united kingdom parliament home page - outcomes of the un ......parliament: ian murray mp (labour,...

Published on 14 June 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

House of Commons

Environmental Audit Committee

Outcomes of the UN Rio+20 Earth Summit

Second Report of Session 2013–14

Volume II

Written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 5 June 2013

Environmental Audit Committee The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development; to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.

Current membership Joan Walley MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent North) (Chair) Peter Aldous MP (Conservative, Waveney) Richard Benyon MP (Conservative, Newbury) [ex-officio] Neil Carmichael MP (Conservative, Stroud) Martin Caton MP (Labour, Gower) Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Chris Evans MP (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn) Zac Goldsmith MP (Conservative, Richmond Park) Mark Lazarowicz MP (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith) Caroline Lucas MP (Green, Brighton Pavilion) Caroline Nokes MP (Conservative, Romsey and Southampton North) Dr Matthew Offord MP (Conservative, Hendon) Mr Mark Spencer MP (Conservative, Sherwood) Paul Uppal MP (Conservative, Wolverhampton South West) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton, Test) Simon Wright MP (Liberal Democrat, Norwich South)

The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Ian Murray MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Sheryll Murray MP (Conservative, South East Cornwall)

Powers The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/eacom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Simon Fiander (Clerk), Nicholas Beech (Second Clerk), Lee Nicholson (Committee Specialist), Andrew Wallace (Senior Committee Assistant), Anna Browning (Committee Assistant), Yago Zayed, (Committee Support Assistant) and Nicholas Davies (Media Officer).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6150; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

List of written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/eacom)

1 The Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University Ev w1

2 Alliance for Future Generations (World Future Council; Intergenerational Foundation; Planetary Boundaries Initiative; and Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development Ev w3

3 Earth Community Trust Ev w6

4 FIA Foundation Ev w9

5 Christian Aid Ev w11

6 Sightsavers Ev w15

7 The Co-operative Group Ev w22

8 Progressio Ev w25

9 UNICEF UK Ev w26

10 Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Northern Ireland Ev w31

11 BioRegional Ev w35

12 Peter Davies, Commissioner for Sustainable Futures, Wales Ev w38

13 British Youth Council Ev w38

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [12-06-2013 17:40] Job: 026116 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026116/026116_w013_steve_RIS 20 British Youth Council.xml

Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence submitted by the Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University

Executive Summary

1. The Rio+20 Summit did not achieve the aims and objectives from which it was conceived.

2. The UK Government, alongside European colleagues, was seen to lead to debate and set the agenda acrosssustainability in particular commitment to development aid and climate change targets.

3. The UK Government did not show this leadership at Rio+20.

4. The UK Government should now re-take a leadership role and clearly articulate a Green Economic visionand ensure this is led by the Cabinet Office in partnership with the Treasury.

Introduction

5. The Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University is a research institute focussing individualbehaviour change set against the context of global sustainability challenges—in particular resource challenges.We are a member of the Green Economy Coalition (www.greeneconomycoalition.org) and were the first UKUniversity to sign the Higher Education Sustainability Decleration for Rio+20 (http://rio20.euromed-management.com/Declaration-for-HEI.pdf).

6. Over the past 10 years global economic growth linked to constrained availability of critical resources hasled to a substantial price rise for most energy sources. In addition climate change impacts are being felt fasterand at a larger scale than is predicted by climate models leading to substantial price rises in food as well asrecord weather events leading to extensive flooding or drought. The uncertainties associated with such a rapidchange in global commodities also leads to volatile prices.

7. The Rio+20 Summit was a key opportunity for political leaders to agree a strong narrative for the directionthat our economy should take—it was a launch platform for the green economy.

8. Unfortunately the timing of the Summit came during an election year in the USA and prior to leadershipchanges in China making it very difficult for either country to demonstrate strong commitment.

9. The UK had no such excuse and showed a lack of leadership by not sending the Prime Minister.

10. The clear signal from the Summit was that there is no real commitment from governments.

11. The two key audiences that needed to engage with the outcomes of Rio were business and the public—both to understand and see clear commitment to a future green economy narrative. Business so that it wouldinvest and innovate for this future and the public so that they could support a vision and buy into the politicaland societal changes that this requires.

How well the Rio declaration—“The Future We Want”—matched the actions that were needed

12. The Future We Want mainly commits governments to reaffirming existing commitments. It does this inan opaque way in a document that is completely inaccessible to the public. It commits to developing SustainableDevelopment Goals which, on the surface, will rewrite the Millenium Development Goals and make themsimpler to achieve. Therefore this could be seen as a step backwards.

13. While some smaller commitments were agreed it is difficult to see how they can make a substantiveglobal difference while the underlying economic driver for political change is still business-as-usual (built onneoclassical economic principles).

14. Commitments are required in international aid, economic policy, research and development policy,industrial policy, education policy, healthcare policy, energy policy, transport policy, security strategy, justiceand legal frameworks, financial policy and resilience policy.

The role played by the UK Government in the run up to, and during, the Summit

15. In the run up to the Summit the UK showed global leadership in the narrative around the aims andambitions. It supported the European position and made this strong.

16. It then undermined it’s position by refusing to send the Prime Minister and, more importantly, bychanging and back tracking on key policies led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For example, changes tothe UK Feed-in-Tarriff (while necessary because of badly designed policy with a lack of market-responsepricing built in from the start) has undermined international investment confidence and public confidence inthe UK Government (and wider) commitment to cleaner energy.

17. The Treasury is the most important department to engage in the Summit as the outcomes are all abouttaxation policy, economic policy and financial policy. The Summit was again seen as purely an environmentalissue with an element of poverty thrown in.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [12-06-2013 17:40] Job: 026116 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026116/026116_w013_steve_RIS 20 British Youth Council.xml

Ev w2 Environmental Audit Committee: Evidence

What role the UK Government should now play internationally in taking forward the Rio agenda, includingon the Sustainable Development Goals and through the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the UNSecretary-General’s “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015”

18. The UK should now engage the Treasury on developing the Sustainable Development Goals. The UKshould take global leadership and work with the other economic and finance departments of other countries todevelop a simple narrative on Goals that deliver a new economic strategy and narrative.

19. The post 2015 planning should highlight the increasing systemic risk that economies face given emergingmarket growth, increased competition for global commodities and increased demand for an equitabledistribution of these commodities.

20. This includes restructuring critical global institutions such as the World Bank to create more flexiblemechanisms for them to engage in financial markets to develop the frameworks around which private sectorcapital can be attracted.

21. The panel should also highlight common policy frameworks which underpin future strategies for greeneconomic growth including short term support for new technology (for example feed-in-tariffs), eliminatingfossil fuel subsidies while focussing support on pro-poor energy access, achieving a price on carbon andrealigning economic policies to support future green growth. See Capital Markets Climate Initiative (CMCI)Investment Grade Policy report—CMCI was set up by Greg Barker MP, Minister for Climate Change(http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/international/cmci/cmci.aspx)

22. In addition a clear commitment to managing the risks associated with global resource constraints (eitherfrom limited supply or from increased demand led by econonomic growth in emerging markets) should be putin place. This requires a much more interventionist set of policies and may necessitate strong industrial policythat is coordinated globally.

23. Existing policy intended to manage risk, in particular in the finance sector (such as Solvency II andBasel III) should be examined to ensure that while they may manage past risk (the risks we have alreadyencountered) they do not hinder the change that is needed to unlock solutions to global policies. For example,restrictions on investment into long term illiquid assets could restrict investment into new “green”infrastructure projects.

How well the UK Government’s policies and initiatives match the commitments and calls-for-action set out in“The Future We Want” declaration, the areas in which the Government has more to do, and where theGovernment’s priorities should lie

24. The UK Government has good bold ambition that meets some of the objectives in The Future We Wantincluding a commitment to international aid and climate change action through the UK Climate Change Act.

25. However these long term and strategic commitments are not supported by a clear and consistent set ofpolicies that would enable delivery of these commitments.

26. For example, UK Department for International Development requires larger capacity to ensure that aidfunding is spent in the best way on projects at all scales. UK commitment to international climate financeshould not substitute for international development aid commitments (it should be in addition to the 0.7% aidcommitment—this was the intention at the Copenhagen Summit but has since been ignored).

27. Climate targets do not deliver emission reductions and a whole scale review of economic policy with apotential focus on new industrial policy is needed to ensure these targets are met.

What part greater informed public debate and wider engagement with the Rio issues needs to play

28. The Future We Want is not a public friendly document. A clear narrative for the future we want iscritical to engage the public so potentially difficult, or at the very least big changes, can be supported andunderstood. The UK Government should prioritise creating a shared vision with detailed economic riskmanagement policies put in place as a matter of urgency.

29. The UK Government could call for an independent commission to be set up that removes itself fromshort term politics to recommend a set of coherent global policies to enable a green economy. Governments(in particular economic departments) should commit to engaging in this process in a serious manner by makingit a legally binding process.

30. Alternatively political leaders should engage directly in this process (possibly as part of the G20Summits) and not leave it to civil servants who do not have the necessary mandate to compromise and be boldin their political decisions.

31. The public wants wellbeing and stable access to the resources they need. The future we want shoulddeliver this and explain this is what it will deliver.

23 July 2012

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [12-06-2013 17:40] Job: 026116 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/026116/026116_w013_steve_RIS 20 British Youth Council.xml


Written evidence submitted by the Alliance for Future Generations (World Future Council;Intergenerational Foundation; Planetary Boundaries Initiative; and Foundation for Democracy and

Sustainable Development)

Part A: Introduction

A.1 The Alliance for Future Generations (www.allianceforfuturegenerations.org) is a group of individualsand organisations who have agreed to work to ensure that long-termism and the needs of future generationsare brought into the heart of UK democracy and policy processes.

A.2 Sustainable development, as defined by the Brundtland Commission (1987) is “development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Yetthe needs of future generations have been greatly overlooked.

A.3 The International Trade Union Confederation Global Poll of 2012 (see http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/120604_-_ituc_poll.pdf) asked adults in Belgium, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Japan,Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and the United States whether future generations were “worse off than theirown generation”. 66% said yes. In the UK, US, Japan and Belgium this “vote of no confidence” in the prospectsfor future generations was about 78%. In France it reached 93%. The socially positive driving force of a beliefthat the future will be better looks dangerously absent in many parts of the world.

A.4 Rio+20 could have been an opportunity to agree to new and innovative solutions and policies tosafeguard the Earth and secure intergenerational justice. Members of the Alliance are disappointed that thisopportunity was not fully realised during the Rio+20 process or at the Summit itself.

A.5 The submission which follows contains a number of subsections which have been prepared individuallyby four of the Alliance for Future Generations’ members. Each reflects the perspective of an individual memberof the Alliance on an issue of concern to the Alliance as a whole.

Part B: World Future Council: High Commissioner/Ombudspersons for Future Generations

B.1 Members of the Alliance for Future Generations, along with organisations such as the World FutureCouncil (a member of the Alliance which works globally) and the Major Group for Children & Youth, proposedthe establishment of a High Commissioner for Future Generations as a mechanism to safeguard long-termismand the needs of future generations at the global level.

B.2 At the regional, national and sub national levels, we consider that sustainable development itself demandsthat every individual nation as well as regional groupings, such as the European Union, commit themselves tosetting up strategies, mechanisms and institutions, eg Ombudspersons for Future Generations, to promote long-termism and give due consideration to the needs of future generations.

B.3 The needs of future generations are a crucial aspect to be taken into account when achieving sustainabledevelopment. The European Union negotiating bloc was the main driver of this proposal (called a “High LevelRepresentative for Sustainable Development and Future Generations” in the negotiating text), along withsupport from other UN Member States, both northern and southern, and from civil society during the Rio+20process. Our research points to the value of an independent voice, an Ombudsperson or Guardian for FutureGenerations. Often appointed by the national Parliament, such institutions would have the job of helping tosafeguard environmental and social sustainability by speaking up authoritatively for future generations in allareas of policy-making.

B.4 This is a simple, innovative institutional solution designed to break through layers of bureaucracyand provide long-term interconnected responses to challenges of unsustainable development. Current policyincoherence often leads to unintended negative consequences and costs in redressing these, which integratedthinking and long-term time horizons can help avoid. A small office of three to four multi disciplinary staff,working in cooperation with existing institutions, agencies and stakeholders is a small cost compared to thesavings that would be made by more efficient policy-making.

B.5 Examples from around the world, including Canada, New Zealand, Hungary and Wales show howeffectively this position can work. It would be an active advocate, using long-term integrated analyses tohighlight how apparent short-term economic costs can be vital investments for future risk prevention.

B.6 We encourage the government and members of the Committee to give full support and attention to theproposal for an ombudsperson or guardian for future generations, in the first instance by prioritising time forfull discussion in Westminster. An Ombudsperson or Guardian for Future Generations at all governance levelscould bring the leadership skills, moral authority and vision to help the UK Parliament and the government ofthe day to navigate the challenges of today, for current and for future generations.

B.7 Paragraph 86 of the Rio+20 Outcome document, “The Future We Want” in Section IV: InstitutionalFramework for Sustainable Development, Part B on strengthening intergovernmental arrangements forsustainable development, contains a decision to launch “an intergovernmental and open, transparent andinclusive negotiation process under the General Assembly to define the format and organizational aspects ofthe high-level forum (...).” The Paragraph goes on to invite the UN Secretary General to present a report on



“the need for promoting intergenerational solidarity for the achievement of sustainable development, takinginto account the needs of future generations.”

B.8 The report proposed in paragraph 86 and its subject matter are of great importance for sustainabledevelopment. We urge the UK Government to take an active role in ensuring robust terms of reference andadequate resourcing, and subsequently in contributing actively to discussions on the report.

B.9 Members of the Alliance for Future Generations would welcome the opportunity to work with the UKgovernment as it prepares any input to the report. We are committed to fostering continued public awarenessfor the agenda that the report will address. We see great potential for synergies between the different Riooutcomes, ranging from the intergenerational dimension of the new measures for development that the UNDevelopment Programme is preparing for the formulation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) tothe final functions and form of the proposed high-level political forum.

Part C: Planetary Boundaries Initiative: Planetary Boundaries

C.1 In 2009, 29 scientists published a paper putting forward the planetary boundaries concept (seehttp://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html). The concept posits that there are ninecritical Earth-system processes and associated thresholds that we need to respect and keep within, in order toprotect against the risk of irreversible or even catastrophic environmental change at continental to global scales.These scientists believe it is necessary to define these boundaries in order to keep the planet resilient andhuman society safe.1

C.2 Scientists claim that human activities have developed to a point where our actions impact not just onother people and our local environment, but the whole planet and the conditions of life for centuries to come.By recognising and respecting critical earth systems society could create a safe operating space for humanity,within which human economy and society would be able to play out. According to the concept’s authors, threeof the nine suggested thresholds have already been crossed (climate change, biodiversity and the nitrogencycle).

C.3 During 2012 new thinking from Oxfam considered the planetary boundaries concept from a humandevelopment perspective and argued that the concept of a safe space had to be linked with universal humanrights—creating a social floor to be respected for all humanity (see http://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-can-we-live-within-the-doughnut-210490).

C.4 The planetary boundaries concept was acknowledged by the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel onGlobal Sustainability when stating its overall goal is “To eradicate poverty and reduce inequality, make growthinclusive, and production and consumption more sustainable while combating climate change and respectingthe range of other planetary boundaries.” It was also referred to in the Global Environmental Outlook Report5 (GEO5) published during the Rio+20 conference.

C.5 The concept has important implications for future governance systems, a fact advocated by the PlanetaryBoundaries Initiative (PBI) throughout the Rio+20 conference with the submission of a Planetary BoundariesDeclaration (see http://planetaryboundariesinitiative.org/?page_id=18) and Draft Declaration on PublicParticipation in Planetary Boundaries (http://planetaryboundariesinitiative.org/?page_id=397).

C.6 The concept appeared briefly in some of the early Rio+20 text but was soon removed throughout thenegotiating period. As a result, the final Outcome document does not include text requiring any global reviewat regular intervals of the state of the planet or of the emerging science on the earth’s biophysical limits.

C.7 Instead, the Outcome document is much the poorer in its long term vision for the protection of theenvironment and the safeguarding of humanity. The Outcome document makes much of the need for a set ofsustainable development goals (SDGs) to emerge that will measure and accelerate human progress—but towhat end?

C.8 The planetary boundaries concept would mean that SDGs are developed to ensure that economicdevelopment furthers the universal realisation of human rights (the social floor) and respect critical naturalboundaries. We urge the UK government, and David Cameron as Co-Chair of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on post-2015, to ensure that they do.

C.9 The UK government failed to grasp the importance of what scientists have to say regarding planetaryboundaries and therefore did not take up the challenge at Rio+20 of delivering new and transformativegovernance to the world for a safer, fairer and more just society. The SDGs process offers one opportunity,among others, to address that failure.1 The nine are climate change; rate of biodiversity loss (terrestrial and marine); interference with the nitrogen and phosphorous

cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater use; change in land use; chemical pollution; andatmospheric aerosol loading. Their analysis suggests that three of these—climate change, rate of biodiversity loss and interferencewith the nitrogen cycle—have already transgressed their boundaries (also known as thresholds).



Part D: The Intergenerational Foundation: Youth Unemployment

D.1 The Intergenerational Foundation was pleased to observe that 9 of the clauses in Rio+ 20 outcomedocument, “The Future We Want”, make reference to reducing youth unemployment (24, 31, 43, 50, 58, 62,148, 152 and 155). It seems to have been accepted by all those in attendance at the Rio+20 summit thattackling youth unemployment is a vital element of any attempts to make societies more just and sustainable.

D.2 Youth unemployment is a global problem of huge significance, which has been exacerbated by theeconomic downturn. Across the OECD, nearly 20% of 15–24 year olds are unable to find work, while inBritain there are more than 3 people out of work in this age group for every unemployed person aged 25–54.Youth unemployment has severe economic costs, both in the short term through welfare payments and lostproductivity, and in the longer term, as young people who suffer unemployment are likely to earn less whenthey grow older. It also imposes social costs on society, as young people who can’t work are less likely to feelthey have a stake in our society.

D.3 The UK government needs to do more if it is to realize the aim expressed in “The Future We Want” ofreducing youth unemployment. Clause 62 stated that governments need to ensure the interests of young peopleare accounted for when pursuing sustainable development policies, which would mean making it easier to getplanning permission for new homes and businesses, in balance with preserving the natural environment forfuture generations. The government also needs to do more to prepare young people for the world of work, bothinside and outside the formal education system, and seriously examine more aggressive job-creation policiesif we are to give our young people a stake in the future of our society.

