Moving Forward in

Reverse Gear?

1

On Human Rights and

Sustainable Development

3

Trade Unions on Rio+20 5

Youth Caucus’ 7 Priority

Principles

6

Desertification in Drylands 7

Questions from Major Groups

to Delegates

8

Live from the CSD 11

Food for thought... 12

Moving Forward in

Reverse Gear?

Outreach Issues

Last year the focus was on energy and climate

change while we here at CSD17 we are talking

about Agriculture, Land, Rural Development,

Drought and Desertification and particularly on

Africa.

This week offers clear opportunities for

delegates to take a good look at the road ahead,

and avoid the obvious and hidden bumps and

potholes. Throughout last week delegates

recognized the convergence of crises

confronting the world and the urgent need

for concrete actions to be taken. There were

repeated talks about the food crisis, the climate

crisis and the economic crisis. One other crisis

that did not show up is, the growing deficit of

confidence on global governance and in some

cases the deficit of democracy. This should

worry our governments. The world sorely needs

to regain confidence in governance in an era

where financial and transnational institutions

are enjoying massive bailouts, while the citizens

of this world are out in the cold, hungry and

unprotected.

The CSD presents a unique platform for

global governance to rise up beyond individual

countries’ or regional blocks’ self interests.

Unfortunately, the bright spots in this regard

have been few and far between. As we all

listened to delegates go through the chair’s

negotiation text last week, we could not help

Inside this Issue:

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

MONDAY May 11, 2009

1

Outreach Issues is the civil

society newsletter produced by

the SDIN Group (ANPED, TWN

and ELCI) and Stakeholder Forum.

Outreach Issues aims to report

with attitude, from the global

scene of sustainability.

The organizations publishing

Outreach Issues are not responsi-

ble for the content of signed

articles. Opinions expressed in

articles are those of the authors.

By: Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International

It was a bumpy ride on the CSD highway last week, delegates appeared to be

driving forward with their eyes fixed on their rear view mirrors. Considering events

currently happening in the world, everyone agrees that the themes of the last CSD

cycle and those of the present one have proven prescient and timely.

right of communities and indigenous

peoples, even before the rights of states,

need to be settled on this issue.

Given the themes of CSD17, one would be

right to assume that G77 would drive for

the best texts that would guarantee the

right context for their citizens. However,

its is interesting to note that the bulk of

the work done to improve the section on

Africa, has been done by the delegations

of the USA and the EU.

Apart from the brilliant addition to the

introduction of the section on desertifica-

tion this has not often been the case.

When G77 suggested that desertification

“is a global problem that requires a global

response through concerted efforts,” that

really shone. However, some of the areas

bracketed or deferred by G77 raisesome

worries. Why would G77, for example,

need to defer immediate acceptance of a

clauses such as, “mindful of the growing

2

but wonder how they would find their way

out of the maze of brackets and additions

that have riddled the texts, and if the final

outcome will be recognizable.

Obviously, this is the way negotiations of

this nature go, but we are concerned that

additions and subtractions on the text, do

not appear to be introducing ideas that

would galvanize nations into acting in

solidarity. What we are seeing are grounds

being set for competition and business as

usual. The world sorely needs inspiration

to empower and engineer actions. So far,

memorable texts would need to be

ferreted out with the aid of a Hubble

telescope. We agree that delegates are

not wordsmiths, but what is the point in

introducing texts without clearly seeing

how the jigsaw fits or unravels?

The transformation of the world will not

be built on episodic entries that focus on

maintaining the status quo, preserving

narrow interests and the privileges of

some nations and blocs.

This week the G77 kept bringing up

references to national laws and cultural

contexts to cap some provisions. These

may sound progressive, but in reality they

may prove obstructive to the attainment

of justice and higher ideals of liberty. For

example, when G77 speaks about rights of

women, they add “in accordance with

national legislation.” The CSD should be

raising the bar across the globe. The

picture that comes through all this is an

insidious resistance to change under the

cover of tradition.

Right from the preamble to the negotiated

text, G77 and China inserted a highly

volatile piece of text on the sovereign right

of states to exploit their natural resources.

