The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) is being organized in pursuance of General Assembly Resolution 64/236 (A/RES/64/236). The Conference will take place in Brazil on 20-22 June 2012 to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in Rio de Janeiro, and the 10th anniversary of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg. It is envisaged as a Conference at the highest possible level, including Heads of State and Government or other representatives. The Conference will result in a focused political document.

Objective of the Conference

The objective of the Conference is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and address new and emerging challenges.

UN System Coordination

To secure coordinated support from the United Nations system to the preparatory process, capacities of several existing coordination mechanism are being tapped. These include: (i) the Executive Committee of Economic and Social Affairs (ECESA), (ii) the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), and (iii) the Environmental Management Group (EMG). "Troika meetings" in which Chairs of above referred mechanisms participate are held on as and when required basis. Some UN entities have also seconded staff to the UNCSD Secretariat.

The World Family Organization will have an important participation during the Rio +20 Conference, working alongside Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination UN NGO Branch, and UN NGO Inter-Regional Network.

> Helsinki Process +10

-> Zero Draft of the outcome document now available.

May 11th, 2012
SECOND ROUND OF RIO+20 INFORMAL NEGOTIATIONS CONCLUDES: A STEP CLOSER TO REACHING CONSENSUS?

Two weeks of informal-informal negotiations on the outcome document (previously known as the Zero Draft) for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) took place at UN Headquarters from 23 April through 4 May. In-depth, often intense discussions lasted into evening sessions and were split into two working groups: Working Group I, which addressed sections III (green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication) and V (framework for action and follow-up), and Working Group II, which addressed sections I (Preamble), II (Renewing Political Commitment,) and IV (Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development, or IFSD). Co-Chairs John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) and Kim Sook (Republic of! Korea) alternated facilitation of the two groups.

At the conclusion of the negotiations on 4 May, 21 paragraphs had been agreed ad referendum, and 400 remain to be agreed. For this reason, the Bureau decided to add extra negotiating time, from 29 May through 2 June at UNHQ in New York.

May 1st, 2012
The voice of civil society at Rio+20

The extent of the role that various stakeholders would play was not fully anticipated in 1992, when the idea of active participation by the independent sector first was reflected in a document at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Agenda 21 – the Summit's blueprint of action to achieve sustainable development – acknowledged and codified those stakeholder sectors as the "Major Groups". Nine Groups were explicitly identified: Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Non- Governmental Organizations, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions, Business and Industry, the Scientific and Technological community, and Farmers.

Major Groups included a vast number of non-governmental actors whose input was becoming increasingly critical in defining policies and mechanisms related to sustainable development issues.

Each major group was given its own chapter in Agenda 21 defining its role, areas of influence, obstacles and responsibilities in achieving sustainable social patterns. Those roles could involve being consumers of resources, producers, innovators, communicators or role models who could pioneer new techniques and motivate others to move towards more sustainable practices.

A social dimension

One of the most visionary aspects of Agenda 21 and the 1992 Summit was the premise that, in addition to the environmental and economic dimensions that needed to achieve integration, a social dimension also needed to be addressed. Without access to adequate clean water, energy, nutrition, education, individual rights and information or participation in local democratic decision making, people around the world would not be able to focus on the longer term requirements of a sustainable future.

The understanding was that enabling every single sector to take action would not only benefit itself, but benefit the broader society as well. And it could help build public constituencies in favor of sustainability-friendly policies and programs that could motivate political leaders to act as well. In general, the "Major Groups" approach has proven to be a functional and definitely useful example of wide-ranging civil society participation

Since 1992, these groups participated in each annual meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), and in subsequent Review processes, such as the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. They attend many types of intergovernmental meetings and have opportunities to speak at most plenary meetings. They hold consultations with bureau representatives on process, and with governments on substantive issues. They receive official documents and distribute their own. They organize side-events and build coalitions through meeting among themselves.

A growing stakeholder's involvement

Over the past two decades, similar models of multistakeholder involvement have been adopted by various UN agencies and programmes, and by other intergovernmental processes, if in less intensive forms, such as the World Bank, the IMF and the G20. There has been a broad movement toward increased stakeholder participation that has taken place at the local, sub-national and global governance levels – not to mention the growth of stakeholder consultations with business and industry.

The Rio+20 process has continued the involvement of the Agenda 21 major groups, and in some ways expanded it. This past November, for the first time in a General Assembly Conference-level negotiation, the accredited major groups organizations were invited to present general policy inputs – at the same time as governments – to the planned Rio+20 'zero draft' document. Nearly 500 organizations did so. And in February, the DESA Division of Sustainable Development accepted specific additional text comments to the emerging Conference draft document, and integrated them into an informal parallel document – brackets and all – so that interested governments could have easy access to those groups suggested positions.