Part E: Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development: Democracy and SustainableDevelopment

E.1 The 2002 Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (see http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POI_PD.htm) which is one of the documents that emerged fromagreements at the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development argues powerfully that:

“.. unless we act in a manner that fundamentally changes their lives the poor of the world may loseconfidence in their representatives and the democratic systems to which we remain committed, seeingtheir representatives as nothing more than sounding brass or tinkling cymbals.”

E.2 “The Future We want” makes even stronger links between democracy and sustainable development. Itslanguage is potentially groundbreaking as a policy guide. In paragraph 10, UN member states state:

“We acknowledge that democracy, good governance and the rule of law, at the national andinternational levels, as well as an enabling environment, are essential for sustainable development...”

E.3 Following this lead, a commitment to nurture and strengthen democracy must be part of any sustainabledevelopment strategy. It is time that the UK government started to make very clear links between democracyand sustainable development both in UK-wide policy and practice, and in efforts to strengthen democraticgovernance for sustainable development through the work of UK Aid. Respect for both present and futuregenerations, as well as the government’s existing commitment to the long-termism inherent in “Horizon Shift”(See http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Nick_Clegg_speech:_Horizon_shift&pPK=f8f7b543-d586–40e2-b4c9-e7be68970bf3), demand it.

E.4 A thriving democracy depends upon sustainable development as much as sustainable developmentdepends on democracy. There are significant risks that the impacts of challenges such as resource scarcity(linked to high energy prices, for example), climate change and the UK’s growing and ageing population couldexacerbate existing stresses and strains upon our system of democracy.

E.5 The extent of the existing stresses and strains can be seen clearly in the 2012 Democratic Audit (Wilks-Heeg, S, Blick, A, and Crone, S (2012). How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit, Liverpool: DemocraticAudit. Online: http://democracy-uk-2012.democraticaudit.com/book/pdf/root/1/toc/1/footer/0). The 2012Democratic Audit notes, among other conclusions that “almost all available indicators suggest thatrepresentative democracy is in long-term, terminal decline, but no viable alternative model of democracycurrently exists”.

E.6 Recent discussions in the House of Commons over House of Lords reform are very far from exemplifyingthe quality of the deliberative discussion that is needed to craft that alternative—in the interests both ofdemocracy and sustainable development. As Alliance for Future Generations member Rupert Read writes inan open letter to Nick Clegg in Open Democracy, here was a situation where “On the one hand, anoverwhelming majority of MPs supported the end: radical reform. On the other hand, it was clear (from the‘timetabling’ vote) that they are not ready to will the means. Thus the extraordinary situation: that, whilereform was overwhelmingly backed, it could not happen.” (see http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/rupert-read/what-next-after-cleggs-lords-reform-open-letter-to-deputy-prime-minister)

E.7 In another area, the government needs to devote much greater attention to the distributional effects ofits commitment to localism. Localism without boundaries; without a clear blueprint at national level for howdistributional choices or trade-offs between adjoining communities are to be made; is a recipe for furthererosion in representative democracy, and does not provide adequate guarantees that a genuinely participatory



democracy will follow. This is a concern that is as relevant to planning decisions as to traffic-calming, asrelevant to major infrastructure development or housing as to investment in job creation.

E.8 For advocates of sustainable development—the government with its commitment to be GreenestGovernment Ever among them—there is a pressing imperative, if democracy is to thrive and survive thepressures that lie ahead, to invest now actively to nurture democracy and co-create the urgently-neededalternatives to our existing system of representative democracy. Institutional innovations for future generationsshould be part of the mix.

E.9 For its part, the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development has launched a process todevelop a Manifesto on Democracy and Sustainable Development (www.fdsd.org/manifesto), withconsultations ongoing until the end of November 2012, and projected launch in early 2013. We want themanifesto to provide a platform for action around the world to ensure that democracy is properly equipped todeliver sustainable development outcomes. We would welcome an opportunity to share insights from theconsultation process with members of the Environmental Audit Committee.

28 August 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Earth Community Trust

1. Executive Summary

1.1 There was a distinct lack of leadership from the UK Government at RIO+20.

1.2 There was a distinct lack of ambition in the Rio+20 outcome document.

1.3 International legally binding measures are needed rather than goals and voluntary commitments.

1.4 The UK Government has a history of pioneering major laws which have global repercussions and changethe course of history forever. For example it abolished slavery, and was a leader in women’s rights movement.Once again the Government can mark itself as a leader in the environmental field, by pioneering new legislationwhich will ensure a smooth transition to the green economy and achieve the future we want, which is set outin the Rio outcome document.

1.5 The UK Government can call for an international law of Ecocide to stand alongside the other fourCrimes Against Peace.

2. Introduction

2.1 I am a lawyer and work for an environmental charity. I studied a degree in law and a Master’s degreein Environmental Law and Policy at UCL, London.

2.2 I attended the Rio+20 Earth Summit as an individual member of the Major Group for Children andYouth and as an employee of the Earth Community Trust as a member of the Major Group for NGOs. Iattended many pre-summit meetings including the Corporate Sustainability Forum and The World Congress onJustice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability also attended by Lord Carnwath amongst otherleaders in the legal field.

2.3 I witnessed a distinct lack of leadership coming from our world leaders, in particular the UK governmentand I was appalled that David Cameron did not attend. I was disappointed that there was a lack of mediacoverage in the UK about Rio +20. The outcome document “The Future We Want” is a weaker reflection ofthe original 1992 Rio Declaration and falls massively short of what was needed. It fails to reflect the urgencyof the situation, it fails to represent the voices of civil society for which the document was meant for, and itlacks concrete measures to achieve the future we want. It is representative of the future we don’t want. This iswhy on the second day of the high-level conference, 150 civil society representatives walked out after mountingfrustrations at the lack of proactive decisions being made in the negotiations. This is why the Major Group forChildren and Youth ripped up the outcome document and adopted an alternative closing statement.

3. Factual Information

3.1 S. 4 of the Rio declaration states: “We recognize that...changing unsustainable and promoting sustainablepatterns of consumption and production, and protecting and managing the natural resource base of economicand social development are the overarching objectives of and essential requirements for sustainabledevelopment.”

3.2 To achieve this legally binding measures are necessary. Voluntary commitments and goals are notworking as highlighted by the Global Environmental Outlook 5. (GEO5)

3.3 GEO-5 launched ahead of Rio+20 assessed 90 of the most important environmental goals and objectivesand found that significant progress had only been made in four; which included eliminating the production anduse of substances that deplete the ozone layer. Part of the success behind this was that the Montreal Protocol



puts a stop to ozone depleting resources full stop on an international level.2 It doesn’t create a trading scheme,it recognises that for the health and well being of people and the planet these substances must be phased out.In addition it allows for the management of the economy so businesses trading in these substances are notharmed by using subsidies and a phase out transition phase. This highlights that certain legally bindingmeasures are incredibly effective as solutions.

3.4 The GEO5 highlights that Efforts to slow the rate or extent of (climate) change ...have not succeeded....responses need to focus on the root causes, the underlying drivers of environmental changes, rather than onlythe pressures or symptoms.3

Law is essential to achieving objectives. The GEO5 recognise that efforts in the Brazilia Amazon have hada significant impact on lowering deforestation rates.4 Brazil has very forward looking legislation includingthe Environmental Crimes Act which holds not only individuals but also corporate persons strictly liable forcommitting various crimes to the environment. However, it is not as effective as it could be due to a lack ofenforcement and corruption. Which suggests that there needs to be an international oversight mechanism forlaw enforcement.

3.5 GEO5 recognises that in order to address Climate Change there is a need to remove perverse/environmentally harmful subsidies, especially on fossil fuels and an increased use of renewable energy.5

There is a distinct call from citizens as well as business to end fossil fuel subsidies. This year the OECD alsoannounced the need to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2015.6 This was also recognised in s.225 of theFuture We want Document.

4. Recommendations for Action by the Government or others which the Submitter would likethe Committee to Consider for inclusion in its Report to the House

4.1 There was a distinct lack of engagement from the UK Government, highlighted by the fact that DavidCameron did not attend the Earth Summit. This reflects that the UK Government does not take environmentalissues seriously, and sends out the wrong message globally.

4.2 One of the key root causes of climate change and environmental degradation is that the number one dutywhich governs our world is essentially that corporations must maximise profit to their shareholders. Profit perse is not a problem but when it is pursued at all costs, even extensive destruction to the environment which isessentially jeopardising all life on Earth, and this is not only legitimised but encouraged by the currentinternational legal framework, this is wrong.

4.3 The UK can be a pioneer in achieving the future we want and addressing many of the needs set forth inthe Rio+20 outcome document, by calling for an international law of Ecocide by amendment to the RomeStatute.

4.4 The legal definition of Ecocide is: The extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystems of agiven territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by theinhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.

4.5 It is already an international crime during war time to cause widespread, long lasting and severe damageto the natural environment. This helps us with the interpretation of what counts as extensive damage ordestruction. The 1977 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use ofEnvironmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) explains what the terms “widespread”, “long-lasting” and“severe” mean:

1. “widespread”: encompassing an area on the scale of several hundred square kilometers;

2. “long-lasting”: lasting for a period of months, or approximately a season; and

3. “severe”: involving serious or significant disruption or harm to human life, natural andeconomic resources or other assets.

4.6 Ecocide should be included as a Crime Against Peace as it leads to resource depletion (as well as manyother things). This in turn leads to conflict. This then leads to war. This leads to more damage and destruction.This is why Ecocide is a Crime Against Peace, because it leads to conflict and war. This cycle will continueuntil we put a stop to the Ecocide.

4.7 There are two types of Ecocide. Human agency and other causes refer to who or what has caused theEcocide. Firstly, where Ecocide is caused by human agency, we can identify who has caused the Ecocide. Forexample the Ecocide due to the Athabasca tar sands is a result of a head of a corporation deciding to operatethere. Secondly, where Ecocide is a result of other causes, we cannot identify a person who has caused theEcocide, for example Ecocide caused by extensive flooding, is essentially an act of God.2 P. 73 UNEP, Global Environmental Outlook 5, Summary for Policy Makers (2012) p 5 http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/GEO5_SPM_

English.pdf4 P 95 146 http://www.iisd.org/gsi/sites/default/files/ffs_report_sustain_energy.pdf



4.8 With regard to the first type of Ecocide, caused by human agency. The law of Ecocide will hold thosepeople who are in a position of superior responsibility criminally liable if they commit Ecocide. It will be acrime of strict liability meaning that intent to commit the act need not be proved for a person to be charged withcommitting Ecocide. Most heads of corporations never intend to commit Ecocide, it is simply a consequence oftheir destructive business practices.

4.9 A law of Ecocide acts as a preventative mechanism to put a stop to business practices giving rise toEcocide. Heads of corporations are unlikely to continue business which is giving rise to Ecocide if they couldpotentially be held personally liable for this, and face criminal prosecution. Shareholders and banks also won’tloan if they could face criminal prosecution for funding Ecocide. It will actually make sense to invest in greenbusiness. Investment and subsidies will be redirected to cleaner energies and create green jobs. When we puta stop at source to ecocides which are destroying our carbon sinks and causing escalating green house gasemissions, this has a knock on effect and will help prevent runaway climate change.

4.10 If Ecocide continues then restorative justice will be used to ensure the damage to people’s lives andthe environment planet is truly addressed and restored as far as possible. Restorative justice and other sanctionswill be explained later.

4.11 A law of Ecocide also imposes a duty on all states to provide assistance to those facing naturallyoccurring ecocides, or Ecocide as a result of other causes.

4.12 This is a law which can work. In 2011 a mock (fictional) trial was held in the Supreme Court ofEngland and Wales, to test how the law would work.

4.13 Ecocide was also examined within the United Nations when the Rome Statute which sets out four coreinternational crimes including genocide was being drafted. It was examined for decades and was going to beimplemented as the fifth crime against peace but was dropped at the last minute in the 1990s. The report whichexplains the history of Ecocide within the UN is attached. [Not published. See http://www.sas.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/hrc/Events%20Documents/Ecocide%20is%20the%20missing%205th%20Crime%20Against%20Peace.pdf

4.14 There are also ten countries which already have made Ecocide a crime through national law. Thesecountries are Viet Nam, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldovaand Russia. However, to make these effective an international law must be called for.

4.15 To amend the Rome Statute it only actually takes one state party standing up and proposing anamendment for it to be reviewed. Then need an additional 80 state parties must agree on this, for it to be madean international crime. The UK can call for this.

4.16 Once an amendment to the Rome Statute has been agreed upon to include Ecocide, there will be aperiod of transition of 5 years, when corporations will be given all the help they need to become the driversfor change and create the solutions for a green economy, and to help them thrive economically under the newlegal and moral framework. This transition period will allow for subsidies to be redirected from dangerousindustrial activity which is causing ecocide, to clean and green business. This will ensure the economy doesn’tcollapse and turns businesses which are currently the problem, into the solution and leaders for change.

4.17 This isn’t about putting a stop to business and closing down development. It is about stoppingdestructive practices and opening the doors to the green economy. S. 228 of the Rio declaration recognises the“importance of strong and effective legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and practices for the miningsector that deliver economic and social benefits and include effective safeguards that reduce social andenvironmental impact”. This is the law to achieve that and is supported by the Executive Chairman andManaging Director of Global Precious Commodities PLC (http://www.gpc-plc.com), an investment companyworth £3 billion which funds mining. He recognises that this is not a law which will stop mining, but whichwill clear up dangerous industrial activity on a global scale, so that business is truly responsible towards theenvironment and will no longer cause ecocide.

4.18 A law of Ecocide is also consistent with Article 58 and will help achieve the green economy, and willalso ensure a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies on a global scale, which will ensure the UK business sectorremains competitive.

4.19 The UK Government should stand up and call for an amendment to the Rome Statute to include aninternational crime of Ecocide.

24 August 2012



Written evidence submitted by the FIA Foundation

Summary— Rio+20 was a potential breakthrough moment for safe and sustainable transport. The Outcome

Document “The Future We Want” notes that “transportation and mobility are central to sustainabledevelopment” and calls for “…access to environmentally sound, safe and affordable transportationas a means to improve social equity, health, resilience of cities, urban-rural linkages and productivityof rural areas…”. Long neglected at international summits, sustainable transport is now coming ofage as policymakers recognise its critical role in ensuring wider development goals.

— The importance of tackling road traffic injuries—which kill and maim millions of people everyyear—was also recognised in the Outcome Document. This was the first time that road safety hasbeen included in a global sustainable development summit communiqué.

— The largest single Commitment made at Rio+20, by the seven multilateral development banks, wasa pledge of US$175 billion to “help to develop more sustainable transport systems” in developingcountries over the next decade. As the UK is one of the largest donors to the MDBs, DfID supportfor this objective, and close scrutiny of delivery of the Commitment, is essential.

— Rio+20 agreed to move towards new “Sustainable Development Goals” as a possible post-2015framework for delivering the international community’s development objectives. Working groups,including one co-chaired by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, are now preparingrecommendations for the post-2015 world.

— A Sustainable Development Goal for Safe and Sustainable Transport must be an outcome of theRio+20 process and the subsequent reviews. Incorporating road safety (including the goal for theUN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–20 already approved by the UN General Assembly);efforts to improve fuel efficiency of vehicles, and fuel quality; and measures to encourage non-motorised transport, an SDG for Safe and Sustainable Transport can play an important role inimproving public health, protecting local environments and tackling climate change.

1. The FIA Foundation is a UK registered charity and global philanthropy working in the fields of roadsafety and sustainable mobility. The Foundation provides the secretariat for both the Commission for GlobalRoad Safety and the Global Fuel Efficiency Initiative, and is a leading NGO member of the UN Road SafetyCollaboration, the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles and the Partnership for Sustainable Low CarbonTransport.

2. Rio+20 was a potential breakthrough moment for safe and sustainable transport. Transport had beenlargely neglected as an issue at the original 1992 Earth Summit, and again in Johannesburg in 2002, and wasnot included as a goal or recognised as a significant issue in the Millennium Development Goals. However, atRio+20 the Outcome Document “The Future We Want” notes that “transportation and mobility are central tosustainable development” and calls for “…access to environmentally sound, safe and affordable transportationas a means to improve social equity, health, resilience of cities, urban-rural linkages and productivity of ruralareas…”. Long neglected at international summits, sustainable transport is now coming of age as policymakersrecognise its critical role in ensuring wider development goals.

3. The importance of tackling road traffic injuries—which kill and maim millions of people every year,particularly in middle and low income countries with rapidly increasing levels of road traffic—was alsorecognised in the Outcome Document. Rio+20 was the first time that road safety has been included in a globalsustainable development summit communique. According to the World Health Organization road crashes killan estimated 1.3 million people each year and injure between 20–50 million more. The vast majority—morethan ninety%—of these casualties are occurring in middle-income and low-income countries where road safetyawareness and the capacity to tackle the problem is low, and where both traffic levels and road casualties arerising rapidly (Global Status Report on Road Safety, WHO, 2009).

4. Despite the absence, until now, of road safety from the mainstream sustainable development agenda thereis a global mandate for action to reduce global road traffic injuries. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/64/255 has established the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–20 with a goal to “stabilise and reduce”road deaths by 2020. The UK was one of the 100 countries which co-sponsored the resolution. Participatingin the launch of the Decade of Action, in May 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron described the Decade ofAction as “a vital opportunity to implement the policies that can make road traffic safer and more sustainableand protect future generations”.

5. In its Resolution proclaiming the Decade of Action for Road Safety, the United Nations General Assemblydescribed road traffic injuries as a “major public health problem with a broad range of social and economicconsequences which, if unaddressed, may affect the sustainable development of countries and hinder progresstowards the Millennium Development Goals”. According to leading development experts and internationalagencies, the impacts of failure to address road safety can go beyond the immediate toll of death and disabilityto undermine policies on poverty alleviation, child survival and development, and climate change.

6. For example, the Special Adviser to the United Nations on the Millennium Development Goals, ProfessorJeffrey Sachs, has recently described road crashes as “a crucial part of the overall effort” to improve theenvironment and quality of life in developing countries (Make Roads Safe, 2011). Dr Kevin Watkins, of



Brookings Institution, a former development adviser to Oxfam, the UN Development Programme andUNESCO, estimates that, based on a simple calculation of the relationship between GDP growth and povertyreduction, the economic costs associated with road traffic crashes (at least US$100 billion a year in fordeveloping countries) are keeping between 12–72 million people in poverty. Dr Watkins describes road crashesas “holding back progress towards the international development targets on a global scale”, citing the impactof road injuries on children—260,000 of whom are killed and at least one million seriously injured each year—and the burden on health services of dealing with road traffic injuries as having a serious impact on deliveryof MDG goals 2, for universal primary education, and 4, 5 & , covering child and maternal mortality and publichealth (The Missing Link: Road Traffic Injuries & the Millennium Development Goals, Watkins, K; 2010).

