elusive or unattainable goals.

To no surprise, such changes will be resisted and fought tooth and nail, with all means available, by those who oppose them.

Q: Do you think there is a repetition of the 1992 North-South divide in the current negotiations for the Rio+20 plan of action titled “The Future We Want”?

A: The North-South divide has been there for more than six decades, since the very early days of the United Nations. It affected and determined the outcomes of the 1972 Stockholm Conference, and the manner in which the whole environmental agenda was conceptualised, as an environment-development agenda.

It was present in the report and proceedings of the Brundtland Commission, i.e. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), and then at Rio 1992 and at Johannesburg 2002. And, as the negotiations of the draft outcome document illustrate, it is going to play a central role at Rio+20.

One can make a case that the environmental issues were piggy-backed on the international development agenda, and vice versa; global environmental problems could not be resolved and dealt with without the South and developing countries participating, developing and becoming equal partners in the undertaking.

Thus environment-development twin at UNCHE and its more recent version of sustainable development, adopted at UNCED (the 1992 Earth Summit). They cannot be wished away, as some in the developed countries do, trying to find divisions and differentiation within the South.

And they will continue until such time when the North changes its policy and assumes the position of solidarity and genuinely adheres to the Rio principle of “common and differentiated responsibilities”.

Instead, one witnesses eager efforts to morph the environmental agenda into a major business and job creation opportunity, and to project the image of key developing countries as the principal global environmental threat, and in climate change-related negotiations to pit against them smaller groupings of vulnerable developing countries in their never-ending efforts to divide the Group of 77.

In sum, North-South conflict is well and alive, it will be present at Rio+20 and it will continue for the foreseeable future.

Q: How does agenda 21 and Rio+20 stack up against the landmark Bundtland Commission report? Have we made any substantial progress since that report and also since the 1972 Stockholm conference on the environment?

A: The Rio+20 document is a product of committee drafting process and negotiations. As such, it cannot match WCED or UNCED outcomes, both of which were produced by teams dedicated to the task who worked together over a lengthy period of time.

On the other hand, most of the themes that were articulated in WCED report and Agenda 21 can be found in Rio+20 draft document, though often worded in a manner which indicates lack of consensus and of commitment to act.

While progress has been made in a number of areas since UNCHE, WCED and UNCED, but on key outstanding issues and underlying conflicts, there has been little or no movement. These continue to be topical and will play a major role at Rio+20.

As mentioned above, one of these conflicts has to do with North-South divisions, the international development agenda and the related issue of the existing global and political order which is being challenged.

The other conflict, less visible to the eye, has to do with the nature of the dominant socioeconomic order, or paradigm, which is challenged globally as non-sustainable socially and environmentally. This conflict is present within the North and within the South. There has been little progress in practice on fundamental issues of this kind.

(END)

Nova York, Estados Unidos, 24/5/2012, (IPS) – A Cúpula da Terra, realizada em 1992 no Rio de Janeiro, foi descrita como uma das maiores conferências internacionais da história da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU).

Tommy Koh, presidente do Comitê Preparatório da Cúpula da Terra de 1992. Crédito: Cortesia de Tommy Koh

Contudo, assim como os preparativos para a Rio+20, as negociações naquela época se sucederam até quase o início do encontro. Os 20 mil participantes da histórica cúpula, entre eles mais de cem governantes, reafirmaram de forma inequívoca que o meio ambiente faz parte integral do desenvolvimento, aprovaram a Agenda 21, um plano global de ação para o desenvolvimento sustentável, e a Declaração do Rio sobre Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento.

Em 1992 também foi aprovada a Convenção Marco das Nações Unidas sobre Mudança Climática e o Convênio sobre Biodiversidade, e foi criada a Comissão das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável. O embaixador Tommy Koh, presidente do Comitê Preparatório da Cúpula da Terra, reconheceu que as prolongadas negociações “foram muito difíceis”, e que se estenderam até o último segundo. Koh recordou que houve quatro sessões, duas em Genebra, uma em Nairóbi e outra em Nova York, e que para as últimas negociações já estavam com a água no pescoço, pois os líderes mundiais estavam para chegar ao Rio de Janeiro.