There is nothing unusual about states

having the sovereign right to exploit their

resources, but we could raise the issue, of

what would be the case for countries

whose political setting is not settled, also,

what about those whose sovereignty is

threatened or subverted? It appears that

some basic questions, including the prior

scarcities of many natural resources

and the competing claims to their use”

and on building “the resilience of rural

communities to cope with and recover

from natural disasters and conflicts”?

In many other sections we find an

unwillingness to assume responsibilities,

but rather a readiness to push implemen-

tation burden on to the “international

community.”

The issue of the right to food was firmly

raised by the UN Rapporteur on the right

to food when he addressed the session on

May 7. He affirmed that the right to ade-

quate food is a human right and empha-

sised that the CSD should recommend

measures that would promote the adop-

tion of national right to food strategies

and for states to implement the findings

of the IAASTD. He strongly recommended

that states should realise the centrality of

the role of smallholder farmers in meeting

the food needs of the world. The ideas

pushed by the Rapporteur found echoes

in a few submissions of Switzerland and

G77 during the negotiations.

On the whole, the EU has made substan-

tial additions on forests, drought and

desertification. They underlined the need

for the UNFCCC parties to utilise the

UNCCD framework in combating drought

Outreach Issues

“The transformation of the

world will not be built on

episodic entries that focus on

maintaining the status quo,

preserving narrow interests and

the privileges of some nations

and blocs.

that they have found out that the smart

growth concept had several meanings and

therefore withdrew the submission. This

was a good example of helping in making

progress and ensuring that obscure

terminology are not used to conceal hid-

den examples.

If it was just that a concept such as the

green revolution has become obfuscated,

we would not have a reason to worry

too much. But CSD17 has also revealed

that there may not be unanimity of

understanding of the very concept of

sustainability. In a conversation in the

lobby, a veteran participant said that she

was always of the view, that Rio 1992

outcomes were very tame, but now she

can see that it was far more radical than

what may be expected of CSD17. And she

asked the question: are we making

progress in reverse gear?

Delegates have the duty of giving an

answer to this question, and making sure

processes are in place that can deliver a

secure, sustainable future for coming

generations.

using of plantations of non-native species

of trees to combat the spread of sand

dunes.

Sadly quite a number of trite additions

were brought into the section on rural

development. It is hoped that such

additions will be thrown out during the

negotiations.

With a week to go in the negotiations it

is hoped that delegates will safely

disentangle themselves from the web of

brackets they find themselves in, with a

clear road map and not just a pack of

meaningless words. We note that in the

course of last week, delegates queried the

possible meanings of otherwise simple

words or concepts, and answers were

sometimes immediately offered or

deferred until the following day. In one

case, the USA brought up the concept of

using smart growth techniques in working

group 2. G77 asked to know what that

meant. USA explained the following day

3

In many other sections we find an

Outreach Issues

and desertification. G77’s reference to the

UNCCD was mainly on the imperative of

the industrialised world to meet their

commitments with regard to provision of

resources. The USA, Canada, Australia and

Japan worked often in tandem, but Austra-

lia must be given the medal for fighting to

foist WTO rules as a damper on more

progressive trade and business relations.

In a bid not to mention genetic

engineering by name, delegates have

taken the convoluted route and left

everyone wondering what they are really

talking about. The G77, for example,

“supports efforts to increase the nutrition

content of food.” While that is not a bad

idea on its own, we must be wary of falling

into the hoax of the so-called golden rice

or the new experiments with genetically

modified super cassava: both engineered

to have enhanced levels of vitamin A for

poor people in Africa, Asia and Latin

America. The strong underlying hands of

what has been termed philanthropic capi-

talism keeps excessive pressure on the

staple foods of vulnerable peoples, with

utter disregard of the precautionary

principle that is cardinal in biodiversity

protection. Mexico recommended the

‘Sadly quite a number of trite

additions were brought into

the section on rural

development”

On Human Rights and Sustainable Development

By: Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation, Indigenous Peoples

Major Group

Giving equal weight to the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development means

integrating an ecosystem approach and a human rights-based approach into thematic issues being discussed at

UNCSD17.