7. Road safety is one part of a wider sustainable mobility agenda vital for environmental protection andefforts to tackle climate change. In urban areas managing vehicle speed to provide safe and accessible streetsfor non-motorised transport users, combined with road design measures that protect and encourage walkingand cycling (such as pavements, safe crossing points and bicycle lanes), will both reduce casualties amongst“vulnerable road users” and support greener modes of transport, reducing modal shift to motorised vehicles.Dr Watkins, the author of the 2008 “Human Development Report” on climate change for the UNDP, alsohighlights that transport policy “can play a central role in combating climate change not just by creating fuel-efficiency incentives and supporting the development of low carbon fuels, but also by supporting thedevelopment of safe public transport and creating the conditions for safe non-motorised transport. When safesidewalks and cycle lanes are available, people are far more likely to undertake trips by walking or cycling”,(The Missing Link: Road Traffic Injuries & the Millennium Development Goals, Watkins, K; 2010).

8. The UN Environment Programme is also urging a change in emphasis in transport planning in developingnations to support and protect non-motorised mobility and to encourage safe and affordable public transport(low income families in developing countries can currently spend up to 25% of their income on publictransport), citing the benefits for a range of environmental objectives. UNEP points out that “cities with abetter modal mix between cars, public transport, walking and cycling have lower energy use per capita. Byincorporating non-motorised transport facilities in the transport grid, a large, lasting impact can be made onfuel use, congestion, air quality and CO2 emissions”. Furthermore, UNEP argues that “designating road spacefor pedestrians and cyclists in proportion to the demand for non-motorised transport is crucial. It is also oneof the most cost-effective actions for saving hundreds of thousands of lives. For example, the top twocountermeasures for improving safety in Nairobi, Kenya, recommended by the International Road AssessmentProgramme (iRAP) are pedestrian crossings and sidewalks”, (“Share the Road: Invest in Walking & Cycling”,UN Environment Programme and FIA Foundation, 2011).

9. Despite the projections of significant increases in car use—with global vehicle ownership doubling in thenext ten years, entirely in developing countries—the majority of people in low-income countries or in thesignificant low-income segments of the population in middle-income countries are unlikely to ever own a car.Yet it is these people who are overwhelmingly affected by road traffic crashes and other consequences of roadtraffic, including poor air quality (which is estimated by the World Health Organization to contribute to up to1.3 million deaths a year). Designing safe transportation, urban planning and land use policies that meet thecommuting, social and healthcare needs of this “green majority” is a pre-requisite for building the “greeneconomy” of the future and for achieving social justice.

10. It is significant, therefore, that the largest single Voluntary Commitment made at Rio+20, by the sevenmultilateral development banks, was a pledge of US$175 billion to “help to develop more sustainable transportsystems” in middle and low income countries over the next decade. This represents an important policy shiftby the development banks, and as the UK is one of the largest donors to the MDBs, DfID support for thisobjective, and close scrutiny of delivery of the Commitment, is essential to its success. In their Joint Statementthe MDBs urged inclusion of sustainable transport as a priority: “We call upon the international community toadopt sustainable transport as a priority sectoral focus within the new global agenda for sustainabledevelopment to be drawn up at Rio+20. We also propose that at least one of the new sustainable developmentgoals (SDGs) to be formulated should be for sustainable transport”. (Joint Statement to the Rio+20 UnitedNations Conference on Sustainable Development by the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank,CAF-Development Bank of Latin America, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EuropeanInvestment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank, and World Bank, June 2012).

11. The Rio+20 Conference agreed to design new “Sustainable Development Goals” as a possible post-2015framework for delivering the international community’s development objectives. Working groups, includingone co-chaired by the Prime Minister, David Cameron, are now preparing recommendations for a post-2015international development framework.

12. A Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for Safe and Sustainable Transport must be one outcome of theRio+20 process and the subsequent reviews. An SDG should promote road safety, through the framework ofthe current UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020; efforts to improve fuel efficiency of vehicles,such as the Global Fuel Efficiency Initiative led by UNEP, the International Energy Agency, the InternationalTransport Forum and the FIA Foundation; efforts to improve air quality through investing in cleaner fuels andpromoting cleaner technologies, for example through the Partnership for Clean Fuels and Vehicles; andmeasures to encourage non-motorised transport, such as the UNEP-led Share the Road initiative and the workof the Partnership for Sustainable Low Carbon Transport. All of these initiatives, which develop knowledge



and capacity within governments and foster public/private partnerships, would benefit from the increasedvisibility and political commitment that an SDG would provide.

13. An SDG for Safe and Sustainable Transport can play an important role in improving public health,protecting local environments and tackling climate change. We would therefore urge your Committee toencourage the UK Government to support a Safe and Sustainable Transport SDG as a lasting and positivelegacy of the Rio+20 Conference designed to meet one of the major challenges of the 21st Century.

29 August 2012

Written evidence submitted by Christian Aid

Summary— Christian Aid welcomes the inquiry, and the important work of the Environmental Audit

Committee in ensuring the UK Government is held to account on its performance at the Rio+20 conference.

— We welcome the UK Government’s preparations for the conference, especially its cross-Whitehall engagement with civil society and other stakeholders.

— Overall the outcome of Rio+20 was disappointing in its lack of urgency to address the problemsof climate change, resilience to disasters, unsustainable consumption and production andinequality of access to resources we face now and into the future.

— Nonetheless, Christian Aid welcomes some of the concrete and positive outcomes such as theSustainable Development Goals and Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Of greatest importanceis the actions governments, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders take fromnow on to deliver the Rio+20 legacy on these issues. We look forward to working with the UKgovernment to develop both of these agendas.

— The UK government should focus on facilitating multi stakeholder consultation in the UK andinternationally in order to make a more informed and legitimate contribution to the Post-2015process including the SDGs.

— The UK’s announcement of mandatory reporting of carbon emissions by UK registeredcompanies is very welcome. Christian Aid and its supporters have campaigned for 6 years forthis outcome.

— A focus on disaster resilience in the Rio+20 outcome is encouraging, but will depend on actionsand finance moving forwards from Rio+20 to see the results. We call on the UK governmentto be more pro-active at including disaster resilience on the post-2015 development framework.

— We are disappointed, however, at the UK and the wider Rio+20 conference’s response to theUN Sustainable Energy for All initiative.

1 Introduction

1.1 For the past For the past seven years Christian Aid has been campaigning in the UK and internationallywith our global partners on sustainability and climate change, with a focus on environmental justice. In ourrecent report “The rich, the poor and the future of the earth: Equity in a constrained world”7 we outlinedthe fundamental linkages between environmental degradation and inequality at global, national and

2. Question 1: How well the Rio declaration—“The Future We Want”—matched the actions that wereneeded.

2.1 Christian Aid views the Rio+20 Earth Summit as a key step towards ensuring a sustainable andprosperous future for all. However, the outcome of Rio+20 was disappointing in its lack of urgency to addressthe problems of climate change, resilience to disasters, unsustainable consumption and production andinequality of access to resources we face now and into the future. There were some concrete and positiveoutcomes—both the Sustainable Development Goals and Corporate Sustainability Reporting were particularlywelcomed by Christian Aid. The difference these commitments and statements can make depends on the actionsgovernments, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders take from now on to deliver the Rio+20legacy. There were also some disappointing outcomes, such as the lack of support for the UN SecretaryGeneral’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative (SE4ALL).

Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL)

2.2 The urgency of climate change means that support for the energy sector in developing countries must bebased on low-carbon interventions,8 such as investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It isabsolutely essential that this happens in a way that makes energy accessible and affordable for the poorest andmost marginalised. The Sustainable Energy for All initiative has the potential to make this happen.7 http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/constrained-world.pdf8 http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/Time-for-climate-justice-7.pdf



2.3 Ahead of Rio+20 the United Nations Secretary General initiative on SE4ALL was billed as possibly thefirst sustainable development goal. SE4ALL combines targets for universal access to clean cooking andelectricity with low-carbon targets of doubling the use of renewable energy and doubling energy efficiencyimprovements. However, the Rio+20 outcome document simply “noted” the SE4ALL. This is verydisappointing and lacking the urgency required to stimulate rapid acceleration of sustainable energy access indeveloping countries.

2.4 The SE4ALL initiative so far has had very marginal engagement of NGOs and wider civil society atinternational or country level, particularly when compared to the dominant voice of the private sector in theprocess. The SE4ALL Action Agenda and the presentations on SE4ALL made at the Rio+20 Summit haveonly re-enforced this concern. The main SE4ALL event at Rio+20 had no civil society speakers, while a numberof large private sector company representatives spoke to promote the public-private partnership approach.

2.5 Christian Aid and a number of our Southern partners are extremely concerned that the focus on public-private partnership, without adequate civil society engagement, will result primarily in conventional centralisedmodels of energy delivery—including large coal, gas and hydro power, and industrial biofuels—and not deliversufficiently on either low-carbon or energy poverty goals.

Green Economy

2.6 The distinguishing theme at Rio+20 was “Green Economy” or “Green Growth” but this key theme wasnot addressed sufficiently to have the impact that is needed to set the world on a new trajectory. For example,Rio+20 did very little to further clarify and define the concept of a Green Economy. A worrying recurrentfeature of the debate was the prioritising of economic growth over environmental impacts; Rio missed theopportunity of establishing how both are intrinsically linked, and are having a massive impact across the worldespecially in developing countries.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting

2.7 It is a positive step that there is a paragraph in “The Future We Want” acknowledging the importance ofcorporate sustainability reporting (CSR). Paragraph 47 recognises the importance of corporate sustainabilityreporting and encourages companies to develop models for best practice and facilitate action for the integrationof sustainability reporting. This not only gives another signal to business, governments and civil society thatsustainability reporting can have an impact on both green and economic outcomes, but it also encourages jointdevelopment of frameworks for action and measurement across different sectors. Though this is a positive step,it does not yet match the actions that are needed for a sustainable future. What is important is the follow-upprocess to develop global framework for CSR. It is regrettable that other Governments did not show the sameambition set out by the UK Government in its own announcement on mandatory reporting (see more below).

Resilience, adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR)

2.8 Disaster resilience is a necessary prerequisite for development and economic stability. Disasters reduceeconomic, environmental and social capital and therefore undermine or even reverse developmental progress.This is particularly important as climate change progresses rapidly and increasing populations are exposed tohazards from their natural environment such as drought and flooding.

2.9 The strong commitment to DRR and resilience in the Rio+20 outcome document is a significant positivedevelopment, especially the recognition of the importance of integrating DRR and resilience into long-termdevelopment. However, this recognition is not made as one of the top line priorities early on, instead hiddenin paragraphs near the end of the document. To ensure resilience is integrated into sustainable development ina way that safeguards gains from the risk of disasters the issue should have been a stronger priority for thewhole document and political process. Therefore, we do not think the text matches the actions that are necessaryon resilience, adaptation and DRR.

2.10 The text has governments calling on a variety of actors—from government to civil society, the scientificcommunity, academia and the private sector—to take measures to reduce the exposure of people, infrastructureand other national assets to risk, in line with the Hyogo Framework for Action and any post-2015 frameworkfor disaster risk reduction that might follow (UNISDR). Whilst this is a positive recognition of the linkages tothe Hyogo Framework for Action and global commitments on DRR, there were few new commitments bystates themselves to deliver greater resilience and DRR actions or funds in this area.

2.11 Another element which did not live up to the actions necessary was the fact that the emphasis was puton recommendations for top down government policy rather than in facilitating local action and delivery.9

Finally, for DRR and resilience efforts to really have a lasting effect they have to be part of the mainstreamdevelopment discourse and owned across the sustainable development agenda. The side lining of these issueswithin the outcome document reflects the continued marginalisation of the issue for humanitarian work.9 The Characteristics of Climate Finance, Christian Aid, November 2011. http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/time-for-climate-

justice-finance.pdf



Sustainable Development Goals

2.12 The outcome on sustainable development goals, as outlined in “The Future We Want” is an excellentfirst step in the process to ensure sustainability is central to the post-2015 development agenda. The outcomedocument lays out a process for developing SDGs, and does mention that it should be coherent with the “UNDevelopment Agenda beyond 2015” but it was disappointing that the text did not explicitly state therelationship between the SDGs and the post-2015 process. The announcement of an intergovernmental workinggroup on SDGs provides for an open and inclusive structure (a country led process with a remit to includecivil society views) that is missing from the High Level Panel on Post-2015. We will work to ensure that theworking group takes time to support and listen to what citizens and stakeholders want for our sustainablefuture. The text missed out on some key opportunities to link various upcoming development agendas, but ithas begun to mark the path for goals to replace the MDGs which will be developed in an inclusive manner,which we think is absolutely essential.

3. Question 2: The role played by the UK Government in the run up to, and during, the Summit.

3.1 With the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment focussing the UK agendaon the SDGs in the post-2015 process, GDP+ and natural resource accounting, the UK negotiating team activelyengaged on these issues at the Summit, including through the EU delegation. However, the UK delegationplayed a low-key role in the intersessional negotiations in the run up to the Rio+20 Summit, particularly whencompared to previous Summits where the UK has played a much more instrumental role in developing theconference agenda.

3.2 While Christian Aid did not have access to the negotiations of the EU delegations which were held inprivate, we understand that the UK played an active role in many priority areas, and the Government has madea strong commitment to lead international work on sustainable development goals.

3.3 We welcome the frequent and open engagement the Government led across Whitehall and with multiplestakeholders in preparation for the conference. We recommend that a similar process be maintained throughoutthe development of SDG’s/post-2015development framework. We were pleased that there were civil societymembers included in the UK delegation, as had been the custom at previous Summits.

Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL)

3.4 The UK government’s support for the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative has been muted. Thoughministers have broadly supported the aspirations of the SE4All initiative, they have not put commitmentsbehind achieving the goals themselves. This was apparent both at Rio+20 and at the UN High Level Panel onSE4ALL held in London in April 2012. Slightly more positively, a limited allocation of the DFID/DECCInternational Climate Fund (ICF) of £25 million towards the World Bank Scaling Up of Renewable Energyfund has been announced, but this is still well below the commitments from Norway, USA and the EU amongother high level donors. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the UK priority is to leverage privatesector engagement in delivering sustainable energy. We encourage the UK Government to be vocal about itssupport for this initiative and work with its European partners and the UN to rally broader support, in thecontext of the post-MDG discussions.

Green Economy

3.5 It was quite significant that there was barely any mention of and no concrete actions or policies on theGreen Economy or inclusive green growth at the concurrent G20 summit. The UK missed an opportunity tochampion this growth agenda in that forum. For the world to move forward in this arena the G20 will need totake up this policy agenda more vigorously so that there is focus on action and finance rather than simplydiscussion. We encourage the UK Government to take this agenda forward in the context of the G20.

3.6 The UK government focused on Natural Capital Accounting and GDP+ as issues within Green Economy,and they have done very well to set up a Natural Capital Committee with the support of the World Bank priorto the Rio+20 summit. During Rio+20 DPM Nick Clegg spoke at the Natural Capital Summit about how wehave been undervaluing the damage we do to natural resources because we don’t have a system of measurementbeyond GDP.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR)

3.7 Christian Aid strongly welcomes the UK commitment to implement the mandatory carbon reportingprovisions of the Climate Change Act (2008). The announcement demonstrated leadership and we look forwardto rapid and effective implementation. Christian Aid has been campaigning for mandatory carbon reportingsince 2006 and have requested a meeting with the Secretary of State subsequent to Rio +20 in order to discussits implementation.

3.8 The UK government in the run up to the conference and during the conference made encouraging noisesrelated to corporate sustainability reporting. Importantly, the government backed proposals that would pushcompanies to report on their environmental strategies and performance. However, slightly disappointing is thatthe government backed the “report or explain” model (on the basis of limiting the regulatory burden on



companies) rather than a mandatory, compulsory style of reporting which is preferred by Christian Aid. Finally,the inclusion of Aviva Investors as a member of the government’s delegation is worth noting. This action gavea signal as to the importance of Sustainability Reporting.

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Resilience

3.9 The lack of references in the UK government’s submission to Rio+20 on DRR and resilience underminedtheir global leadership on this issue and the aims of integrating DRR and resilience in development goals.Where other governments recognised clearly the links between delivering on DRR and resilience andsustainable development, the UK government failed to do this and missed a significant opportunity to progressefforts at integration being championed by Andrew Mitchell and UK government in other fora.


3.10 The UK government was an active participant in the discussions around sustainable development goalsbefore and during Rio+20. The UK was working closely with the Colombian government to hone their proposalon SDGs, and more recently the government was very responsive to and supportive of the idea of having oneprocess and one set of goals leading to the post-2015 development agenda (rather than separate post-2015 andSDG processes and goals). Christian Aid would have welcomed a more vocal UK position in support ofmerging the two processes.

3.11 The fact that the UK was interested in the “nexus” issues of Food, Water and Energy for the SDGs wasquite positive as they form some of the essential foundation of sustainable development and they clearlydemonstrate the need to think about issues as interconnected in order to tackle poverty and ensure a sustainableand equitable future for all.

4. Question 3: What role the UK Government should now play internationally in taking forward the Rioagenda, including on the Sustainable Development Goals and through the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanshipof the UN Secretary-General’s “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015”.

4.1 As mentioned earlier, the document lacked the urgency of action needed to tackle critical issues ofsustainability and poverty reduction, but there are some promising processes named in the text. The key nowwill be the actions that governments, civil society and other actors take to ensure these processes actuallyturn into concrete and successful actions. With that in mind, the UK government can play a role in thefollowing areas:

Sustainable Energy for ALL (SE4ALL)

4.2 It is possible that the SE4ALL initiative could be integrated into the SDGs. Therefore it is importantthat SE4ALL sets high standards for implementation and delivering impact.

4.3 The UK support towards the UN SE4ALL initiative has prioritised public private partnership approaches.In delivering high impact for the SE4ALL goals on both universal access to energy and the climate changetargets, it would be far more effective to have public-private-civil society partnerships. To achieve high impactand value for money in delivering the SE4ALL goals, civil society plays a very effective role in ensuringdelivery of energy to the energy poor and in holding government and private sector to account on deliveringdevelopment outcomes. There are numerous examples of scaled up renewable energy access projects whichcan best demonstrate this approach, including the Biogas Support Programme in Nepal, Toyola cook stoves inGhana or micro hydro power in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Peru.