“No último dia, as negociações duraram toda a noite, até seis horas da manhã do dia seguinte”, contou, referindo-se às reuniões de junho de 1992. Na época, “não sabia se conseguiríamos ou não”, acrescentou. “Na qualidade de presidente das negociações no Rio de Janeiro, estava decidido a conseguir e a superar as divisões e outros obstáculos com paciência, determinação e uma forte liderança coletiva”, destacou.

Koh também foi embaixador de Cingapura nos Estados Unidos e presidente da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar, onde foi adotado um tratado internacional sobre os oceanos, na década de 1980. Agora, prepara-se a Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Rio+20), de 20 a 22 de junho, da qual participarão cerca de 70 mil pessoas, incluindo cem governantes, ou seja, mais do que o triplo de duas décadas atrás, segundo o secretário-geral da ONU, Ban Ki-moon.

IPS: Como caracterizaria os êxitos e os fracassos da Cúpula da Terra? Pode dizer que apresentou resultados duradouros e tangíveis?

Tommy Koh: Houve uma mudança de modelo no mundo. Graças a essa cúpula, os 193 Estados-membros da ONU têm um Ministério de Meio Ambiente ou agências de proteção ambiental. Em todos os países, o desenvolvimento sustentável é a norma.

IPS: Que impacto teve no Sul em desenvolvimento?

TK: No mundo em desenvolvimento não há lugar para quem acredita no desenvolvimento a qualquer preço ou em primeiro enriquecer e depois limpar. Creio que estes são êxitos tangíveis da Cúpula da Terra.

IPS: Duas décadas depois existem céticos assinalando que o meio ambiente global foi de mal a pior pela contaminação de gases-estufa, a mudança climática, o desmatamento, o consumo ostentoso de alimentos, água e energia, o crescimento populacional, e a destruição gradual de ecossistemas marinhos. Qual sua opinião?

TK: É uma verdade lamentável que não conseguimos em escala global reduzir as emissões de gases contaminantes nem diminuir a perda de florestas, de habitats naturais e de biodiversidade, e nem conseguido uma boa gestão dos oceanos. Porém, em escala nacional e regional houve avanços significativos. Em Cingapura, por exemplo, o amor à natureza e o desejo de viver em harmonia com ela está crescendo. Apesar de nossa alta densidade populacional, 47% de nosso território tem uma exuberante vegetação. Cingapura também liderou uma iniciativa para conseguir apoio de todas as partes do Convênio sobre Biodiversidade para adotar o Índice de Biodiversidade da Cidade de Cingapura. Conseguimos um tremendo avanço no uso eficiente de água e na reciclagem de água residual. A opinião pública está totalmente a favor da tendência de se construir edifícios verdes, dispositivos de baixo consumo e tecnologias verdes.

IPS: O atual Comitê Preparatório continua dividido, também segundo a linha Norte-Sul, sobre o plano global de ação para um futuro sustentável que será adotado no mês que vem. O quanto foram difíceis as negociações para a Agenda 21? Algum conselho para os que estão realizando esse trabalho agora?

TK: O mundo se tornou mais interdependente, mas, ao mesmo tempo, mais dividido. Os Estados Unidos enfrentam uma recuperação fraca e uma eleição presidencial. A União Europeia (UE) busca restaurar a confiança do euro para reduzir sua dívida soberana e estimular o crescimento. São tempos difíceis para o Ocidente. Para eles, será custoso tomar decisões difíceis e assumir compromissos. Contudo, há muito em jogo. Fracassar não é uma opção. Confio que a Rio+20 será um êxito.

IPS: Como a Cúpula da Terra fez para cumprir as demandas de fundos dos países em desenvolvimento?

TK: As demandas foram atendidas de três formas: mediante a criação do Fundo para o Meio Ambiente Mundial (GEF), com o aumento da assistência oficial ao desenvolvimento e, especialmente, ao desenvolvimento sustentável, e com os compromissos com várias instituições internacionais financeiras e de desenvolvimento.

IPS: Que influência o informe da Comissão Brundtland sobre meio ambiente global teve na Cúpula da Terra?

TK: Foi uma inspiração para meus colegas.

Envolverde/IPS (FIN/2012)

Nova York, Estados Unidos, 4/5/2012, (IPS) – Em preparação para a cúpula sobre desenvolvimento sustentável de junho no Rio de Janeiro, inúmeras organizações com variados interesses trabalham incansavelmente para garantir que sejam cumpridos os objetivos desejados.