Applying an ecosystem approach

The cluster of thematic issues under dis-

cussion in UNCSD17, calls for integrated

land and water resources management,

applying an ecosystem approach. Within

ecosystems planning, due attention must

be given to securing the rights of indige-

nous peoples and local communities, small

farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, includ-

ing the rights of women.

The Convention on Biological Diversity,

which has adopted the ecosystem

approach as it framework for implementa-

tion, describes it as a strategy for the

integrated management of land, water

and living resources that promotes

conservation and sustainable use in an

equitable way. The CBD endorsed some

principles underlying the ecosystem

approach, as reflecting the present level of

common understanding:

Principle 1: The objectives of manage-

ment of land, water and living resources

are a matter of societal choices.

Different sectors of society view ecosys-

tems in terms of their own economic, cul-

tural and society needs. Indigenous

peoples and other local communities living

on the land are important stakeholders

and their rights and interests should be

recognized. Both cultural and biological

diversity are central components of the

ecosystem approach, and management

should take this into account. Societal

choices should be expressed as clearly as

possible. Ecosystems should be managed

for their intrinsic values and for the

tangible or intangible benefits for humans,

in a fair and equitable way.

.

Continues on page 4

4 4

Outreach Issues

Such a bottom-up approach, embedded

in local ecosystems and landscapes,

combined with strategic environmental

assessment, and an enabling policy

environment, should guide sustainable

development planning. An enabling policy

environment includes the implementation

of human rights obligations and commit-

ments made by governments, under

international human rights law, as well as

commitments in recent international

conferences.

Human Rights and Sustainable Develop-

ment

Sustainable development goes hand in

hand with the progressive realisation of

economic, social, and cultural rights, as

well as the protection and promotion of

civil and political rights for all members of

society, particularly the poor and vulner-

able.

The Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights adopted a statement

on poverty (E/C.12/2001/10), which

recognized that poverty constituted a

denial of human rights and defined

poverty as a human condition character-

ized by the deprivation of the resources,

capabilities, choices, security and power

necessary for the enjoyment of an

adequate standard of living and other civil,

cultural, economic, political and social

rights.

Human rights empower individuals and

communities by granting them entitle-

ments that give rise to legal obligations on

others. Human rights help to equalize the

distribution and exercise of power both

within and between societies, and can

mitigate the powerlessness of the poor

and empower them to play their role

in realizing sustainable development.

Accordingly, the human rights approach

emphasizes obligations and requires that

all duty-holders, including States and inter-

governmental organizations, are held

accountable for their conduct in relation to

international human rights. Failures to

respect, protect and fulfil human rights,

constitute real barriers to human

sustainable development.

A human rights-based approach integrates

the norms, standards and principles of the

international human rights system, into

the plans, policies and processes of

sustainable development planning. These

include treaties that a State has ratified

because treaty ratification represents

“country ownership” of the relevant

provisions, and becomes legally binding on

all branches of Government, as well as the

commitments entered into during recent

world conferences, which bear upon

international human rights.

Most recently, the General Assembly

adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights

of Indigenous Peoples as an overarching

framework and standard of achievement

to be pursued in the spirit of partnership

and mutual respect by United Nations bod-

ies, international financial institutions,

States and Indigenous Peoples. Article 26

of the UN Declaration states:

1. Indigenous Peoples have the right to

the lands, territories and resources

which they have traditionally owned,

occupied or otherwise used or

acquired….

3. States shall give legal recognition and

protection to these lands, territories

and resources. Such recognition shall

be conducted with due respect to the

customs, traditions and land tenure

systems of the indigenous peoples con-

cerned.

The progressive realization of human

rights and implementation of commit-

ments towards sustainable development

requires effective monitoring by way of

indicators and national benchmarks, as

essential tools for effective accountability.

and less clear in the discussions taking place in

the “Rio family” of institutions.