4.4 The UK government should play a leading role in encouraging and ensuring civil society engagement inthe SE4ALL initiative, and ensure the governance structures of the initiative have a greater balance ofparticipation between government, civil society and private sector. In addition best practice in stakeholderengagement is established at a national level when developing national implementation plans.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSR)

4.5 Of primary importance, the UK Government should follow through swiftly on its Rio announcementsand implement the mandatory carbon reporting for UK listed companies. Furthermore, it is important that theUK government communicates the next steps in delivering and advancing sustainability or corporate socialresponsibility reporting in relation to the commitments in paragraph 47. The UK should join Brazil, Denmark,France and South Africa in becoming “friends of paragraph 47”, and so work together to develop effectiveglobal approaches to CSR.

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Resilience

4.6 Both the SDGs and the post-2015 process will need to deliver a framework or set of goals that incorporatea strong understanding of risk management and resilience that cross-cut all priority areas/goals. Without thisany goals will be systematically undermined by the shocks and stresses increasingly affecting all countries butparticularly those countries most vulnerable and exposed; often developing countries.



4.7 As the Hyogo Framework for Action also comes up for review and refocus in 2015, it is essential thatthis process informs and is incorporated into plans for the post 2015 and SDG agenda. The UK governmentand the Prime Minister in his role as co-Chair should:

— Prioritise disaster resilience as an essential prerequisite for delivering development goals andsafeguarding achievements. Disasters reduce economic, environmental and social capital, andtherefore they impede, undermine and reverse developmental progress.

— Integrate concrete commitments to deliver disaster risk reduction (DRR) and resilience buildingas part of a sustainable approach to disaster management globally, including through imbeddingthem across the SDGs and post-2015 processes, through committing resources and throughwider commitments to sustainable development and green growth.

Sustainable Development Goals and the Post-2015 Agenda

4.8 One of the most important aspects of this will be ensuring that whilst there may be two processes at theoutset, that these processes are very closely linked and are in regular communication, and that they clearly andcoherently turn into one set of goals by 2015.

4.9 The HLP will be setting the overarching vision of the post-2015 development agenda, and the PrimeMinister as one of the three co-chairs must put sustainability at the heart of that vision. The UK Governmentwill support the PM in this through the work being done in DEFRA, DFID and DECC, and through the newlyformed Post-2015 team in Cabinet. Civil society organisations such as Christian Aid and networks such asBeyond-2015 must have a clear process to input into all of these bodies as well as to the PM himself and hisspecial envoy, Michael Anderson.

4.10 On SDGs, we do not yet know if the UK government will have a seat on the 30 memberintergovernmental open working group. Either way, the UK will have a key role to play. If the UK is part ofthe intergovernmental working group on SDGs, they will have a really great opportunity to provide high qualityinput both through civil society consultation (UK and overseas) and through the existing expertise withingovernment. If the UK is not part of that group, gathering citizens input from the UK and developing countrieswill be a critical role. With this input the UK can contribute to the EU’s thinking, as well as maximise theinfluence of the Prime Minister in his role on the High Level Panel. The UK government should focus onfacilitating multi stakeholder consultation in the UK and internationally in order to make a more informed andlegitimate contribution to the Post-2015 process including the SDGs.

28 August 2012

Written evidence submitted by Sightsavers

Introduction

Two of our staff members attended the Rio+20 UN Sustainable Development Conference, and theirexperiences are reflected in the submission that follows. We were also involved in some joint civil societyactivities prior to the conference and engaged with the BOND Rio+20 group, chaired by Stakeholder Forum.Our engagement with the Rio+20 conference was mainly focussed around neglected tropical diseases, and inparticular the links between Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) and water and sanitation, and the need toinclude disabled people in sustainable development.

The Declaration

Disability in the declaration

1. One in five of the world’s poorest people are disabled.10 At least 80% of the world’s disabled populationlive in developing countries. Living in poverty can make people more vulnerable to disabling conditions; atthe same time environmental, societal or attitudinal barriers can combine to limit the opportunities open todisabled people, meaning that they stay poor.

2. In developing countries, disabled people experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, and faceexclusion from mainstream social, economic and political life. Disability affects all eight of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), and the exclusion of disabled people seriously undermines efforts to achievethem. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which is ratified by the UK,states that international development programmes and cooperation should be inclusive of and accessible todisabled people, including those who are blind and visually impaired. There is, however, no reference to peoplewith disabilities in either the MDGs themselves or the accompanying policies and guidelines, and they havebeen insufficiently included in other development programmes and processes.

3. We welcome the inclusion of disabled people in statements on green economy, education, and sustainablecities; the commitment to engage disabled people as a key stakeholder in sustainable development; and the10 Ann Elwan. Social Protection Discussion Paper Series: Poverty and Disability: A Survey of the Literature. December 1999

[accessed 21 mar 2012]. Available from: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/280658–1172608138489/PovertyDisabElwan.pdf



mention of the need for “meaningful involvement” of people with disabilities as part of civil society (point43). However, overall there was limited focus on the needs of disabled people, especially on key areas such asemployment, technology transfer, disaster risk reduction and food security, with only five mentions of disabledpeople in the outcome document. This could and should have been much higher.

4. The emphasis on human rights within the document is welcome but needs to be put into practice. The listof previous conventions to which the Rio+20 signatories re-committed themselves did not include the UNCRPD, which is a serious omission in any document committed to ensuring human rights for the world’s mostvulnerable people.

5. The re-commitment to the Millennium Development Goals is welcome in its avoidance of duplication orcompetition. However, the MDGs are only a partial statement of the actions needed to ensure development forall. Overall, none of the commitments repeated in the start of the outcome document relate to the needs andrights of people with disabilities; given that they are 15% of the world’s population and disproportionatelylikely to suffer the effects of ill health and poverty, this is a serious flaw.

6. Point 104 refers to the use of gender-sensitive indicators. It is widely accepted that the measurement ofappropriate data on different target groups is an important way of catalysing progress and holding developmentactors accountable for their promises. At the moment there is no systematic collection of data on the impactof development, including the MDGs, on disabled people. This is something we hope will be included both inwhatever replaces the MDGs and in any final Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or other frameworkemerging from Rio. However, based on this document, this does not seem likely, meaning that this group willmiss out once again.

7. Sightsavers agrees with point 107 of the document that reducing inequality and social exclusion areessential to eradicate poverty. Social protection that helps to achieve this would be a positive step, particularlyif it is designed to take account of the needs of those disabled people who could benefit from it and targetedappropriately. However, social protection on its own is not sufficient. Disabled people, as the rest of theircommunities, need to be able to access a full range of services such as health and education, and to be able tolift themselves and their families out of poverty and dependence.

Recommendations

— Disabled people, including those who are blind and visually impaired, must be included in theoperationalisation of all commitments in the document, especially those on employment, foodsecurity, disaster risk reduction, water and sanitation, social protection, health, and education.

— Future international negotiations on development must take account of the UN Convention ofthe Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), in particular article 11, which relates tosituations of risk and humanitarian emergencies, compelling signatories to take “all necessarymeasures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities” in such situations;and article 32, which states that signatories must ensure that all international developmentprogrammes are “inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities”.

— All targets, monitoring and indicators used to measure the progress of sustainable developmentefforts must specifically measure the impact on disabled people.

Food security

8. People with disabilities are among the most vulnerable groups in times of food insecurity. They experiencethe same challenges as non-disabled members of the population but are also vulnerable to additional risks,such as neglect or abandonment, especially in mobile, hungry populations. Blind people may struggle to findout where food is being distributed; if they manage to find a distribution centre they are likely to be atthe back of the queue. A lack of proper nutrition has serious effects for children, and can lead to stuntingand blindness.

9. Disabled people should be central to food security and sustainable development, and be supported toidentify and address their needs. This includes working with Blind People’s Organisations (BPOs) and DisabledPeople’s Organisations (DPOs) to ensure that food security programmes are inclusive of disabled people—forexample, making sure that community grain stores are made wheelchair accessible, and that blind people areincluded in community food committees.

Case study: Food Security in Mali

In Mali Sightsavers has supported disabled people to run their village grain bank, thereby ensuringthat they contribute to community food security and are also able to meet their own food needs. Thecooperative nature of the programme ensures that disabled people are central to the provision ofaffordable grain to their community.

Project Rehabilitation Kati, in partnership with the Mali Union of the Blind (UMAV) has beenrunning since 1995, and it spans 46 villages in Mali. Its remit is to teach blind and visually impairedpeople mobility skills, and provide training in things to enable them to earn a living: such asgardening, agriculture, animal farming, fishing and craft techniques. The project also creates supportcommittees for blind people, to make sure they are listened to and involved in the development oftheir communities.



In 2008, among the activities that came about as the result of these support committees were threecereal banks in the villages of Farabana, Sanankoroba, and Tangala. Last year over 10 tonnes ofcereal was sent to the banks.

Mamoutou Traore lives in Farabana, and lost his sight ten years ago. “It was a few years ago that Ifirst heard about the concept of grain banks,” he says. “I met a friend from the village past the riverwho told me all the happiness his people know, especially during the lean period, because of theinstallation of the bank. Thus, during a meeting with UMAV and Sightsavers and the supportcommunity, we suggested a cereal bank for the blind. The bank allows us to trade in grain, givingour community a rate cheaper than the general market. It means grain is always available. This bankhas changed our lives, and it means that blind people no longer have to worry about feeding ourfamilies, we have fixed the problem ourselves!”

10. It is regrettable, therefore, that in the outcome document there are no specific actions to address theneeds of marginalised or vulnerable groups such as disabled people. Without specific actions to target assistanceto the most marginalised, these efforts are likely to only be partially successful. We would hope, therefore, thatas these commitments are actualised their impact on different population groups is monitored and thosemanaging them held to account.

Recommendations

— Work to develop food security programmes should involve blind people’s organisations anddisabled people’s organisations to ensure that their needs are identified and addressed.

— The potential of disabled people (including those who are blind and visually impaired) tocontribute to the food security needs of their community should be recognised and made use of.

Water

11. Access to clean water and sanitation is a key determinant of health. As well as impacting on water-bornediseases such as dysentery and cholera, clean water and sanitation play a key role in preventing the spread ofneglected tropical diseases (NTDs), which affect one billion people worldwide. The issue of accessibility is alsovital; sanitation and water facilities need to be accessible to all population groups, including disabled people.

12. Over one billion people are infected with one or more of the 17 diseases defined by the World HealthOrganization (WHO) as neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). NTDs can cause pain and chronic disability. Theycan impair childhood growth and mental development and hinder economic growth. Parasite-infected waterand poor sanitation encourages the development and transmission of nine NTDs. Good water, sanitation andhygiene (WASH) practices are critical to NTD elimination and control strategies, including the elimination oftrachoma. The integration of WASH efforts into NTD control programmes is vital to breaking transmissioncycles and achieving sustainable control and elimination.

13. In order to be effective WASH services must be accessible to the entire community they serve, includingdisabled people. Accessibility often requires only very minor alterations such as the installation of handrails infacilities, elevated wells, or wider doorways to latrines. Inclusive WASH services benefit all communitymembers including children, pregnant women and older people. If included from the design and engineeringstages, these adaptations can be very low cost.

14. Communication around good hygiene and sanitation behaviour must also be inclusive of all communitymembers, including disabled people. For example, materials should be made available in Braille, large-print oraudio versions so that blind and visually-impaired people can access them.

Case study: Inclusive sanitation in Tienfala

Over the years, more than 5,000 people left the village of Tienfala in Mali to escape the blindingeffects of trachoma and river blindness. Even government representatives were unwilling to be postedthere because of these diseases.

Sightsavers worked in partnership with WaterAid, the Malian Ministries of Health and Social Welfareand different disability, development and sanitation organisations. The existing well, which keptdrying up making irrigation difficult, was replaced with a new one adapted for people with disabilitiessuch as blindness, and accessible latrines have been installed. This was the result of blind people’sinput as to what was needed for the town’s development.

The whole community has supported accessible water and sanitation services for disabled people.They have ensured that the wells used by disabled community members have higher walls—so thatblind community members can locate them easily using a white cane; they have made the path tothe well flat and accessible to wheelchair users, it also has stones laid out on either side that crunchunder-foot as you approach—signalling to visually impaired people that you are nearing the well.The latrines for disabled community members are accessible too, meaning that the access point iswide enough to fit a wheelchair, and the latrines themselves are raised off the ground to make themeasier to locate and use.

This new well has played a pivotal role in the transformation of community life in Tienfala. As wellas supporting gardening activities (which can now run all year long), it also serves the general



population with regard to washing, cooking and drinking, and perhaps most importantly of all, theE (environmental hygiene) element of the SAFE strategy, to prevent trachoma.

Since 1995, Sightsavers has supported the distribution of Mectizan® to prevent river blindness inMali, and today the disease is fully controlled in Tienfala. Trachoma has also virtually beeneliminated. Blind people not only have a valuable means of income by way of the garden, but arealso actively involved in the community’s sanitation issues. This once deserted village is now fullof life as a result of this collaborative project.

15. Sightsavers welcomes the inclusion of water and sanitation as a unified right in the Rio+20 discussions.The recognition of the importance of water and sanitation “for human health” in the outcome document is alsovery welcome; however, there is no mention of the critical role water and sanitation plays in the transmissionof neglected tropical diseases, as outlined above. Point 138, in the section on health, refers to “the social andenvironmental determinants of health”; improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour change play an importantrole in the control and elimination of NTDs, particularly diseases such as trachoma and schistosomiasis.

16. The document mentions the importance of investment in infrastructure for water and sanitation. It isvital that this infrastructure is made inclusive and accessible. Modifying facilities to be accessible is feasiblebut it is more cost effective if accessibility is included in the initial design stage.

17. The Sustainable Cities section of the document has positive language regarding the importance of “allpeople” having “access to basic services, housing and mobility” and “a safe and healthy living environmentfor all, particularly children, youth, women and the elderly and disabled” (points 134–135). This “safe andhealthy living environment” must of course include safe water and proper sanitation facilities; facilities whichtake account of the ways in which disease is spread and help to minimise transmission and which are designedto be accessible to all members of their communities.

Recommendations

— Efforts to improve access to sanitation and clean water should be particularly targeted atcommunities where trachoma, onchocerciasis and schistosomiasis are endemic.

— Sanitation work should be integrated with initiatives on trachoma, onchocerciasis and otherwater-related NTDS to ensure greater impact and value for money.

— For access to water and sanitation to be effective, steps should be taken to ensure they areprovided to entire populations, including disabled people.

— Disabled people, including those who are blind and visually impaired, should be included inthe design of facilities for their communities.

Health and population

18. The high profile of health in the outcome document is welcome; the role played by the World HealthOrganisation in this regard was very effective and could be replicated in future international negotiations.

19. There are some welcome statements in this section; in addition to upholding people’s right to health, italso recognises that health is a contributor to the achievement of sustainability goals. Health is one of thepositive effects of sustainable development—this is seen in the critical role of water in addressing blindingdiseases such as trachoma, and in the impact of the environment on people’s health, for example throughmalnutrition and water-borne diseases. This section of the document also makes specific reference to neglectedtropical diseases as a major health problem, which is a step forward; it would have been better still to see anunderstanding that treatment of NTDs, as well as for other major diseases such as HIV, TB and malaria mustgo hand in hand with work to build strong health systems.

20. The outcome document also recognises that health is “an outcome and indicator of all three dimensionsof sustainable development”. Improvements in the health of a population—including measures such as rates oftreatable or avoidable blindness and incidence of neglected tropical diseases alongside the more commonlymeasured infant mortality and life expectancy—are an important indicator of the economic, environmental andsocial progress created by government policies.

21. The commitment to take action on the social determinants of health (SDH) and to strengthen healthsystems is very welcome. Health inequities arise from the social conditions in which people are born, areeducated, live and work. Despite its commitment to addressing the SDH, Sightsavers would have welcomedspecific actions to address the health inequities between and within countries, and efforts to support the mostmarginalised groups. Effective health systems are critical in reducing health inequities and contributing tosustainable development—by promoting, maintaining and protecting people’s health today and that of futuregenerations. The document could also have benefited from greater attention to the role of communities indecision-making on health. Inclusive participation in health decision making is critical if we are to addresscontinuing inequalities in health.

22. While we recognise that this document is a broad statement of intention and cannot cover every issue indetail, it is important to remember when discussing health issues the huge unmet need for eye care services indeveloping countries. Globally, 285 million people are visually impaired and 39 million blind. 90% of visuallyimpaired people live in developing countries, and 80% of all visual impairment can be avoided or cured; yet



there is a desperate shortage of trained health workers at all levels to provide this treatment. Vision impairmentis both a cause and a consequence of poverty, and people with poor sight or disabilities are less likely to accesstreatment for other illnesses, to be educated, to earn a living, and even to be properly nourished.

Recommendations

— In order to achieve national and international goals in health, there must be greater and moreeffective support to health systems.

— A well performing health workforce is essential if people are to access good health servicesand live healthy lives. All countries, developed and developing, must work together to overcomethe shortage of health workers that prevents further progress in health indicators.

— NTDs are a major public health problem—particularly for people living in poverty, includingdisabled people. Greater efforts are needed to control and eliminate them where possible.

— Eye care services must be included in the package of health services available to people livingin developing countries.

Green jobs and social inclusion

23. Unemployment among disabled people is as high as 80% in some countries. This not only makes it moredifficult for disabled people to pull themselves and their families out of poverty, but also denies them theopportunity to develop their skills, and means their societies cannot benefit from their talents and efforts. Giventhe high numbers of blind and disabled people living in developing countries, this wasted potential is a nationalmissed opportunity as well as a personal misfortune. Technical and vocational training support needs to beavailable to disabled people to enable them to fulfil their potential and contribute to their countries’development.

24. In order to be able to access employment, populations must have long-term sustainable access to qualityhealth and education services. If education services are not of sufficient quality, or are not accessible to all,then efforts to provide employment opportunities will only benefit some and may further marginalise others.Being disabled more than doubles the chance of never enrolling in school in some countries.11 A good quality,inclusive education needs to be made available to all disabled children to provide them with the opportunitiesto take up further education or vocational training to gain employment.

25. The same applies to healthcare; people must be healthy and well enough to work in order for such effortsto be effective. This applies to the general population, who among other health benefits must have access totreatments for the neglected tropical diseases that affect 1 billion people, and eye care services to protect andimprove their vision; to children, who must as part of regular check-ups have access where necessary toVitamin A supplementation to protect them from increased risk of mortality, repeated infections andunnecessary blindness; and to disabled people of all ages, to whom health services must be fully accessibleboth physically, financially and otherwise.

Case Study: Ghana Careers Fair

Sightsavers has worked with Standard Chartered to hold a careers fair for people with disabilities.Attendees were given the opportunity to showcase their skills and be interviewed by some of the 27companies present, including Vodaphone and Barclays Bank.