Ivana Savic, à esquerda, e Kiara Worth, do Major Group for Children and Youth. Crédito: Aline Jenckel/IPS

O Major Group for Children and Youth, que está entre elas, considera fundamental a participação de jovens para o êxito da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Desenvolvimento Sustentável (Rio+20), que acontecerá de 20 a 22 do mês que vem. As coordenadoras da organização, Ivana Savic e Kiara Worth, se mostram otimistas sobre o desenvolvimento e os resultados deste encontro mundial.

“Haverá uma renovação da vontade política, e gostaríamos que os jovens fossem reconhecidos no documento oficial”, declarou Worth, acrescentando que “embora tenha grandes expectativas, outro assunto é se conseguirão, ou não”. Na entrevista à IPS, afirmou que “não se trata apenas de uma questão de políticas, de diálogo ou declarações oficiais. Trata-se de criar a energia e o senso de urgência e de habilidade para avançar”. Também espera que haja diferentes fóruns que sirvam de inspiração, habilitem e motivem os jovens a participarem das associações.

O rascunho zero do documento final da Rio+20 está em discussão desde 30 de abril, e está hoje no chamado terceiro período de negociações, que tem como sede a Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU), em Nova York. A IPS conversou com Savic e Worth sobre o trabalho de sua organização e as esperanças postas na cúpula, bem como nas negociações prévias.

IPS: Quais os principais temas que preocupam o Major Group for Children and Youth?

Ivana Savic: Estas negociações, como a própria cúpula Rio+20, devem conseguir adotar um enfoque de desenvolvimento sustentável baseado nos direitos humanos para que estes temas tenham um lugar preponderante no documento final.

Kiara Worth: Entre os temas da cúpula, há diferentes aspectos que defendemos particularmente. Em matéria de economia verde, promovemos a agricultura sustentável, bem como o emprego de jovens para passar da busca à geração de trabalho. Também defendemos que se reflita mais sobre a criação de uma economia azul e a proteção da água. No tocante ao contexto institucional do desenvolvimento sustentável, defendemos a criação da figura do defensor público para que as futuras gerações tenham garantido um alto grau de participação juvenil nos processos globais.

IPS: Quais as contribuições de sua organização para a Rio+20?

KW: As duas principais serão em matéria de políticas e a inspiração e a motivação dos jovens ativistas. Atualmente, estamos concentrados em diferentes grupos de trabalho, nos quais as pessoas podem participar. Procuramos atender jovens com diferentes interesses, habilidades e capacidades, e criar um espaço para que possam se reunir e compartilhar suas ideias. Geramos estímulo e um movimento social que inspire e reative o espírito do Rio.

IPS: Como conseguem fazer as pessoas se interessarem em aprender mais sobre desenvolvimento sustentável, e como, em seguida, as convencem a agir?

KW: Há pouco lançamos uma estratégia de meios sociais, pois enquanto jovens temos uma oportunidade única de aumentar o alcance de nossa mensagem por meio das novas plataformas e de diferentes ferramentas. A estratégia nos permite utilizar as diferentes plataformas para, primeiro, criar consciência, informar as pessoas sobre os temas de discussão, sobre desenvolvimento sustentável e os temas que nos ocupam. Em segundo lugar, depois que a pessoa adquiriu conhecimentos sobre o assunto, construímos capacidades e lhes damos ferramentas para que passem à ação. Isto gera um movimento em dois sentidos complementares. As ações locais consideram as perspectivas locais, tomando em conta as diferentes habilidades das pessoas e seus diversos interesses. As pessoas se tornam muito mais efetivas.

IS: Também garantimos que seja acessível para as pessoas que têm menos oportunidade de participar. Mesmo não participando fisicamente, na sede da ONU ou no Rio de Janeiro, por exemplo, também podem incidir no processo porque temos a tecnologia e a capacidade para levar suas perspectivas à mesa de negociações e atender esses assuntos.

IPS: Quais expectativas têm a respeito do resultado da Conferência e os compromissos que os governos assumirão?

IS: Espero que nos distanciemos do desenvolvimento materialista e optemos por um mais humano, voltado ao bem-estar, e que considere os direitos humanos, o crescimento econômico e também o respeito que devemos ao nosso meio ambiente. Outro resultado importante da Rio+20 será formar alianças entre sociedades civis e governos. A falta de colaboração entre ambos foi obstáculo para o cumprimento de acordos e compromissos no passado. Envolverde/IPS (FIN/2012)