Of course there are no guarantees that a Rio+20

would be able to increase public pressure, re-

vive the spirit of social and environmental inte-

gration, and generate new and well funded

governmental commitments. But without these,

we will remain unable to coherently address the

challenges of our times and so it is of critical

importance that we try.

Trade unions will support and encourage those

who show ambition, those who believe in the

importance of a meaningful and high-level dis-

cussion on the means of obtaining a socially

just, environmentally sustainable and multilat-

eral response to today’s and tomorrow’s crises.

7 5

Outreach Issues

Trade Unions on Rio+20

There is growing debate amongst governments

and civil society on whether a RIO+20 needs to

be organized.

This is an issue of no little importance. We are

living in a time of all-encompassing crises, a time

in which coherent and sustainable approaches

and solutions are often lacking.

We have reason to worry when we look at the

state of multilateralism, in light of the current

plethora of overlapping governance initiatives.

Where is UN multilateralism?

Governments (particularly the world’s largest

economies) have taken a number of recent ini-

tiatives which, while not intended to undermine

the UN as an institution, implicitly criticize its

inability to deal effectively with the challenges

affecting our societies. Consequently, the multi-

ple crises have not yet led to a truly multilateral

response. The pace of high-profile UN processes

– such as that on climate change – appears too

slow when set against the urgency of the situa-

tion, and the growing public pressure for deci-

sive action.

In addition, a more structural question remains.

We live in a world marked by unprecedented

levels of inequality, poverty and environmental

degradation. Is the multilateral system address-

ing these challenges or is it ineffective; could it

be actually reinforcing an unacceptable status

quo?

Some reasons for hope

Those who declare the end of multilateralism

are guilty of grave irresponsibility. It is our belief

that multilateralism is the only viable tool to

address the ongoing economic, social and envi-

ronmental crises. Provided their actions are not

subordinated to financial and commercial inter-

ests, through greater synergies and effective-

ness, international institutions can place social

and environmental concerns at the very top of

the list of international priorities.

We do have some reasons for hope.

Still incipient, the United States’ return to multi-

lateral negotiations will make a big difference.

Multilateralism has suffered from almost a dec-

ade of a destructive strategy, in which interna-

tional negotiators weakened agreements with

the goal of attaining US participation – ironic

since in many cases, they did not succeed in

getting the US to sign on to the final agreement.

The current context makes us hopeful that times

have changed.

Another reason for hope comes from civil soci-

ety. More and more multi-actor coalitions are

emerging around pressing issues, such as pov-

erty or climate change. Through these coalitions,

environmental, social and labour organisations

are able to build strong platforms capable of

pushing for a change of paradigm.

Would Rio+20 contribute to a change of para-

digm?

In some important ways, the Rio Summit con-

tributed to a change of paradigm. Yet while it is

unquestionable that the world has changed over

the past two decades, the change was not driven

by Rio principles – rather the opposite.

Nonetheless, Rio left a legacy of core principles

that we feel are crucial to address the challenges

facing our societies: the precautionary principle,

common but differentiated responsibilities, and

the role civil society and in particular trade un-

ions can play in achieving sustainable develop-

ment, among others.

The general feeling is that the framework

adopted in Rio is getting lost. The need to re-

spect our over riding priority – improving peo-

ple’s lives - by protecting the environment is less

By: Annabella Rosemberg, International Trade Union

Confederation (ITUC)

Annabella Rosemberg

6 6

Outreach Issues

The Major Group on Children and Youth (also

referred as the 'Youth Caucus') calls for the

Youth Caucus' CSD-17 Priority Principles to

be taken into account. These 7 Priority

Principles are the shared vision of the Youth

Caucus on the cluster of issues that the

CSD16 and 17 cycle focuses on. They are a

result of a process that was participatory,

interactive and inclusive.

The Priority Principles reflect the philosophy

of the Youth Caucus; they are a frame of

reference for the actions it undertakes at

CSD-17. This means that whenever the

youth at CSD speaks up, supports initiatives

or undertakes action it derives from these

Priority Principles. The principles are the

Youth Caucus' foundation.