Inspirational presentations were given by disabled people who are currently in employment, such asMawuse Yakor, who is partially sighted due to albinism. Mawuse is a qualified accountant, andworks as an audit officer.

“Some people do not want to associate with you, and even discourage others from doing so,”she says, as many people view albinos negatively, and are often afraid of this condition thataffects skin and sight. “The colour of our skin should not, and must not, be an indictment onour professional abilities.”

Company representatives who already employ people with disabilities also made comments duringthe presentations, which helped to allay the fears of some employers.

Mawuse’s employer has had to make some small adjustments, such as changing the brightness ofher computer screen. There are also some very low cost accessible technology devices employerscan install to make the workplace more suitable for people with disabilities—such as such as screenreaders that allow blind people to use computers.

The event highlighted the opportunities available to the private sector to harness its contacts andexperience, to support work to further the rights of people with disabilities in the countries wherethey work.

26. The outcome document contains multiple mentions of employment for young people, but none fordisabled people, who also suffer disproportionately from a lack of such opportunities. Statements regarding“decent work for all”, “especially men and women living in poverty” are welcome but to be effective infighting poverty efforts must be made to ensure that people with disabilities are supported to find livelihoodsthat enable them to lift themselves, their families and communities out of poverty.11 Deon Filmer. Disability, Poverty, and Schooling in Developing Countries: Results from 14 Household Survey. 2008



Recommendations

— Any new international commitments on social inclusion and employment should explicitlyinclude disabled people as well as women and young people.

— Efforts to provide employment must also ensure that the target populations have good standardsof health and education, and that these services are accessible to all community membersincluding disabled people.

Disaster Risk Reduction

27. Disasters and climate related shocks can exacerbate both poverty and disability: people with disabilitiesare disproportionately affected by disasters, and disasters can result in increased numbers of people withdisabilities. People with disabilities are at increased risk in emergency and disaster situations; they are oftenexcluded and marginalised from both immediate emergency interventions and longer term recovery orrehabilitation programmes. Disabled children are also very vulnerable in emergency contexts; they can faceneglect, be exposed to abuse and risk separation in emergencies.

28. Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) states thatprotection and safety must be provided for people with disabilities during situations of risk. Inclusive disasterpreparedness and climate resilient reconstruction is crucial to make sure that the needs of persons withdisabilities are met.

29. Disabled people have a right to inclusion in emergency relief operations with their specific needs takeninto account and must therefore be key stakeholders in any efforts to integrate disaster risk reduction intosustainable development policy, planning and implementation. This means that both the planning process andthe implementation systems are accessible and inclusive. Adaptations to existing early warning signals orshelters may be required to make them accessible, and reconstruction support and post-disaster social safetynets must be inclusive of disabled people and relevant to their needs. Ways this can be achieved include makingleaflets available in Braille, and including sign language in early warning systems.

Case study: Inclusive Disaster Preparedness in Bangladesh

With climate change affecting water levels all over the world, Bangladesh is especially stricken bysevere flooding, as 75% of its land is only ten metres above sea level. Communities and livelihoodsare regularly threatened by these environmental disasters, but community members who are disabledfind themselves even more vulnerable, reliant on disaster relief just to get by.

A successful application to 2011’s Sightsavers Innovation Fund has led to a project examining theeffects of climate change on the lives of people with disabilities, and how to ensure that disasterpreparedness activities are responsive to their particular needs. It will also investigate alternativelivelihoods for areas prone to the effects of climate change. A collaboration between DisabledRehabilitation and Research Association (DRRA) and Sightsavers, it is taking place in the districtsof Khulna and Satkhira.

The project has been working, in conjunction with a number of community volunteers, with 278disabled adults in the two regions with a target of helping them become self-reliant. It has also beenworking with local government in order to help make development and disaster relief plans sensitiveto the needs of people with disabilities. We hope that the methods developed and subsequent lessonsfrom this project will aid future disaster relief operations worldwide.

30. The outcome document recommends “comprehensive hazard and risk assessments”. If these assessmentsare truly comprehensive then they will specifically address the particular vulnerabilities and needs of disabledcommunity members, including those who are blind and visually impaired. It is also important to make fulluse of the capabilities of disabled people to contribute to the safety and resilience of their community.

Recommendations

— DRR planning should be examined at both local and national level to ensure that it is inclusiveof disabled people in assessment of risks and strategies for warning, response and recovery.

— Disabled people should be supported and encouraged to participate in work to help theircommunity prepare for, react to and recovery from disasters.

— The provision of international humanitarian relief should be fully compliant with article 11 ofthe UN CRPD.

Education

31. International conventions state that primary education should be free and compulsory for all childrenwithout discrimination. This underpins commitment to MDG 2: Universal Primary Education, where there hasbeen good progress. Yet disabled children have been left behind; being disabled more than doubles the chanceof never enrolling in school in some countries.12 Education systems need to provide specific support fordisabled children, allowing them to gain independence and escape poverty. Development partners should putinclusion at the heart of their education support.12 Deon Filmer. Disability, Poverty, and Schooling in Developing Countries: Results from 14 Household Survey. 2008



32. Point 229 of the Rio outcome document refers to “ensuring equal access to education for persons withdisabilities”. While this specific mention is welcome, and recognises that disabled children are among thoseleast likely to be able to take advantage of increased educational provision, access alone is not enough unlessaccompanied by strategies to ensure disabled children are not just attending school but receiving a qualityeducation. Schools, teacher training and equipment must all be designed to ensure that blind and disabledchildren are able to learn alongside their non-disabled peers and achieve the kind of learning outcomes thatwill enable them to participate fully in their societies.

Recommendations

— Education plans must tackle the causes of marginalisation and promote accessible and inclusivelearning environments.

— Alongside efforts to increase access to education, quality of education and learning outcomesmust be monitored and improved.

— Teacher training, school design and the provision of equipment and textbooks must all takeaccount of the requirements of blind and visually impaired children.


33. Sightsavers is a member of both the international and UK chapters of the “Beyond 2015” campaign,(www.beyond2015.org) and supports their positions on this issue.org.

34. Sightsavers is currently involved in efforts to ensure that an effective set of global development goals iscreated to replace the MDGs when they expire in 2015. We are particularly concerned that this new frameworkis developed in an inclusive and transparent manner, and that it ensures development and human rights formarginalised groups, including disabled people.

35. Point 79 in the Rio outcome document says that an “effective institutional framework for sustainabledevelopment… should… promote synergies and coherence; seek to avoid duplication and avoid unnecessaryoverlaps”. In order for the goals of sustainable development and poverty eradication to be achieved, it isimportant to avoid competition. For this reason we would like to see the Sustainable Development Goalsdeveloped using the same process and framework that is already in place to decide what will replace theMillennium Development Goals, to ensure coordination and maximise international commitment to the endresult.

36. Point 248 mentions “inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process”. This is very welcome. Thecurrent set of Millennium Development Goals do not make any reference to disability; other marginalisedgroups have also lost out. In order to rectify this, it is important that the opinions of people living in povertyare sought and listened to. The current post-2015 process is already much more participatory than the one thatwent before; any work to develop a set of SDGs should build on the work that is already underway and ensurethat it is grounded in real life experiences of the people to whom it will matter the most.13

Recommendations

— The process of developing Sustainable Development Goals should build on existing processesand structures to replace the Millennium Development Goals.

— The voices of people living in poverty, especially marginalised groups, should be activelysought and taken into account in any such process.

— A global development framework encompassing both poverty eradication and sustainabledevelopment must do more to reach marginalised groups, such as those living in extremepoverty, with disabilities, or suffering from mental health problems.

Conclusions

37. As can be seen from the series of recommendations outlined in previous sections, there are a number ofweaknesses in the outcome document. Efforts to improve development outcomes for people living in povertyare of course welcome, and there are some positive aspects of the agreement—such as the confirmation of theright to water and sanitation. However, in total, the document—like most development commitments, includingthe Millennium Declaration—does not sufficiently address the needs of marginalised groups, in particulardisabled people. In addition, planning on different areas (such as water and sanitation, and health) should beintegrated to ensure cost efficiency and improved outcomes.

38. There are wider implications of the lack of success of the UN Sustainable Development Conference.The difficulty that was encountered in trying to agree an ambitious, practical and inclusive internationalagreement on development has been well documented. As the deadline to achieve the Millennium DevelopmentGoals approaches, and the process to replace the existing framework gets under way, this lack of consensus isvery concerning.

28 August 2012

13 Sightsavers is involved in an ongoing research project on this subject, called “Voices of the Marginalised”. For furtherinformation on this please contact [email protected]



Written evidence submitted by The Co-operative Group

Summary— In its inquiry into the Rio+20 Summit, we recommend that the EAC highlights the role the UK

Government can now play in championing the commitments made in “The Future We Want”declaration on supporting smallholder farmers and co-operatives, both through its own activitiesand investment, and on the international stage.

Public policy work to champion the role smallholder farmers and co-operatives can play in feeding the worldfairly and sustainably

1. There are around 500 million smallholder farming households in the world, together feeding nearly a thirdof the world’s population. This figure is even higher in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where smallholderfarmers produce up to 80% of food. Despite this, the majority of smallholder farmers still lack investment andconsequently struggle to produce much beyond subsistence levels. Additionally, one in seven people aroundthe world goes to bed hungry every night and, with global population predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050,global food production will need to increase by 70%.

2. There is broad international agreement that smallholders can provide much of the extra food needed tofeed the world’s growing population.14 The major contribution made by co-operatives to sustainabledevelopment, the competitiveness of smallholders15 and global food security has also been internationallyrecognised and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN FAO) has designated “Agriculturalco-operatives: key to feeding the world” as the theme for World Food Day in 2012.16

3. In February 2012, The Co-operative launched a campaigning partnership with Oxfam to call on the UKGovernment to unlock greater support for smallholder farmers and co-operatives to feed the world fairly andsustainably, particularly highlighting the role of co-operatives in supporting smallholders to pool resources,realise economies of scale and secure fairer prices. We are asking the UK Government to champion:

(i) Fair and sustainable methods of increasing global food production.17

(ii) The crucial role of smallholder farmers and co-operatives.18

(iii) Increased investment in sustainable smallholder agriculture to lift farmers—many of whom arewomen—out of poverty.19

4 In the run-up to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June 2012, almost 18,000 Co-operative members and Oxfam supporters called on the UK Government to champion smallholder farmers andco-operatives at the Summit. A group of campaigners from The Co-operative and Oxfam met Deputy PrimeMinister Nick Clegg ahead of his departure for Rio to represent the 18,000 people who took action. Duringthe Summit, the UK Government announced Department for International Development (DfID) funding thatwill support six million smallholder farmers through the UN International Fund for Agriculture andDevelopment’s (IFAD) Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP).

5 Given the mandate from the 18,000 Co-operative members and Oxfam supporters across the UK tochampion smallholder farmers and co-operatives, as well as the numerous case studies within The Co-operative’s supply chain demonstrating the benefits of building the capacity of smallholders and co-operatives(see Appendix), we recommend that the EAC highlights the following points in its “Inquiry into the Rio+20Summit”:

“What role the UK Government should now play internationally in taking forward the Rio agenda”

6. The UK Government has an important role in ensuring that recommendations made in the Rio declarationregarding smallholder farmers and co-operatives are supported internationally. We believe the UK Governmentshould champion the following points within the declaration:

— recognition of the importance of smallholder farmers and co-operatives to sustainabledevelopment (52);

14 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/getinvolved/images/WFD2012_leaflet_en_low.pdf15 http://www.thenews.coop/node/850616 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/getinvolved/images/WFD2012_leaflet_en_low.pdf17 By “fair” we mean methods that principally benefit the poorest and empower marginalised groups, including women, young

people and indigenous communities. Methods should enable farmers to participate in identifying their own needs and mostsuitable investments. Investments should strengthen the capacity of co-operatives to treat men’s and women’s needs equitably,undertake collective actions and bargain for better prices and services.By “sustainable” we mean approaches that support farmers to increase and diversify their production, manage risks, cope withvolatile food prices and adapt to a changing climate, and techniques which are ecologically sustainable, promoting naturalresource management and conservation, such as through low external input technologies, integrated pest management andimproved soil and water management.

18 By “smallholder” we refer to farms with less than two hectares of cropland (World Bank Rural Development Strategy definition).By “co-operatives” we mean organisations that are jointly-owned and democratically run for a common need by their members,in this case smallholder farmers.

19 By “increased investment” we are particularly focussing on investment from the UK Government and groups of donor countries,such as the G8. However we recognise that domestic governments and the private sector also have a role to play in supportingsmallholder farmers and co-operatives.



— ensuring that green economy policies around sustainable development and poverty eradicationenhance the welfare of marginalised groups such as women and smallholder farmers (58);

— enhancing the access of smallholder farmers to various necessities such as credit and otherfinancial services (109);

— the development of national, regional and international strategies to promote the participationof farmers, especially smallholder farmers, including women, in community, domestic, regionaland international markets (118);

— encouraging private sector partnerships with co-operatives in order to enhance job creation forpoor people (154);

— acknowledging the role of co-operatives in contributing to social inclusion and povertyreduction in particular in developing countries (70); and

— ensuring that developing strong agricultural co-operatives and value chains is a key area forinvestment and support (110).

“How well the UK Government’s policies and initiatives match the commitments and calls-for-action set outin “The Future We Want” declaration, the areas in which the Government has more to do, and where theGovernment’s priorities should lie”

7. Against a backdrop of declining global investment—between 1983 and 2006, the share of agriculture inofficial development assistance fell from 20.4% to 3.7% in real terms20—we welcomed Deputy Prime MinisterNick Clegg’s announcement at Rio+20 on DfID’s commitment to support six million smallholder farmers. Webelieve this is an excellent starting point towards helping smallholder farmers and co-operatives to buildcapacity and grow more food and we would recommend that as the UK Government’s aid budget increases to0.7% of Gross National Income from 2013, a greater proportion of the budget allocated to Economic spendingshould be invested in agricultural development.

8. We are also hopeful that DfID’s announcement can help to raise awareness internationally of the need toincrease investment in smallholders and co-operatives, and we believe the UK Government should play animportant role in advocating that G8 and G20 members commit at future meetings to increase support forsmallholders and co-operatives.

9. In summary, in its inquiry into Rio+20 we recommend that the EAC highlights the role the Governmentcan now play in championing the commitments made in “The Future We Want” declaration on supportingsmallholder farmers and co-operatives, both through its own activities and investment, and on the internationalstage. We hope that the Committee can draw on the evidence presented in the following Appendix,demonstrating the benefits in practice of building the capacity of smallholder farmers and co-operatives, tosupport its recommendations.

APPENDIX

THE CO-OPERATIVE’S SUPPORT FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMERS AND CO-OPERATIVES

10. The following seven examples of The Co-operative’s projects and initiatives demonstrate the benefits inpractice of supporting smallholder farmers and co-operatives to build capacity, grow more food and accessinternational markets.

Fintea tea co-operative, Kenya

11. Traditionally, small-scale tea farmers face numerous challenges. The global price of tea is highly unstableand with only a small farm, individual growers often have no bargaining power to negotiate decent terms oftrade. In a project which secured match-funding from the Department for International Development (DFID),The Co-operative has supported over 11,000 tea smallholders in Kenya to form into co-operatives, becomeFairtrade certified and supply into our “99” Fairtrade tea blend.

12. In Kericho, where the project is located, the high cost of production coupled with the ever-declining teaprices meant many of these farmers were living under the poverty line. In addition, many farmers had no otherincome source and were getting poorer. By organising into five producer co-operatives, overseen by the FinteaGrowers Co-operative Union, the 11,000 farmers, half of whom are women, are benefiting from a strongernegotiating position and can collectively own and share the profits from the business, increasing the incomesof participating tea farmers by as much as 30%. They are also being given the opportunity to diversify intoother products to reduce their dependency on the volatile tea sector and improve local food security.

Kuapa Kokoo cocoa co-operative, Ghana

13. After years of government monopoly control over Ghana’s cocoa trade, the industry was restructured in1993 and cocoa farmers began to organise themselves and market their own cocoa. Kuapa Kokoo co-operativewas formed, aiming to empower farmers to gain a dignified livelihood, increase women’s participation and20 http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/growing-a-better-future-010611-summ-en.pdf



enable environmentally friendly cocoa cultivation. The co-operative originally had 200 members in 22 villagesocieties and has grown to over 1,300 village societies, representing over 48,000 farmers, 28% female.

14. In the year 2000, we launched the first own-brand product in the UK to be Fairtrade certified—The Co-operative Milk Chocolate. The conversion signalled the start of a relationship with the Kuapa Kokoo growers,who have been benefitting ever since. Fairtrade premiums received from sales of The Co-operative’s productshave been significant, and have helped to improve access to clean water and health services in cocoa growingcommunities.

15. The Co-operative also goes beyond Fairtrade and pays a further premium on all the Fairtrade cocoasourced from Kuapa Kokoo through Divine Chocolate’s own “producer support and development fund” whichaims to develop the co-operative’s capacity and strength, for example investment in ground nut millingequipment has helped create additional sources of income. Today Kuapa Kokoo supplies big brands in theUK, such as The Co-operative, Cadbury’s and Divine—a company in which the farmers themselves own a45% stake.

Apicoop co-operative, Chile

16. In 1980, a community bee-keeping group was formed in Chile as part of a church project aimed atsupporting poor smallholders during the Pinochet dictatorship. Almost two decades later, a number ofbeekeepers formally registered as the Apicoop Co-operative. Today, Apicoop counts 300 members, who arespread throughout Chile with some being up to 1,200 km apart, an arrangement that limits the impact of badweather. In 2007, to increase the co-operative’s viability and to reduce its dependence on a single commodity,Apicoop diversified into blueberries. In 2011, The Co-operative, which was already sourcing Fairtrade honeyfrom Apicoop, also began to buy its Fairtrade blueberries, and with support from Traidcraft, The Co-operativeis now going beyond Fairtrade to help Apicoop increase its capacity to harvest blueberries and own more ofthe value chain.

17. The investment is supporting Apicoop with improved infrastructure and agricultural machinery to helpthem manage their increasing volumes of blueberries. Through a new packing facility, Apicoop is now able topack its own blueberries, helping to increase its ownership of the supply chain and return increased incomesto its members. The welfare of Apicoop’s permanent and seasonal workers is also being improved throughnew accommodation and sanitation facilities. In total, around 20,000 people in the wider community areexpected to benefit from the project.