Towards a Sustainable Development Council

Major groups generally hope that an acceptable way can be found to strengthen the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), and to start the process toward the establishment of a Sustainable Development Council that would maintain and hopefully upgrade the active participation that they had in the Commission on Sustainable Development.

On the 'green economy in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development', there is a significant range of opinions and concerns among major group organizations. Many organizations expressed concerns that this new notion could 'water down' the unanimously agreed principles of sustainable development, in a way that could result in regarding natural resources merely as commodities, and would open the door to any business using 'green' terminology without meaning.

Most major groups will be trying to communicate to the public that a sustainable future is possible; that there are a large number of proven, effective programmes and technologies already at work; and that sustainable societies would provide affordable, achievable and attractive communities to live in.

Major groups all agree on one point: the success at Rio+20 is essential.

The author of this article, Michael Strauss, has been involved with media relations for Major Groups over the last two decades.

For more information: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/majorgroups.html

April 12th, 2012
Towards the People's Summit at Rio+20: Civil Society Alternatives to the Zero Draft

During the Rio+20 negotiations and in the lead-up to the Third Intersessional, NGLS and Social Watch co-organized a side event entitled "Towards the People's Summit at Rio+20: Civil Society Alternatives to the Zero Draft." This event brought together key players involved in the People's Summit, a parallel process to Rio+20 organized by civil society that will take place 15-23 June in Flamingo Park, Rio de Janeiro. Three members of the Brazilian Civil Society Facilitating Committee for Rio+20, along with representatives from participant civil society organizations (La Via Campesina and IBON International), shared their views on the Rio+20 informal negotiations, articulated goals for the conference, and formulated strategies to include human rights in discussions at Rio and beyond.

NGLS's Hamish Jenkins, who served as moderator, provided an overview of the People's Summit and its origins in the World Social Forum process, and described the goals of Rio 1992 as sidelined by a pervasive political agenda driven by corporate, financial interests. The challenges of the confluence of global crisis (food, financial, climate change) that was caused, sometimes referred to as a "Crisis of Civilization," need to be addressed at Rio+20 and in its outcome document. Mr. Jenkins continued by stating that political mobilization must up the ante regarding power relations between governments and civil society. The critique of the current mainstream approach needs to be better understood and bolder alternatives articulated as we prepare for Rio+20. (For more information on this view, see Another Future, the compilation of the Thematic Groups emerging from Porto Alegre.)

Following this introduction, Iara Pietricovsky de Oliveira of the Instituto de Estudios Socioeconomicos and the Brazilian Civil Society Facilitating Committee outlined the People's Summit as originating from the World Social Forum in Dakar. The organizers view the summits of the G20, COP17, and Rio+20 as a timeline for their movement against capitalism and its model of development; Rio+20, therefore, is a step in the process, not its overall goal. Ms. Pietricovsky continued by opining that the current Zero Draft reflects governments' lack of commitment in this time of global crisis. The People's Summit, as a parallel process, will use an inside-outside strategy to combat this by sending messages to governments, corporations, and other players.

Ms. Pietricovsky outlined the criticism of green economy held by movements attempting to transform this concept, against the establishment definition. Her group views the current conception of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as risking the human rights framework and reducing the capacity to defend national processes, and works towards a strengthened multilateral system and a democratic, transparent UN with guaranteed participation of civil society groups and social movements. The overarching context of this view, Ms. Pietricovsky concluded, is a global movement for social and environmental justice, rallying against capitalism, militarization, commercialization, and the commodification of land.

Another member of the Brazilian Civil Society Facilitating Committee for Rio+20, André Abreu, described the focus of the committee on creating public space for debating green economy, to make it accountable and transparent with the involvement of CSOs, unions, workers, etc. In his view, the concept has been captured by corporations and private groups to promote their economic agenda and profit, while a better incarnation would favour local, small-scale solutions and democratic discussion. Additionally, Mr. Abreu voiced concerns about speculation on and financialization of the commons, including water, as he views the Zero Draft as neglecting issues of rights, democracy, and the multilateral system.

Joining in Mr. Abreu's criticism of the Zero Draft negotiations, Dena Hoff of La Via Campesina condemned its lack of distinction between industrial monoculture and small peasant agriculture, which ignores the fact that it is predominantly large-scale industrial agriculture and food industry that contribute 44-57% of global greenhouse gases. Ms. Hoff stated that small peasant agriculture has always been the green economy, as it provides sustainable solutions to feeding people. Transforming peasant agriculture to be an integral part of food system does not address causes of poverty and degradation worldwide, or discuss fair pricing, domestic market priority, or the role of rural communities in building sustainable community. The system is biased against local food production/consumption, she concluded, advocating for the need to hold international agencies accountable in voicing the concerns of small-holder farmers, like those represented by La Via Campesina, who lack access to international fora like the United Nations.