Since the Youth Caucus represents children

and youth from all over the world, it should

listen to the voices of all children and youth.

These Priority Principles were defined

through a participatory, interactive and inclu-

sive process.

The process was facilitated by the Youth Cau-

cus' Steering Committee members. They

ensured that the process was participatory;

ensuring that everyone interested could

take a part, be consulted and engage in

discussions. The Youth Caucus members

present here do not have the exclusive right

to make decisions without the prior consulta-

tion of their peers.

The main tools that have been used are web

tools such as the e-mail listserve (with ap-

proximately 1600 subscribers), the website

(www.youen.org), Google Docs, online voting

systems, Twitter, etc. These transparent

tools helped with reaching as many youth as

possible, but still full representation remains

an ideal that the Youth Caucus will continue

to strive for.

The Priority Principles listed below are not

limited to issues concerning youth; they are

the issues that youth are concerned with.

The youth present at this CSD session look

forward to hearing from you, explaining the

Priority Principles and engaging in a con-

structive discussion on this cycle's themes.

• Eliminate hazardous & exploitative child

labour in the agricultural sector by

ensuring fair prices for farmers and access

to education for children in rural areas.

• Investing in infrastructure is not a goal in

itself but a means towards a human-

centred development, with particular

emphasis on Africa and its potential as

a positive and constructive voice in

sustainable development.

• Young farmers should gain access to

financial facilities such as micro-credits

and micro-savings combined with training

and capacity building to improve market

access.

• Education for sustainable development

should be mainstreamed into primary

Youth Caucus’ 7 Priority Principles

education and strengthened through

non-formal, experiential education.

• Particular attention should be placed on

improving gender equality and ensuring

that equity – at all levels – is attained.

• Emphasise the need to involve local

communities – particularly youth,

women, indigenous people and vulner-

able groups – in sustainable development

initiatives, recognising that their full

emancipation is a prerequisite for sus-

tainable development.

• Invest in, facilitate and further strengthen

an enabling environment for youth

and youth organisations to fully and

effectively participate in society. This

includes, but is not limited to, involving

more youth into official national delega-

tions to the Commission on Sustainable

Development and other UN commissions,

particularly for developing countries.

Contact the Youth Caucus at

csd17@youen.org, www.youen.org, or talk

to Youth Caucus members; they wear

badges.

By: Ivana Savic, Youth Caucus' Advocacy Coordinator,

Lisa Develtere, Belgian Youth Delegate

The Major Group on Children and Youth (also referred as the 'Youth Caucus') calls for the Youth Caucus' CSD-17

Priority Principles to be taken into account. These 7 Priority Principles are the shared vision of the Youth Caucus on

the cluster of issues that the CSD16 and 17 cycle focuses on. They are a result of a process that was participatory,

interactive and inclusive.

7 7

Outreach Issues

The UNCCD provides an international

framework for the implementation of

agriculture and natural resource manage-

ment policies and investment to combat

desertification. This has been agreed to by

193 states but 10 years after its adoption

and 8 conferences of the Parties, desertifica-

tion has increased and the people living with

the consequences has risen.

In order to solve a problem first you have to

recognize there is one. As we know the

problem, as we have the instrument, as we

are taking the decisions at CSD17 to enable

the environment, are we allowed to only

add words to words? Certainly not. The

time has come to implement solutions, to

make concrete decisions, to remove the

brackets and take action.

Desertification in Drylands

By: Patrice Burger, Association CARI

Desertification is about degradation of land

under the impact of climate change in one

hand, the impact of human activities

especially agriculture in the other. Desertifi-

cation occurs in drylands but it also occurs in

areas broader than only drylands. It is well

know that drought and false rural develop-

ment are major drivers of desertification. As

it imposes itself and impacts the basis of all

life, desertification has been mentioned by

scientist as a public good .

This said, desertification has been neglected

by decision makers, probably because the

voices of the poor do not have any audience

in terms of power, or profit, or simply

members of human kind. Nevertheless no

situation is established forever and things

can change.