FEDECOCAGUA coffee co-operative, Guatemala

18. In March 1969, thousands of small coffee growers organized into 19 co-operatives across Guatemala toform FEDECOCAGUA (Federación de Cooperativas Agrícolas de Productores de Café de Guatemala—Federation of Guatemalan Coffee Producer Co-operatives). FEDECOCAGUA started to export Fairtrade coffeein 1997, and today, 30% of its coffee exports are sold under Fairtrade terms.

19. Today, FEDECOCAGUA is made up of 54 primary co-operative societies representing 20,000smallholder coffee farmers. To enable FEDECOCAGUA to sell more coffee under Fairtrade terms, The Co-operative is supporting twelve of its primary co-operatives with capacity building and training, in particularhelping them to achieve Fairtrade certification. The project is also supporting three other groups of coffeeproducers to form into co-operatives, achieve Fairtrade certification and become member co-operatives ofFEDECOCAGUA, helping them to own more of the value chain. In total, 5,000 smallholder coffee producersare set to benefit.

Banelino banana co-operative, Dominican Republic

20. The Co-operative is supporting smallholder banana producers belonging to Banelino co-operative in theDominican Republic with capacity building and training to improve the productivity and quality of bananasand enable diversification into additional crops to help provide additional sources of income. In addition,Banelino is establishing a training school for young people to help secure the long-term sustainability of small-scale banana farming in the region.

The Global Development Co-operative

21. The Co-operative Banking Group is spearheading the Global Development Co-operative (GDC)—adevelopment fund to help provide much needed finance to co-operatives in developing countries. Finance forco-operatives is often scarce, either because traditional lenders are not active in this market or do not sufficientlyunderstand the co-operative business model. Additionally, co-operatives in developing countries often havelimited collateral to put forward. Working with the International Co-operative Alliance, the GDC aims tosupport co-operative businesses in developing countries by raising £20 million to provide access to low costloans for capital and infrastructure projects. It will target those with an interest in international developmentand extending the reach and benefits of the co-operative model.

28 August 2012



Written evidence submitted by Progressio

1. Progressio’s Participation in the Rio+20 Summit

1.1 Progressio was pleased to submit written evidence ahead of the Rio+20 summit to the EAC enquiry in2011 “Preparations for Rio+20: The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development”.

1.2 We were able to contribute recommendations to the UK government in the run up to the summit, andduring the summit itself there was dialogue between UK government officials and ministers and NGOs presentin Rio. Ahead of the summit DEFRA and DFID both held discussions with NGOs at the level of officials, andthe Secretary of State for DEFRA, the Secretary of State for DFID, and the Deputy Prime-Minister also metwith NGOs including Progressio.

1.3 Progressio engaged with our supporters in the UK ahead of the summit. A “photo petition” calling forthe summit outcomes to be “Waterproof” (to take proper account of water resources issues) was received bySecretary of State Rt Hon Caroline Spelman MP, and postcard campaign responses for ambitious action towards“The Future We Want” were received by the Deputy Prime Minister Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP.

1.4 Progressio holds ECOSOC observer status, and a small delegation attended the summit. We alsopresented recommendations directly to the UN drafting process, independently and via the NGO MajorGroup system.

2. Summit outcomes

2.1 At the level of detail, we were pleased to see that many of the requests made by Progressio regardingthe importance of water resources management were reflected in the final text.

2.2 However, in terms of overall ambition, Rio+20 did not deliver the game-changing outcome that isurgently needed to meet the scale of the development and environmental challenges faced by humanity. Whilst“The future We Want” articulates the urgent need for action on poverty, environmental degradation and climatechange, and useful language in many areas, the text is a restatement of past promises with few new or ambitiouscommitments and no targets or deadlines with which to hold governments to account.

2.3 The agreement reached in Rio+20 is not likely to inspire the level of change required for the poorestand most marginalised people who are at the sharp end of water scarcity, food insecurity and changing climate.

2.4 Much more energy and commitment will be required over the next three years if a post-2015 frameworkfor sustainable development is to be up to the linked challenges of tackling global poverty, environmentaldegradation, and climate change.

3. Role of the UK Government

3.1 Progressio welcomes the leading role that the UK government officials played ahead of, and at thesummit.

3.2 The role played by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, together with theDeputy Prime Minister, was proactive and welcome. It was important that links were made across Whitehall,especially between DEFRA and DFID, and we note the personal involvement of the Secretary of State forDFID.

3.3 However, the absence of the UK Prime Minister at Rio+20 sent a mixed message in terms of theimportance of the Rio+20 agenda to the UK.

4. Engagement with UK NGOs

4.1 A high level of engagement was sought by the UK government delegation with UK-based NGOs inattendance at Rio+20. UK government officials met regularly with UK NGOs in the months ahead of thesummit. We attended preparatory consultations with the Secretary of State for DEFRA, the Secretary of Statefor DFID, and the Deputy Prime Minister. This represents a high level of engagement with NGOs ahead of aninternational summit.

4.2 The UK was also responsive to our concerns on issues such as water resources and sustainabledevelopment goals.

4.3 However (albeit from our position outside government) the impression is that preparations were slow togather pace. Greater clarity around the UK’s position and priorities at an earlier stage in 2011 could havesupported in depth conversations and collaboration between the government and NGOs ahead of the zero draftsubmission deadline in November 2011.

5. Achieving the “future we want”

5.1 Despite the well-reported concerns about the weakness of the Rio+20 outcome document, the need forambitious action on sustainable development remains—and there are important opportunities to move forward.



5.2 In taking forward the Rio agenda the UK government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, mustwork with other countries to build the will and the capacity to ensure that the many “acknowledgements”,“realisations”, “reiterations” and “recognitions” stated in the text are implemented. Rio+20 in and of itself willnot shape the world we want to see and will not deliver change for poor communities, but the UK governmentcan use its leverage to encourage other governments to prioritise sustainable development and povertyeradication.

5.3 The next three years present a unique opportunity to build a new sustainable development narrativeamongst governments, civil society and the private sector worldwide. The process agreed at Rio+20 has thepotential to create a set of universal goals that will put countries on a more sustainable development pathway—one that eradicates poverty, recognises environmental limits and protects the planet for future generations.

5.4 It is essential that the UK government and the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the UN SecretaryGeneral’s “High Level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015” seek to consult withcivil society from all over the world, to ensure that the development of sustainable development goals and thebroader post-2015 development framework is inclusive.

5.5 The future we want declaration set the bar too low for action by governments. The voluntarycommitments made by the UK government, such as the announcement that made greenhouse gas emissiondisclosure mandatory for the top 100 companies listed on the stock exchange, are welcome, but not enough ontheir own. In the months ahead the UK government must be ambitious and work with other governments topush for the expansion of this and similar initiatives, such as corporate accounting that takes account of allnatural resources, including water.

6. Moving forward in public debate

6.1 Ahead of Rio+20 the government (and also the NGO community) arguably did too little to engage thepublic and create awareness and debate around the issues at the heart of sustainable development and the greenand fair economy. Public awareness of the Rio+20 Earth Summit was certainly low.

6.2 It is possible that for some NGOs, calculations were made that the chances of success at Rio were low,and that it was therefore not right to invest heavily in engaging supporters. But without major efforts to buildpublic awareness, there would be little pressure for governments to act.

6.3 Recognising that adopting a more sustainable means of development requires the participation of all, theUK government will need to engage more widely with the public on issues of sustainable consumption andproduction. NGOs and civil society will also need to play a full part in achieving this, inspiring public supportfor action on poverty and for meeting the environmental challenges which threaten the wellbeing of all.

28 August 2012

Written evidence submitted by UNICEF UK

1. Introduction

1.1 The UK National Committee for UNICEF welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to theEnvironmental Audit Committee Inquiry into the outcomes of the UN Rio+20 Earth Summit.

1.2 UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund, is mandated by the United Nations General Assembly toadvocate for the protection of children’s rights, to help meet their basic needs and to expand their opportunitiesto reach their full potential. UNICEF is guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child(CRC) and strives to establish children’s rights as enduring ethical principles and international standards ofbehaviour towards children.

1.3 This submission will focus on the following aspects of the Environmental Audit Committee’s call forevidence:

— How well the Rio declaration—“The Future We Want”—matched the actions that were needed.

— The role played by the UK Government in the run up to, and during, the Summit.

— What role the UK Government should now play internationally in taking forward the Rioagenda, including on the Sustainable Development Goals and through the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the UN Secretary-General’s “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to adviseon planning for post-2015”.

— How well the UK Government’s policies and initiatives match the commitments and calls-for-action set out in “The Future We Want” declaration, the areas in which the Government hasmore to do, and where the Government’s priorities should lie.

— What part greater informed public debate and wider engagement with the Rio issues needsto play.



2. How well the Rio declaration—“The Future We Want”—matched the actions that were needed.

2.1 UNICEF UK welcomes the progress for children made at the Rio+20 summit in June 2012, reflected inthe “Future we want” outcome document. Ambitious action to tackle sustainability and recognise the linksbetween environment and development challenges will be essential to ensure that children everywhere nowand in the future, especially in the most vulnerable countries are able to grow up to meet their full potential.

2.2 UNICEF UK believes that there is still need for more ambitious action to put the world on a crediblepath to sustainable development, nonetheless we believe that “The Future We Want” is an important start tothis process, and delivered some important outcomes for children.

2.3 In the run up to the Rio+20 summit, UNICEF UK ran a public campaign entitled “Speak Up forChildren”.21 This campaign asked the UK government to ensure that children were prioritised in sustainabilitysolutions emerging from Rio+20. Sustainable development is about ensuring intergenerational equity for currentand future generations, therefore it is vital that these groups are actively considered and included insustainability responses.22 Specifically we asked the UK government to ensure:

(i) that children’s right to participate in sustainability decision making was recognised by Rio+ 20,

(ii) that child centred responses were seen as central to sustainability; and

(iii) that development issues that are impacting on children in vulnerable countries such as climatechange, water scarcity, food security, disaster risk reduction and urbanisation were givensufficient attention.

2.4 On the basis of this, UNICEF UK welcomes several key elements in “The Future We Want” and thelevel of ambition that this sets for further action on sustainability at the international and national levels. Thesepoints were as follows:

— Recognition of the importance of children to the sustainability debate.

— Recognition of the importance of meaningful participation of children in sustainability policy.

— Recognition of the specific vulnerabilities of children in regards to food security.

— Reaffirmation of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.

— Commitment to advancing approaches to disaster risk reduction.

— Reaffirmation of the urgent need to mobilise new and additional climate finance to ensure wecan build a climate safe world for all.

2.5 UNICEF UK urges the UK government to ensure these outcomes from Rio+20 are adequately integratedinto their overseas development strategies.

2.6 However, despite these achievements of the outcome text, a greater level of ambition is needed withinthe international community to put the world onto a credible path to sustainable development to safeguardcurrent and future generations.

2.7 Consequently, as already stated publically by UNICEF UK President Lord Ashdown,23 UNICEF UKbelieves that “The Future We Want” should be seen as a starting point for strong ambitious action onsustainability, not the final blueprint for levels of ambition.

2.8 UNICEF UK calls on the UK government to build on the Future We Want by pushing for furtherambitious international action over the next year and in the run up to 2015 on sustainability and integratingenvironment and development

Recommendations:

UNICEF UK therefore recommends the following in regards to the outcome text of Rio +20:

(a) The UK government should ensure that the key outcomes from Rio+20 (as outlined above) areadequately integrated into UK overseas development strategies.

(b) The UK government should build on the outcomes of Rio+20 by pushing for further ambitiousinternational action on sustainability and integrating environment and development concerns.

3. The role played by the UK Government in the run up to, and during, the Summit.

Youth Participation

3.1 As previously mentioned, in the run up to the Rio+20 summit, UNICEF UK ran a public campaignentitled “Speak Up for Children”.24 This campaign asked the UK government to ensure that children wereprioritised in sustainability solutions emerging from Rio+20. Sustainable development is about ensuring21 http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/unicef-uk-campaigners-ask-nick-clegg-to-speak-up-for-children-at-rio-earth-summit/22 http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/Publications/Briefing-making-a-better-world-for-children-at-Rio20/23 http://www.itv.com/news/2012–06–25/silver-linings-to-the-storm-clouds-over-rio/24 http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/unicef-uk-campaigners-ask-nick-clegg-to-speak-up-for-children-at-rio-earth-summit/



intergenerational equity for current and future generations, therefore it is vital that these groups are activelyconsidered and included in sustainability responses.25

3.2 UNICEF UK would like to take this opportunity to welcome the government’s role in engaging withUK young people ahead of the summit- the Youth Question Time that DEFRA organised, which enabled youngpeople to question the Secretary of State for Environment ahead of the summit.

3.3 The sustainability pathways that governments choose to follow will have a impact on the future thattoday’s children will inherit. It is therefore right that children should have a say in such processes and theirviews be taken into account.

3.4 UNICEF UK would have liked to have seen to UK government do more to engage with young peopleand take their views into account in the formulation of the UK government’s position ahead of Rio+20. Wewould also have liked to see the UK government to have taken greater consideration of engagement of childrenand young people at the summit itself and in feeding back to young people after the summit.

3.5 UNICEF UK recommends that the UK government feedback to children and young people in the UKon the outcomes from Rio +20, and find an ongoing, permanent way to seek and integrate children’s viewpoints into the UK government’s sustainability policy

Emerging Development challenges

3.6 UNICEF UK would have liked to have seen the UK government show greater recognition of some ofthe key development challenges such as disaster risk and vulnerability that are facing vulnerable populationsin their positioning ahead of and during Rio+20.

3.7 More than 175 million children will be affected by climate change induced natural disasters every yearover the next decade.26 The need to scale up disaster risk reduction strategies to protect children and futuregenerations is therefore integral to successful sustainable development. UNICEF UK was disappointed to seenot a single reference to disaster risk reduction in any of the UK government’s positioning ahead of andduring Rio+20.

3.8 Similarly, we would have liked to see greater recognition in the UK government’s positioning on otheremerging development challenges such as climate change and urbanisation. It is disappointing that the UKgovernment did not capitalise on the opportunity presented by Rio+20 to push these issues to the forefront oftheir dialogue.

Private sector

3.9 UNICEF UK welcomed the UK government’s position ahead and during Rio+20 in regards to involvingthe private sector in sustainability solutions. If we are truly to create a sustainable world, the private sectorclearly has an important role to play. However, we would have liked to see greater recognition in the UKgovernment’s positioning on the responsibility of the private sector to respect human rights and, in particular,children’s rights.

3.10 Sustainable development cannot be achieved in isolation from human rights, as was recognised in theMillennium Declaration in 2000. Children are especially vulnerable to the impacts of the private sector. Inmany developing countries, children constitute half of the national population and the majority of those affectedby poverty. Despite this, there has yet to be a global focus on the impact that businesses have on children.

3.11 The Children’s Rights and Business Principles address this shortcoming by providing the firstcomprehensive set of principles to guide businesses on how to respect and support children’s rights. Theprinciples are as follows:

All business enterprises should

1. Meet their responsibility to respect children’s rights, and commit to support the human rightsof children.

2. Contribute towards the elimination of child labour, including in all business activities andbusiness relationships.

3. Provide decent work for young workers, parents and caregivers.

4. Ensure the protection and safety of children in all business activities and facilities.

5. Ensure that products and services are safe; and seek to support children’s rights throughproducts and services.

6. Use marketing and advertising that respect and support children’s rights.

7. Respect and support children’s rights in relation to the environment and land.

8. Respect and support children’s rights in security arrangements.25 http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/Publications/Briefing-making-a-better-world-for-children-at-Rio20/26 Save the Children “The Legacy of Disasters” http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/resources/online-library/legacy-of-disasters-the-

impact-of-climate-change-on-children



9. Help protect children affected by emergencies.

10. Reinforce community and government efforts to protect and fulfil children’s rights.

3.12 UNICEF UK recommends that the UK Government endorse the Children’s Rights Business Principlesand integrate them into its sustainability policy regarding the private sector.27

Recommendations:

Based on the role played by the UK in the run up to and during Rio +20, UNICEF UK recommendsthe following:

(a) the UK government should feedback to children and young people in the UK on the outcomesfrom Rio +20, and find a permanent way to integrate children’s view points into the UKgovernment’s sustainability policy; and

(b) that the UK Government endorse the Children’s Rights Business Principles and integrate theminto its sustainability policy regarding the private sector.

4. What role the UK Government should now play internationally in taking forward the Rio agenda,including on the Sustainable Development Goals and through the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of theUN Secretary-General’s “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015”.

4.1 UNICEF UK believes that UK government has a unique opportunity to drive the international post-2015agenda through the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the UN Secretary-General’s “High-level Panel ofEminent Persons”.

4.2 The high level panel presents a unique opportunity for the UK to show ambitious global leadership inthe post-2015 framework and use their role to highlight the importance of sustainability and the key issuesidentified at Rio+20 for the future of international development.

4.3 If the post 2015 framework is to succeed in the places where the MDGs have failed, sustainability mustbe a key guiding principle. A sustainable post-2015 framework is essential to help ensure that all childreneverywhere can survive and thrive. A sustainable future will help guarantee that children have the opportunityto grow up healthy, well-nourished, well-educated, and protected from violence and neglect, to realize theirfull potential for the benefit of society as a whole. It also requires that they have access to sustainable, safeand protected key ecosystem goods and services, such as clean water and air.

Recommendations:

UNICEF UK recommends the following in regards to follow up from Rio+20 and post-2015:

(a) Prime Minister should champion sustainability as an essential part of the post 2015 frameworkand use his role to ensure that the process of developing the SDGs and post-2015 frameworkis complementary and coordinated.

(b) The UK government should use other opportunities in international fora (such as through theUN, G20 and so forth) to push for further ambitious action on sustainability and ensuringsustainability is integrated into the post 2015 framework.

5. How well the UK Government’s policies and initiatives match the commitments and calls-for-action set outin “The Future We Want” declaration, the areas in which the Government has more to do, and where theGovernment’s priorities should lie.

5.1 Whilst the “Future We Want” outcome text goes some way to recognising the challenges facing children,and the need for scaled up action to truly deliver long term sustainable development that will benefit currentand future generations, there are still areas in which the UK government has more to do.

5.2 In addition to those activities, UNICEF UK would like to see the UK government prioritise a childcentred approach to sustainability in their overseas development strategy.

5.3 Children’s futures and intergenerational equity are core principles for sustainable development, sochildren’s rights and consideration of children’s specific vulnerabilities should be at the centre of the discussionsand outcomes on sustainability.

5.4 The rights of children and young people are also increasingly threatened by issues and events outside oftheir control, including climate change, food crises, economic crises, humanitarian disasters and conflicts, highlevels of youth unemployment, rapid urbanisation, and increased fiscal austerity. These challenges compoundexisting problems, exacerbating the situation faced by many children in developing countries.