Paul Quintos of the IBON Foundation stated that the Zero Draft negotiations display a systematic attempt by some powerful States to weaken, bracket, or delete nearly all references to human rights obligations and equity principles, including principles agreed upon in Rio 1992 e.g. the precautionary principle and the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities. This trend, which Mr. Quintos addressed further in a widely-disseminated statement and petition entitled "Rights at Risk at the United Nations," negates the integration of the three pillars of sustainable development. In their avoidance of defining green economy, these States leave open the possibility of promoting biofuels, nuclear energy, carbon trading, the financialization of natural resources, geoengineering, etc, as capital seeks new sources of profit through creating new markets, investment outputs, and sources of raw materials. The human rights framework and financial regulation, Mr. Quintos continued, can prevent privatization and speculation; the People's Summit will provide the space necessary to openly discuss the fundamental underpinnings of the global economic and political order, and to embrace new paradigms, alternatives, and truly transformative solutions.

Representing the Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT) and the Brazilian Civil Society Facilitating Committee for Rio+20, Catarina Silveira emphasized the need to incorporate the workers' rights agenda, including social protection, into the environmental agenda. Given the ongoing global crisis of the labour market, an opportunity exists to indicate where jobs could be created and workers' rights could be increased. The issue of a social protection floor is a particular demand of Ms. Silveira's organization; she condemned the refusal of some countries to guarantee this in the Zero Draft. Additionally, the Zero Draft lacks any mention of the means of payment for the transition, as governments are encouraging private sector leadership; she concluded by emphasizing the importance of a Financial Transactions Tax.

Finally, Barbara Adams spoke on behalf of Social Watch, raising concerns about the proposed plans for SDGs. Though these goals may attract support as a concrete, time-bound, results-focused structure, they run the risk, as the MDGs before them, of narrowing the development agenda and defining a wide range of issues simply in terms of lack of funds. Additionally, the SDGs could pose actual harm by promoting the financialization of water, etc, rather than protecting rights in the context of planetary/ecological limits. Ms. Adams framed the SDGs as placing the political burden of adjustment to climate change on the most vulnerable populations by emphasizing resilience, rather than redressing those issues through a rights-based approach. She raised the proposal for alternative, consumption-driven goals, to combat overconsumption and mal-production, and concluded by focusing on the human rights agenda and the potential dangers posed to it by the Zero Draft and Rio+20.

March was a milestone in the countdown to Rio+20 while we crossed the cape and threshold of 100 days before the Conference. This is also when negotiations have really intensified on the Zero Draft of the Rio+20 Outcome Document released in January, based on 6000 pages of input from various stakeholders.

Rio+20 Secretary-General Sha Zukang went to Brazil in early March to discuss logistical and substantive aspects with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Environment and other officials involved with the Rio+20 preparation. He addressed the Senate and the Brazilian Commission for Rio+20 (set-up to coordinate the conference in the Host Country). In a statement, Mr. Sha summarized his expectations for the Rio+20's successful outcomes in June:

"We hope over 120 heads of State and Government will attend.

We hope the Conference will adopt a focused political document, building on the Rio Principles, Agenda 21 and Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

We hope to see specific commitments and initiatives for achieving coherence, integration, but in particular implementation. Rio+20 will define the action and implementation agenda for the next 10 or 20 years.

We hope to see innovative partnerships launched by Member States, the UN system, business and other sectors of civil society."

Later in March, the Zero Draft was negotiated in detail at the United Nations Headquarters by Government representatives with the participation of the Major Groups (totaling over a thousand stakeholders). This marathon of talks began with a round of informal-informal consultations in the week of 19 March, and continued in the framework of the Third Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference on 26-27 March. A fairly high number of changes were proposed that significantly expanded the draft Rio+20 Outcome Document.

At the end of the session, Mr. Sha commended the participants: "Your dedication shows to the world how much you care about this conference, and about the opportunity it brings. There is no doubt that you want to make the best of Rio+20 and ensure that world leaders renew political commitment at Rio." He mentioned upcoming challenges on the road to Rio: "Looking ahead, I am also keenly aware of the complexities of the negotiations yet to come. It will be an arduous process. The compilation text is long; the days of negotiations are limited."

The next negotiating round will be held in New York from 23 April to 4 May. By then, meetings will be held with key country groupings in order to streamline the text.

In the next weeks, the communications campaign "The Future We Want" will intensify and the Rio+20 website exceeded the milestone of one million visitors on 23 March.