The process of desertification results in a

huge pressure on future generations and

already affects the life of 1.5 billion people in

the world ; their land, their homes, their way

of life, are disappearing under their feet.

These communities are not here at CSD17,

but they would like to hear something from

CSD17 in order to believe that the delegates

of the nations gathered here are their

representatives. Also in order to have at least

one reason to invest in where they live, and

plan for their children’s futures.

Speaking about desertification requires

speaking about agriculture, rural develop-

ment, drought and water management.

Combating desertification is at its most

fundamental about adapting agriculture

practices, rural development and natural

resources management to the natural

constraints of drylands and minimizing the

negative human pressure on this natural

resources. Finally combating desertification

is also a struggle for hope and dignity for too

many people in the world.

In what way is our behavior intelligent for

the present and the future?

Unfortunately the current trend in the

flow of investment in drylands, of agriculture

practices and policies, of rural development,

of climate change, often of drylands

governance, will all increase the level of

desertification. They are not addressing the

root cause, nor developing innovative policy

solutions. The result is a global economic

loss, which can be valued up to 10 % per year

according to some countries,. Other affects

include growing costs and impacts on peace

and insecurity, which is multiplied by illegal

migrations. And more fundamentally a

growing feeling of absence of any form of

justice.

When your life depends on how words are understood.

8 8

Outreach Issues

The Ministerial Dialogue with Representatives of the Major Groups and UN System

12 May 2009, 10:00 am – 1:00 pm, Conference room 6

This note on the dialogue session presents an overview of the methodologies for the session. It includes questions by the Major

Groups that will be asked of the governments. Ministers, Major Groups and UN System representatives may choose to address any of

these questions. Participants may address any aspects of the issues they think relevant to the discussions.

[This is a shortened version. For the full text see http://tinyurl.com/pf8745 .]

The dialogue session will be informal and there will be no delivery of official statements.

The session will be opened with general remarks by the Chairperson, followed by a statement from Ms. Mayanja, DESA Assistant

Secretary-General. The Chairperson will then introduce the format of the dialogue.

During the first half of the session, each of the nine Major Groups’ sectors will make 3-minute presentations on their priorities for

advancing implementation. The order of the sectors will be as follows:

• Women

• Children and Youth

• Indigenous Peoples

• NGOs

• Local Authorities

• Workers and Trade Unions

• Business and Industry

• Scientific and Technological Community

• Farmers

Presentations will be followed by approximately 20 minutes of discussion guided and moderated by the Chair, including responses

from Ministers and representatives of UN entities. Interventions during discussion will be limited to 3 minutes.

.During the second half of the session, four specific issues from multiple major groups’ sectors will be discussed in depth. Each

multi-sectoral presentation will be 5 minutes long and focus on the following topics:

• Farming First

• Rural Development

• Urban-Rural Linkages for Food Security and Vibrant Market

• Secure land tenure and water rights

Continues on page 9

One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making (Agenda 21, Section

III, Chapter 23.2)

Format and Focus

Opening remarks: 15 minutes

Part I: Presentations from the Nine Major Groups sectors (approximately 50 minutes)

Questions from Major Groups to Delegates

Part II: Substantive Discussion on Issue Clusters (approximately 100 minutes)

7 9

Outreach Issues

• A large number of countries have re-iterated the Paris declaration; more and more countries

are giving budget support to national governments. We are wondering how it can be assured,

that governments will decentralise funds to local authorities and CSOs/NGOs especially in rural

areas and/ or get direct access to ODA funding to effectively take their development in their

own hands?

• Rural development implies community development, institutional strengthening of CSOs/NGOs

and local authorities and participatory strategies; these are long term processes. The way

financing and monitoring criteria are formulated at the moment does not allow for long-term

investment and is only measuring quantity. Are governments willing to support the develop-

ment of process and quality criteria to allow for CSOs/NGOs to work on sustainable long-term

development and support initiatives of Major Groups to that effect?

• Availability of infrastructure such as transport and information technologies but also basic

services including water, energy, education and health care are needed; this implies that

smaller scale made-to-measure investment and delegation of responsibilities is needed. Are

there good examples to follow and countries who have actually adapted their national policies

to make that possible?