5.5 Children need to be prioritised in development responses to counter these challenges, so that they canbetter withstand these threats to development. For example, disaster risk reduction needs to be child centred,27 The Children’s Rights and Business Principles, UNICEF, the UN Global Compact and Save the Children (2012).

http://www.unicef.org/csr/css/PRINCIPLES_23_02_12_FINAL_FOR_PRINTER.pdf and accompanying workbook Children areEveryone’s Business, UNICEF, 2012 http://www.unicef.org/csr/css/CSR_Workbook_A4_LR_low_res.pdf



urban interventions should recognise children’s vulnerabilities, and food security policies need to pay specificattention to children.

5.6 UNICEF UK therefore asks the UK Government to follow policies and strategies that are designed sothat they give the best possible outcomes for children. This means taking a child centred approach tosustainability, as well as scaling up programming in areas that are negatively impacting on children- such asfood security and disaster risk.

Recommendations:

UNICEF UK recommends the following in regards to further action by the UK government following onfrom Rio+20:

(a) the UK government should prioritise a child centred approach to sustainability in their overseasdevelopment strategy; and

(b) the UK Government should follow policies and strategies that are designed so that they givethe best possible outcomes for children. This means taking a child centered approach tosustainability, as well as scaling up programming in areas that are negatively impacting onchildren- such as food security and disaster risk.

6. What part greater informed public debate and wider engagement with the Rio issues needs to play.

6.1 Informed public debate and wider engagement with Rio issues is an important part of deliveringsuccessful sustainable development.

6.2 Specifically, UNICEF UK would like to use this opportunity to highlight the importance of children andyoung people’s engagement in the sustainability debate.

6.3 The voices of children and young people are rarely heard in global negotiations amd national andinternational decision making. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “childrenhave the right to participate in decisions affecting them.”

The outcomes from Rio+20 and action by international governments will shape what the future looks like,so they should be informed by the people who will be the future leaders—today’s children and young people.

6.4 Moreover, children can be key actors in driving the sustainability agenda forward, both now and in thefuture as adults, so they should be included and consulted on sustainability initiatives at the earliest possiblemoment.

6.5 UNICEF UK recommends that the UK government rigorously and regularly consults with children andyoung people on sustainability strategies and plans following on from Rio+20.

6.6 For the UK Government, consultation with children and young people on sustainability could take avariety of forms. Options recommended by UNICEF UK include:

— In the UK: consultations with groups of children and young people from around the UK andfrom different genders, ethnic and socio/economic backgrounds and from a variety of agegroups. This will help gauge what issues UK young people feel are important in globalsustainability discussions.

— In the UK: Youth panels established by the UK Government to regularly consult UK youngpeople on the UK Government’s sustainability plans.

— Around the world: The Government should work with their partners at country level to holdconsultations with children and young people. These consultations should include children froma variety of ages from across gender, ethnic and socio/economic backgrounds. Theseconsultations should seek the views of children and young people on issues that matter to themand the future they would like to see. In developing countries, children and young people shouldalso be consulted on the interventions in the areas of water, food and disaster risk reductionthat would make their lives more secure. These views should then be incorporated into theUK’s own development strategy.

Recommendations:

UNICEF UK recommends the following in regards to further action by the UK government in engaging thegeneral public following on from Rio+20:

(a) UNICEF UK recommends that the UK government rigorously and regularly consults withchildren and young people on sustainability strategies and plans following on from Rio+20.

31 August 2012



Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Northern Ireland

1. Summary— Rio + 20 was a missed opportunity and a failure of collective leadership by politicians.

— The UK Government contributed to this failure internationally and is not doing enough topromote sustainable development.

— The Rio Declaration is long on “recognising” the challenges and solutions but woefully shorton practical measures to implement appropriate policies and practices.

— If designed and applied sensitively, the proposals for Sustainable Development Goals, GDPPlus and sustainability reporting can all form useful parts of a programme of action.

— Internationally and nationally (and locally) other elements of a programme of action designedto move people and our plant onto a path of sustainable development include: a green economy,action on climate change including promotion of renewable sources of energy and phasing outof reliance on fossil fuels, recognition that there is no “one size fits all” and establishment of aUN High Commissioner for Future Generations.

— One bright spot at Rio was the vibrant, richly diverse lobby of politicians, including a veryeffective business lobby for policies promoting sustainable development, which will hopefullytranslate into more effective “people power” pressure for sustainable development.

2. People Around the World Have Been Let Down by a Major Failure of Collective Leadership

The Brazilian government changed the dates for the Rio+20 conference from 4–5–6 June, 2012 to 20–21–22June, 2012. This was done to allow for more Heads of State to participate in the summit, especially those ofthe Commonwealth, as the new dates would not clash with Queen Elizabeth’s Jubilee. The new date wasalso said to be better logistically for Asian countries as they wouldl already be in Latin America for theG20 meeting.

Shamefully, most world leaders stayed away from Rio, including the UK’s Prime Minister, thereby showinga serious lack of commitment to sustainable development. Instead, the admittedly serious challenge of tacklingthe global economic crisis is dominating all other considerations of sustainability. We would argue that indealing with the economic crisis the world is best served by leaders who make plans for a very different modelfor development for the future, a sustainable development model.

3. The UK Government has Let People Down, in the UK and Globally

This prevalence of short-term thinking about economic factors to the exclusion of the other limbs ofsustainable development—environmental and social—is a clear feature of UK governance and political debatealso. It is time for the UK Government to recognise that long-term growth requires investment in all threepillars of sustainable development.

In the run-up to Rio+20, many actions undermined the UK Government’s commitment to be the “greenestgovernment ever”. The removal of the Sustainable Development Commission in March 2011 was an earlyexample of the lack of long-term planning within government.

Going forward, post-Rio+20, we need a much clearer commitment to sustainable development within theUK Government. Rhetorical promises of the “greenest government ever” will not do. Right at the heart ofgovernment we seem to have different approaches, with the Chancellor making a number of pronouncementsthat contradict his government’s stated ambition.

4. The Rio Declaration

The summit was intended to be a catalyst for major change, encapsulated in a declaration that wouldarticulate renewed commitment to the aims of the original Earth Summit, expressing an ambition to make areal difference and detailing practical steps that the world community could agree to take together. Sadly, theeventual Rio Declaration, The future we want, fell far short of these hopes and offers little in terms of enablersor practical steps that nation states can employ.

Member States agreed to launch a process to establish universal sustainable development goals that will bean integral part of the post-2015 development framework. We believe that it is very positive to see new sectorsand areas being acknowledged in the text—including tourism and product design.

The “Call for support” is one of the strongest passages in the text. The text “recognises” the multitude ofissues that we face, but it is the measures that are implemented that are of most importance. Indeed climatechange was recognised as a global threat in Rio in 1992, but that has not stopped the increase in levels ofenergy-related CO2 emissions ever since. No intention to set targets to reduce CO2 emissions came out ofRio+20, despite the “profound alarm” expressed in the document. The document highlights that both theproblems and their perceived solutions are widely understood; the absence of sufficient political will is whatstands in the way of action.



The UN text recognises the wide scope of the issues facing the world; we now need political momentum totake us forward. The UK Government must go forward with a sense of urgency that the text lacks. The textimagines time that we do not have; global issues are “recognised”, “acknowledged” and “noted”, yet thisrecognition is not transformed into action. The UK and other developed nations have contributed greatly toour current environmental and financial crises; they must now show leadership in tackling these problemswhilst enabling developing nations to follow their own sustainable pathways.

5. The UK Government’s role was to bring to the international table three suggested priorities: theSustainable Development Goals; GDP Plus; and sustainability reporting for business.

5.1 Sustainable Development Goals

Failure to agree to a group of themes on which to base these successors to the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) was a disappointing outcome at Rio+20. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) mustbuild on the MDGs whilst remaining simple and focused in order to guide nation states towards key universally-applicable sustainability goals. Before Rio+20 began, the SDGs had been pegged as a priority for the UKGovernment which has been keen to focus on the areas of food, energy and water scarcity.28

Developed nations, keen to see the SDGs develop with indicators and targets, have been criticized forfocusing on environmental goals, as highlighted by the UK’s three main areas of concern. Developing nationsare pushing for a more holistic framework that incorporates both economic and social targets, as well as keyenvironmental goals. The SDGs should feature the three pillars of sustainable development, without focusingon one strand.

THE UK Prime Minister will have a key role in shaping the SDGs as chair of a UN High-level Panel thatwill formulate a post-2015 framework, when the MDGs are due to expire. A working group, comprising 30government representatives, is set to propose a framework for the SDGs by September 2013, including specifictargets and indicators.

We recommend that this process must be open to the input of different stakeholder groups, as highlighted inthe Rio+20 text. The UK should ensure that the process of developing the SDGs is a transparent and open onethat does not marginalise developing countries. It will be important to take forward key aspects of the MDGs,whilst looking to merge the Goals with a post-2015 framework.

5.2 GDP Plus

Another key priority of the UK in their approach to Rio+20 was GDP Plus, intending to recognise thelimitations of GDP as the sole measure of progress. The danger with this scheme is that in ascribing a monetaryvalue of nature as a commodity, natural resources may be seen as assets capable of leading to financial gain.The natural world is subject to tipping points and critical thresholds that we do not currently fully understand,and monetising natural capital can be misleading and inaccurate.

The risks can be demonstrated by looking at schemes that have tried to commodify natural capital orexternalities, such as the EU ETS. The danger is that natural capital could be traded, such as biodiversity lossin the UK could be offset by gains in another part of the world. The hazards can also be highlighted by lookingat Brazil’s forestry code—the CRA—whereby organisations, or indeed individuals, can degrade forest as longas they have the financial capital to do so.

Taking environmental indicators into account would likely lead to a better, and more long-term approach inassessing economic development, yet GDP Plus was not warmly received by all governments at Rio+20. It isargued that creating a market for natural resources will help to highlight their value, thus pushing society toconserve them, yet past attempts to commodify natural assets have not resulted in their intended protection;quantifying something that is inherently speculative could serve to exacerbate environmental issues.

If the UK is to pursue the idea of GDP Plus it must ensure that the commoditisation of natural resources isa true reflection of their scarcity, and that the reporting process is a transparent one.

5.3 Sustainability Reporting

The UK Government is right in highlighting the need to bring business into the sustainability debate, andnegotiations. A path towards a green economy will involve collaboration and commitment from organisationsaround the world, through investment, innovation and trade. The UK pushed forward the idea of mandatoryreporting on sustainability criteria; making this the norm for business and offering some sort of framework thatallows for measurement and comparisons between organisations worldwide.

The UK is already following this pathway, largely due to pressure from consumers and other stakeholdergroups. Many nations are resistant to such measures due to the pressures it will place on business to remaincompetitive and the fact that many organisations in developing countries are much further behind when it comesto social and environmental reporting, due to lack of legislation and stakeholder demand for such information.28 Defra, 2012. Progress at Rio+20 towards greener future (online) Available at: www.defra.gov.uk/news/2012/06/22/rio20-

progress/ (Accessed 15/08/12)



The UK should continue to push for mandatory reporting on sustainability issues. The CIEH encourages themove towards mandatory carbon reporting for companies listed on the Main Market of the London StockExchange from April 2013. Although this will provide an incentive to monitor and reduce carbon emissions,it will not include reporting on water, land and other scarce natural resources. If carbon reporting proves to bea success upon implementation, the CIEH recommends a move towards mandatory reporting of water, landand material consumption.

6. The UK Government Must Remain Active Internationally

6.1 A global green economy

According to the text of “The future we want”, world leaders aspire to a green economy but without mentionof what this would look like, who would drive it and how the transition would be financed. A push towards a“green economy” can be a positive contribution from the UK, yet it is vital that this does not result in a narrowfocus upon the economy and the environment, whilst disregarding a more holistic approach that includessocietal factors.

There must be steps taken towards a sustainable economy, rather than just “greening” the economy.

Major investments into the gas sector, announced at The Global Business Summit August 2012, underminethe UK’s commitment towards achieving sustainable development. Sustainable development needs to bemainstreamed into UK policy making, rather than treated as an add-on to be disregarded in favour of destructiveshort-term policies. The UK came to Rio+20 with the hope of mainstreaming the idea of the “green economy”;as a developed country, the UK must lead by example if nation states are expected to agree to, and build upon,such ideas.

6.2 Climate Change

Although the Kyoto Protocol was hailed as one of the most positive things to come out of Rio 1992, therewas no commitment made towards a second phase of the Protocol. The draft document does acknowledge thegap between what nation states pledged and what they are doing in terms of climate change mitigation andadaptation, yet no agreement was made as to the next stage of the Accord which is due to expire this year.

After failing to agree to a post-Kyoto Accord, the UK must now lead and encourage action on climatechange through strong policy implementation that works towards the targets laid out in the Climate ChangeAct 2008.

6.3 Fossil fuels

One of the major expectations from Rio+20 was an agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, encouraginga move towards renewable forms of energy. Although the UN text does acknowledge that nation states shouldphase out fossil fuel subsidies, it does not offer a timescale by which to do so. The phasing out of fossil fuelsubsidies is a cornerstone of the green economy that the UK was so fiercely endorsing at Rio+20, yet nocommitment was made towards their removal.

The UK Government needs to act internationally as well as domestically to have these subsidies removed.

6.4 Sustainable Energy

The Rio document talked of sustainable energy, yet there was no outline as to what can be classed assustainable forms of energy. Clean and sustainable energy must have a common universal definition so thatnations can effectively work towards an economy that promotes truly sustainable energy. The gas industry hasaimed to position itself as a “clean” industry and an answer to the coal and oil industries. The UK’s supportof gas will endanger its ability to meet targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We advise thatsustainable energy can not be defined as an energy form which further locks the UK’s energy system into fossilfuel use.

6.5 UN High Commissioner for Future Generations

Policymaking is inherently restricted by short-term political cycles and the prevalence of the economywithin decision-making. It is the dominance of short-term political thinking that has undermined sustainabledevelopment in the past. The creation of a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations, as promoted bythe Alliance for Future Generations, would be a step forward for policy making that centres around sustainabledevelopment. This would lead to greater accountability from nation states, in terms of how our actions todaywill shape the lives of future generations.

The UK should push for the creation of both a UN and national representative in order to secure a voice forfuture generations in the policy-making process. Some countries, most notably New Zealand, Israel andHungary, have already established a representative for future generations. The UK’s national representativewould then be able to facilitate the implementation of international policy with the aid of the HighCommissioner for Future Generations.



7. The UK Must Earn the Green Credentials Nationally That it Claims

7.1 The UK’s green economy

Focusing on a more equitable economic structure will help move towards a more sustainable future. Thiswill involve wider access to opportunity and an inclusive approach towards contributing to, and gaining from,economic growth. This inclusivity would mean investing in all areas of the UK and contributing to trainingand retraining for people who face changes as a result of industrial shifts. A nationwide plan will be necessaryso that certain areas are not left behind in the face of a changing economy.

The Green Alliance proposes a range of principles that should be considered and adopted in order for the“green economy” to truly contribute towards sustainable development.29 The CIEH agrees that the followingaspects of their recommendation should be applied to the a definition of the green economy: building uponclear economic, social and environmental goals that organisations of all sizes, and in all sectors, can aspire to;ensuring that all stakeholders have access to transparent and up-to-date company information; theimplementation of clear timelines and a measuring system for business, that documents progress towardsachieving sustainability objectives.

The greening of the economy will involve an absolute reduction in natural resource use, away from the ideaof continuous and unlimited economic growth. There are a number of ways the UK can achieve this:

— Promoting and enabling efficiency gains. Not only does this save resources and energy, butorganizations can benefit from significant cost savings.

— Efficiency savings can only go so far in creating relative savings, the economy must changefrom a linear model towards a circular model; a closed loop system that eliminates waste, usingbyproducts and waste as inputs to make new products.

— Mandatory reporting can serve to make organizations more conscious of their consumption andproduction methods. The transparency of reports and the increasing awareness and power ofstakeholder groups should further incentivise companies to become increasingly efficient.

— Consumption is often overlooked, yet the Government could do much more to change marketdemand to help contribute towards a green economy. Green goods are often seen as inferiorand/or expensive; more information is needed on environmentally and socially superiorproducts. Policies must be put in place to reduce consumption altogether, although this goesagainst traditional economic policy and is likely to be viewed negatively in light of theeconomic downturn.

The UK Government should introduce incentives to make the “green economy” a reality. This could beachieved by reducing barriers to entry for “green” organisations, introducing mandatory reporting, involvingbusiness in the dialogue on sustainable development, allowing “green” subsidies, amongst a host of other “soft”and “hard” policy measures that aim to create favourable conditions for a green economy to grow.

Considering the power and scope of businesses, the UK Government should take a more collaborativeapproach towards achieving sustainable development, involving the private sector and NGOs. Over 2700business leaders attended Rio+20 to encourage political leaders to take a multi-stakeholder approach; workingwith these leaders will prove vital for a more integrated approach towards sustainable development.

7.2 Climate change

The UK must implement favourable conditions to allow for the growth of a low-carbon economy. This willincluding direct support and reduced barriers to support innovation and technologies that support a move to alow-carbon economy.

A move towards mandatory carbon reporting shows a commitment beyond the “soft” and voluntary measuresof the past. This move will not allow businesses to recognise areas in which they can improve efficiencymeasures, but this will also be an opportunity for stakeholders to see which organisations are striving to reducetheir carbon emissions.

Although we welcome this transition towards mandatory reporting of carbon emissions, we believe that it isimportant to recognise and track business’ use of finite resources, such as water and land.

7.3 Fossil Fuels

The IPCC highlights that an 80–95% reduction in GhG emissions is necessary to keep temperature increasewithin the 2 degrees centigrade limit. Investments in fossil fuel industries will make this an unreachable target.The UK should begin the phasing out of fossil fuels immediately so that they are completely removed by 2050.The UK’s plan to expand the gas sector contradicts the targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 as wellas the carbon budgets and advice of the Committee on Climate Change.29 The Green Alliance, 2012. Rio+20: where it should lead. (online) Available at: http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/uploadedFiles/

Publications/reports [Accessed 10 July 2012]



7.4 One-size-fits-all

It has been recognised that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach in terms of sustainability; nations shouldbe allowed to travel along their own pathways to sustainability. Just as national differences have beenrecognised in the UN text of “The future we want”, so, too, local differences should also be acknowledged.

The UK Government must recognise that local regions will need to develop region-specific sustainabilitystrategies. Local policymaking will allow for solutions that take into account the behaviours and patterns oflocal communities.

8. Public Debate and Wider Engagement is the One Bright Spot Currently

Depressing though it is that world leaders frittered away the opportunity to show genuine leadership at Rio+ 20, there were some encouraging signs of other forces for good outside the negotiating room.