• Are governments supportive of the idea to pay people living in rural areas for eco-services as an

alternative for economic activity?

• We all realize that the most successful rural development projects are those that rural

communities have taken ownership of. Given this, what concrete measures are you taking in

your respective countries to ensure that development initiatives are inclusive of local peoples?

• How can we move forward in establishing favorable conditions for secure land tenure and

rights to land, particularly for women, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups?

• How can African governments ensure that trust lands are not alienated and given to private

parties, and that traditional, customary resource use and management will be respected on

government lands.

• Will governments recognize the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities,

including the rights of women, and guarantee that they will not be forcibly displaced to give

way for economic and environmental projects?

QUESTIONS FROM MAJOR GROUPS TO DELEGATES

The following questions are a result of deliberation among major groups over the weekend.

10 10

Outreach Issues

• How can local governments ensure the full and effective participation of local communities

in decision-making about sustainable agriculture and rural development and ecosystem

management?

• In response to the continuing food crisis, governments are called upon to invest in sustainable

agriculture and rural development. How can such investment be directed to the most

vulnerable communities in developing countries, building new market infrastructure for local

agriculture, truly supporting small family farmers, and not just benefiting large multinational

food and agriculture businesses?

• Considering the damage to the land and ecology caused by biotechnology and GM crops, what

are the mechanisms that you will put in place for a new sustainable green revolution to ensure

protection of essential resources for long term and sustainable agricultural and livestock

practices?

• Recognition has been given to the value of indigenous and local knowledge in agricultural

practices. How can that knowledge be mainstreamed into educational and training institutions

and extension services, such that it is given the legitimacy it deserves and informs agricultural

plans and policies?

• It is now widely accepted that aid conditionalities, and especially structural adjustment policies,

have destroyed safety nets, with the effect of plunging people into poverty, especially in rural

areas, leaving them without adequate food or social services. Given the uncertainties of

agricultural and livestock production, basic services are essential to rural development. How do

you intend to ensure that populations have those services such that their basic needs are met?

• Considering that protectionist trade policies are one of the root causes of the economic crisis,

how do you intend to ensure that agricultural and agricultural related products from the

developing world have equal access to international markets?

• Given the fact that urban centers can be powerful engines for rural development, how can

national governments enable cities and other local authorities to partner with major groups to

strengthen food security and social protection programs?

• How can extensive livestock pastoral systems in Africa, Asia and Latin America be given greater

attention for the carbon sequestration they provide, and be included in both policy and

programmatic outcomes of CSD?

QUESTIONS FROM MAJOR GROUPS TO DELEGATES — CONTINUED

Kevin Tan and Mechaila Okhengbon. Photo by Lisa Develtere.

7 11

Outreach Issues

EARTH TALK:

Biofuels are liquid fuels made from biomass

– recently living organisms or their metabolic

by-products. They are considered “green”

because they are renewable, as opposed to

nonrenewable fossil fuels. But for all their

green connotations, Biofuels have generated

heated discussion in recent years, even being

accused of driving food prices up around the

world and causing deforestation in tropical

regions. Can biofuels be used sustainably?

What opportunities could they provide for

farmers and for the planet? On today’s

edition of Earth Talk, host Catherine

and spoken extensively on environment,

education and related subjects, and

was awarded the prestigious Tree of

Learning in 1998 for his work in environ-

mental education and communication. On

today’s edition of Pioneers of the Planet,

Mr. Sarabhai talks with host Catherine

Karong’o about the need for communication

and education in the environmental arena, in

India and beyond.

In Today at the CSD, Catherine Karong’o talks

to Bureau member, Anna Bianchi, and CSD

Chair, Gerda Verburg, for an update on the

status of the negotiations at the end of the

first week. She hears from delegates from

South Africa and the DR Congo to learn of

their interpretation of some of the key

issues that are emerging in the discussions.

In addition, Brett Israel presents a special

feature on the possibilities that gene banks

offer to preserve biodiversity, and the team

investigates the potential of biochar for

storing carbon.

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

By: Sharon Shattuck, Stakeholder Forum Karong’o talks to youth delegates Kevin Tan

and Mechaila Okhengbon to shed some light

on the subject.

PIONEERS OF THE PLANET:

Kartikeya Sarabhai is a famous environmen-

talist and industrialist from the Sarabhai

family in India. He is a member of the Earth

Charter International Council and has written

“The issues of the planet

cannot be solved through

technology alone -- or

through laws.”

agriculture and rural development. How can such investment be directed to the most

areas, leaving them without adequate food or social services. Given the uncertainties of

how do you intend to ensure that agricultural and agricultural related products from the

attention for the carbon sequestration they provide, and be included in both policy and

Food for Thought… Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

favourite), two lasts of wheat, four lasts

of rye, four tons of beer, two tons of

butter, 1000 lbs of cheese, a suit of

clothes, a silver drinking cup and a

complete bed. Now that is a lot to take

into the local bulb shop. Eventually this

‘tulip bubble burst when the demand

collapsed’. People were left holding

bulbs that had cost them 10 times the

amount the market was now selling them

for.

The Tulip bubble was the first, but as we

know history is littered with other

examples of how the economic system

that we have built doesn’t work. If you

are interested, then have a look at some

of the other bubbles: Mississippi

Company (1720), the Florida speculation

building bubble (1926), the 1920s

American economic bubble, the dotcom

bubble, the Asian Financial Crisis and the

real estate bubble we are experiencing

now. There are of course the less

well-known bubbles such as the sports

card bubble, the comic book bubble (one

I cared about a lot) and the TY Beanie

Babies bubble, which didn’t hit so many

people.

The 17th century was a difficult time for

our Dutch friends, not only because of

the tulip crash of 1637, but also being

annexed by the British in 1664, when

New Amsterdam became New York.

So perhaps the time has really come

for a serious look at the financial

mechanisms that we seem to have

created out of the Dutch model. A green

financial system might look a lot

different but how can we create the new

model while working within the present

globalised economic system? Should this

be one of the challenges for Rio+20?

If not, then what will be the next

bubble?

“The Tulip Bubble”

Senior Editor: Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, ANPED

Co-Editor: Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum

Daily Editor: Stephen Mooney, Stakeholder Forum

Design and Layout: Erol Hofmans, ANPED

Contributing writers:

Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International

Joji Carino, Tebtebba Foundation, Indigenous Peoples Major Group

Annabella Rosemberg, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)

Ivana Savic, Youth Caucus' Advocacy Coordinator

Lisa Develtere, Belgian Youth Delegate

Patrice Burger, Association CARI

Sharon Shattuck, Stakeholder Forum

EDITORIAL TEAM

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

www.sdin-ngo.net

media.stakeholderforum.org

Please send your contributions to:

smooney@stakeholderforum.org

erol.hofmans@anped.org

Outreach Issues

12

I had always wondered where economic

bubbles come from. So it was very

interesting to read in the Economist the

other day that they actually originated in

the Netherlands. Our present financial

system is actually based on one

developed by the Netherlands and then

copied by the UK and expanded through

their empire. It does seem appropriate to

be discussing this with a Dutch Chair of

the CSD with us in New Amsterdam in the

province of New Netherlands.

Tulips were introduced into Holland in

the mid-16th century from the Ottoman

Empire. Very soon afterwards there was

‘tulip mania’, leading to the first

economic bubble. At its height, tulip

contracts sold for 10 times the annual

income of skilled craftsman. Speculation

on the price going up saw masses of

people buying or becoming involved in

‘bulb futures’, which helped to create a

tulip bubble.

It is alleged that a single bulb of the

Viceroy type could be traded for: four fat

oxen, two right fat swine, twelve fat

sheep, two hogsheads of wine (my

Outreach Issues is made

possible through the

generous support of: .

THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND SEA

AND

THE BELGIAN SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT FEDERAL PUBLIC

PLANNING SERVICE