As we have come to expect at modern-day gatherings of world leaders, there was a lively, organised andeffective lobby in attendance, often led by NGOs. What was perhaps different on this occasion was the greaterinvolvement of business interests. This possibly was the international arena at which the business community“came of age” in its engagement with such processes.

The inability of the politicians to agree the way forward on sustainable development puts a greater onus onthose who care about the future of people and our planet. Who does care? Hopefully all of us. Confidence inpoliticians and, as a result of the financial crashes, in the financial services sector, is dangerously low. It iscrucial that mass movements come to the fore in pursuit of policies and practices which support sustainabledevelopment. This is so among businesses and NGOs of course, but more importantly it is time for citizenseverywhere to realize their power as consumers, as service providers and as voters.

As a result of global economic disasters, times are very harsh for many. We feel sure that minds will beopen to radically different terms of trade from now on. A programme of sustainable development, in which allhave a stake, is a positive way to inspire people and to instill ambition and innovation.

28 August 2012

Written evidence submitted by BioRegional

How well the Rio declaration- “The Future We Want”- matched the actions that were needed.

1. The Rio declaration provides a much needed framework for action. Although lacking in concretecommitments, “The Future We Want” marks the beginning of the next stage in delivering sustainabledevelopment on a global scale.

2. Governments must now focus on developing national action plans to implement the Rio+20 outcomes,ensuring that there is an alignment between global goals and local action. However, it is important to recognisethat in the current financial climate there is a limited availability of resources for sustainable development-therefore the need to be both efficient and effective is greater than ever before.

3. It is important to recognise that governments cannot deliver sustainable development without the supportof multiple stakeholders- including the private sector and civil society organisations. All governments andstakeholders must therefore now work together to secure the future we want for present and future generations,as stated in the Rio declaration a number of times (II, Section C).

4. Adoption of the 10 Year Framework of Programmes (10YFP) on Sustainable Consumption and Production(SCP) is another major milestone that was agreed at Rio+20 (paras 224–6). Transitioning to more sustainablepatterns of consumption and production is at the heart of sustainable development, and international co-operation is essential to effect that transition. Indeed, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg placed muchneeded emphasise on the issue of SCP in the lead up to Rio+20 and during the conference and has said he iscommitted to pursuing this agenda post-Rio+20.

5. The Future We Want emphasises the importance that must be placed on creating sustainable cities (paras134–7) and in the words of Ban Ki Moon “the battle [to achieve sustainable development] will be won or lostin cities”. BioRegional has worked for many years in urban sustainable development, creating One PlanetCommunities around the world that are scalable and demonstrate sustainable living in reality. Actions at thecity or municipal level are vital to achieving a sustainable future for all as the majority of the world’s populationlive in cities, with numbers set to increase drastically over the next decade.

6. A process to establish Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was launched at Rio+20 (paras 245–50)as a successor framework to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) along with a new high-level politicalforum in the UN system with reasonably well-defined functions (IV, Section B). BioRegional has championedthe SDGs since their conceptual inception as a powerful step forward in realising the future and its developmentpotential. The SDGs complement BioRegional’s ten simple One Planet Living principles: Zero Carbon, ZeroWaste, Sustainable Transport, Sustainable Materials, Local and Sustainable Food, Sustainable Water, Land and



Wildlife, Culture and Heritage, Equity and Local Economy, Health and Happiness. In our view, together theSDGs and the One Planet Living principles could create a common language for sustainability.

7. Recognising broader measures of progress and acknowledging the work of the UN Statistical Commissionis an important and concrete step in ensuring more decisive action towards alternative measures to GDP (para38). By using alternative measures of progress, for example the ecological footprint which BioRegional uses,governments can make better formed policy decisions that will truly address the sustainability agenda.

8. A registry of commitments has been established to encourage concrete actions to promote sustainabledevelopment and poverty eradication (para 283). This is regarded by many as one of the most importantlegacies of the conference, initiating a new bottom-up approach towards the advancement of sustainabledevelopment. At Rio+20, BioRegional and our partners made a number of commitments towards achievingOne Planet Living and creating a sustainable future we want and need. However, we do have some concernsover how these commitments are to be monitored and organisations/governments held to account. At the veryleast these commitments demonstrate a willingness for action at all levels, it is now imperative to ensure thatthese commitments are going to be delivered in practice to implement sustainability.

9. Rio+20 did fail to deliver an action plan for eliminating harmful subsidies, such as fossil fuels. The flowsof capital directed towards such harmful subsidies, if redirected, could provide the much needed financingtowards the transition to a more sustainable world. Much more could and should have been advanced at Rio+20after decades of discussion on this issue.

The role played by the UK Government in the run up to, and during, the Summit.

10. The UK is a global leader in advancing the issue of sustainable development. Therefore expectationsfrom UK stakeholders towards our Government’s role in Rio+20 negotiations were high, particularly as theGovernment have said their intention is to be “the greenest Government ever”.

11. Early on in the Rio+20 process, the UK stated their 3 priority areas as: GDP+, SDGs and CorporateSustainability Reporting. For each of these areas, strong frameworks for action have been agreed at the Summitand this is no doubt in part due to the strong support from the UK Government at EU meetings in the run upto and during the Summit.

12. It is also important to acknowledge that the UK for the first time recognised the universal right towater and sanitation, which has been regarded as a major milestone by many groups advocating on this issueinternationally (para 121).

13. DEFRA, DFID and the Cabinet Office engaged in satisfactory stakeholder engagement and consultationin the lead up to Rio+20, with regular meetings convened between Government departments and the BOND-DEG Group, in which BioRegional is an active member. In particular, the sub-group on GDP+ convened byDEFRA allowed us to concretely input Rio+20 text recommendations to the UK Government for them todiscuss at EU meetings.

14. In Rio de Janeiro at the Summit, meetings between UK stakeholders and the Government were fairly adhoc- but in many ways this was understandable given the nature of Rio+20 negotiations. However, forJohannesburg in 2002 we were informed the UK negotiating team would meet daily with stakeholders todiscuss negotiations and seek input from the many participating experts and organisational representatives inattendance. Perhaps the UK Government could review the procedures previously adhered to at internationalSummits for the creation of a manual of best practice, to understand how these processes functioned moreeffectively in the past.

15. The selection of official civil society organisation representatives- WWF and Oxfam- on the UK Rio+20delegation seemed fairly arbitrary. There was a complete lack of agreed, transparent terms of reference toenable UK civil society organisations to understand the roles and responsibilities of these two organisations atRio+20. In BioRegional’s opinion, more representative organisations of UK stakeholders should have beenselected to join the UK delegation- for example Stakeholder Forum, which convenes the BOND-DEG meetings.

What role the UK Government should now play internationally in taking forward the Rio agenda, includingon the Sustainable Development Goals and through the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the UNSecretary General’s “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015”.

16. Governments must now implement the globally agreed outcomes from Rio+20 at the national level.Therefore, the UK Government must now look to meaningfully integrate and address the outcomes fromRio+20 at all levels of Government and across all Ministries.

17. There must be leadership and ownership shown within the UK Government to ensure cross departmentaleffective working to deliver the Rio agenda.

18. It is important to recognise that the Government cannot act alone or deliver the future we all want withoutthe involvement of many different sectors and stakeholders, including social entrepreneurs and innovators likeBioRegional that has experience in implementing sustainable development solutions in practice. The



Government must therefore ensure that going forward there is a strategy to engage with these sectors andstakeholders meaningfully and with urgency.

19. There must be significant mobilisation of resources by the Government to enable the delivery ofRio+20 commitments.

20. Regarding the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015, it is importantto ensure that the work of the panel is inclusive and transparent, open to all stakeholders to input. It is alsovital that the work of the panel is clearly aligned and coordinated alongside with the activities of the UNworking group on SDGs, which was launched at Rio+20 (para 248). It would be simply inefficient andineffective for these two bodies to repeat the work of one another- there must be consistency in theirconsultation processes.

21. Both the panel and working group must identify there can only be 1 set of universal, global goals andthe UN is the only legitimate and representative global governance structure to lead the process. However,national governments must have primary ownership of, and accountability for the framework and its delivery.

22. The goals should be simple, transparent and multidimensional—indeed this was key to gaining supportfor the MDGs and their achievements. In BioRegional’s experience developing and implementing the OnePlanet Living sustainability framework, it is important to ensure that the process is easy for people to understandand sustainability principles clearly outlined. There is a real role for communications experts in this process toensure the Rio agenda is relevant and accessible to people across the world in their everyday lives.

23. BioRegional endorses the UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda’srecommendations for a “strong, inspirational vision together with a set of concrete and time bound goals andtargets that could be monitored by statistically robust indicators”. This has helped to keep the focus on results,but also motivated the strengthening of statistical systems and use of quality data to improve policy design andmonitoring by national governments and international organisations.

24. GDP+ has been identified as an important issue by the UK Government and they really are a globalleader in this area, with a number of committees and consultations initiated to identify and explore alternativemeasures of progress to GDP. The UK Government should continue to work closely with agencies likeUNSTATS and the World Bank to effectively develop and implement this agenda at an international scale.There remains significant misunderstanding by many governments towards natural capital accounting- the UKcan take strong, global leadership to share their experiences and approaches with other countries in this area.

How well the UK Government’s policies and initiatives match the commitments and calls-for-action set out in“The Future We Want” declaration, the areas in which the Government has more to do, and where theGovernment’s priorities should lie.

25. BioRegional would encourage the UK Government to develop a National One Planet Action Plan todeliver sustainable consumption of resources. In the words of Caroline Spelman MP at Rio+20, this would bea “natural next step” from the Natural Environment White Paper.

26. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also placed much needed emphasise on the issue of SCP in the leadup to Rio+20 and during the conference, and has said he is committed to pursuing this agenda post-Rio+20.He also expressed great interest in working with business, local authority networks and NGOs on this issue.

What part greater informed public debate and wider engagement with the Rio issues needs to play.

27. Implementation of Rio+20 outcomes will depend, critically, on effective governance capacities atnational, local and municipal levels, including political commitment and leadership; and on the legal andeconomic empowerment of people, especially those most excluded, and of their civil society organisations, toparticipate effectively in national and local decision making.

28. The Government must meaningfully continue to engage extensively with all sectors, including businessand civil society, through public debates and consultations to ensure the future we want can become a reality.These sectors are both the innovators and practitioners needed to implement sustainable development at allscales.

4 September 2012



Written evidence submitted by Peter Davies, Commissioner for Sustainable Futures, Wales

From 17—20 June 2012 I attended the UN World Summit of Regions in Rio de Janeiro (Rio+20). Thesummit brought together representatives from over 100 nations as well as NGOs and businesses all over theworld to decide on how to tackle the World’s worsening environmental problems.

I, as Wales’ Commissioner for Sustainable Futures, attended the event and further promoted the work ofWales whilst networking with key figures. My presence at the summit enabled me to represent Wales as a leaderin sustainable development, promote the role that regional governments have to play in global negotiations andgain valuable insight and feedback at a world level.

I spoke at meetings of the Climate Group and the network of regional governments for SustainableDevelopment, two international networks in which Wales plays a key role.

I spent time promoting what the Welsh Government is doing to embed sustainable development in everythingit does; raising awareness of the important role regional governments play in international commitment tosustainability, and gathering views on Wales’ plans to introduce an SD Bill to create sustainable places forpeople to live and work.

I addressed the World Summit of Federated States and Regions hosted by the Governor of Rio State andgained insights into the different approaches to SD. I found it extremely useful to meet with and learn fromother regional governments—so that we can make our SD legislation as strong and effective as possible.

At the end of the conference, World leaders voted to include the role of regional governments in the agreeddeclaration text outlining how the world should move forward in addressing environmental issues. It is clearthat it is now up to regional governments to lead the way and set examples in how to create sustainable placesand practises. Despite the text lacking ambition, I am pleased that Wales now has an opportunity to leadthe way.

The world is set on an unsustainable course and the window for action is closing. It is clear that progresscan happen quickest at regional level with regional governments being the true leaders in sustainability.

I plan to use my learning from the summit to positively influence our sustainable development policy andwill be following up with contacts made over the coming months.

The conference was a great opportunity to tell leaders around the world how Wales is leading the way inbuilding foundations for a sustainable future.

24 August 2012

Written evidence submitted by the British Youth Council

1. Summary

1.1 The British Youth Council (BYC) supported young people’s participation in the Rio+20 process and leda post-Rio review meeting with young participants.

1.2 It was acknowledged that the UK Government were open to dialogue and engaged in efforts to listen toyoung people. However, on the whole, young people were disappointed with the UK government’s actionsbefore and during the Rio+20 conference and felt that not enough was done to ensure their effectiveparticipation in the decision making process, and that awareness, information and education on the summitwas low.

1.3 In order to maximise the outcomes of Rio+20 and to improve participation in future events we stronglyrecommend:

1.3.1 An official youth delegate should be accredited as member of the UK negotiating team forfuture international summits.

1.3.2DEFRA should establish formal links with youth-led and youth focused organisations similar to existingchannels with wider civil society.

1.3.3 A meeting should be held between the Secretary of State, young people and youth organisationsto explain the outcomes of Rio+20 and discuss opportunities for their implementation at anational and international level. BYC would be happy to facilitate this process.

1.3.4 Education and information should be provided by the Government and partners to ensuresufficient knowledge and awareness of key international summits.

1.3.5 A formal consultation should be held for all future international summits of long term, globalimportance, and where young people and future generations will be significantly impacted,including the post-2015 development framework.

1.3.6 Immediate action should be taken to create employment opportunities for young people throughthe creation of green jobs in new industries and the greening of existing industries and sectors.



Introduction

2. The British Youth Council

2.1 BYC is the national youth council of the UK. We aim to empower young people aged 25 and under tohave a say and be heard. We help them participate in decisions that affect them; have a voice and campaignon issues they believe in, inspire them to have a positive impact, and gain recognition for their positivecontribution to communities, society and the world.

2.2 We our governed entirely by young people with a board of 13 Trustees, all of whom are 25 or under.The Board is elected by young people from our membership organisations which includes over 250 local youthcouncils, national youth organisations such as NUS, Scouts and others, and a wide range specialist youthorganisations, including faith, diaspora and disability groups, campaigns and youth-led networks. We alsomanage the UK Youth Parliament and the Young Mayors Network.

3. BYC & Rio+20

3.1 The British Youth Council had an informal role in supporting young people’s participation in the Rio+20process through:

— Hosting the “London+20” youth event which helped to define the UK youth positions andpriorities in advance of Rio+20. (25 young people)

— Co-organising a learning and sharing event with DEFRA, UNICEF and the Science Museumin June 2012.The event was attended by the Secretary of State for the Environment at the time,Caroline Spelman MP, and 30 young people from across London. (40 young people)

— Supporting communication and collaboration between youth delegates at the Rio event itself.

— Organising a post-Rio+20 evaluation meeting with Stakeholder Forum, the UK Youth ClimateCoalition, Peace Child International, Children’s Helpers Worldwide, International Federation ofMedical Student Associations and BYC Trustees. (seven young participants from Rio+20)

3.2 This submission is based on our experience throughout the Rio+20 process, our conversations with youngparticipants before, during and after the event, and the specific review consultation with key stakeholders.

3.3 This is not a joint submission and remains solely a British Youth Council document.

Submission

4. The role played by the UK Government in the run up to, and during, the Summit.

4.1 It was acknowledged that the UK Government were open to dialogue and engaged in efforts to listen toyoung people. However, on the whole, young people were disappointed with the UK government’s actionsbefore and during the Rio+20 conference and felt that not enough was done to ensure their effectiveparticipation in the decision making process, and that awareness, information and education on the summitwas low.

Youth delegates

4.2 A youth delegate is a young person that is given formal negotiator accreditation as part of the UK team.Youth delegates are the voice of young people and can play an unprecedented role in influencing a country’sofficial position and can be instrumental in supporting and developing an approach to the negotiations thatplaces the interests of youth as a built in part of their government’s discussions.

4.3 For (and with) young people, they are the conduit for information and lobbying and offer young peoplea platform for engaging and participating in the negotiations in a way that is meaningful and respected. Theycan be inspiring and motivating for young people and help translate complicated policy language into somethingaccessible and relevant to people’s daily lives.

4.4 With varying degrees of access and influence, the following countries formally accredited a young personas part of their official delegation: African Union, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany,Hungary, Japan, Kenya, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sweden,Switzerland, USA.

4.5 Young people in the UK repeatedly called for DEFRA and the Secretary of State to follow suit andappoint an official youth delegate as part of the delegation to Rio+20 but were unsuccessful.

4.6 We see this as a vital requirement for future negotiations through the UN Conference on SustainableDevelopment (UN-CSD) and in similar processes such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). A country that extends an accredited negotiator badge to their country’s youth are recognising theimportant contribution young people can make in these negotiations as well as displaying a clear commitmentto future generations, embracing the need for intergenerational equity and the moral (as well as human right)requirement to involve young people in decision making that affects their lives.



Formal youth engagement structures

4.7 In order to participate effectively, young people, youth-led organisations and youth-centred organisationsneeded to be involved in stakeholder dialogues and communications.

4.8 Stakeholder Forum held regular meetings with civil society organisations and DEFRA officials, with theSecretary of State also attending on a number of occasions. Many youth-centered organisations did not knowabout these meetings and with many of them taking place in New York around the fringes of Rio+20 informalnegotiations, it would have been challenging for many small youth organisations to attend.

4.9 We would like to see formal engagement processes established between DEFRA and youth organisationsin the UK. Other government departments have set existing precedents, for example DFID is connected viathe DFID/Civil Society Organisations Youth Working Group, and DECC had previously supported a YouthAdvisory Panel which was consulted on issues, particularly ahead of COP negotiations.

4.10 We would like to see similar engagement with DEFRA to support young people’s voice and influencein policy making. The British Youth Council would be happy to facilitate this process, including through ourNational Scrutiny Group. This group consists of 14 elected young people that work with Governmentdepartments and Ministers to seek the views on the content and implementation of their polices, therebyenabling them to make more informed decisions.

4.11 A formal consultation with young people would have helped promote the summit and supported youngpeople’s engagement. Other European countries held formal consultations with their country’s youth and wewould have liked to have seen a similar commitment in the UK. This would have given a clear mandate to thegovernment from the UK’s youth.

4.12 Many young people did take part in the Rio+20 through national and international civil societyorganisations and through the formal Major Group for Children and Youth as part of the formal Rio+20 process.

4.13 We welcome the meeting held between the Secretary of State and UK youth in Rio. Informal dialogueopportunities are valuable for both sides to be able to speak openly and for young people to raise issues andask questions on the negotiations. However, in order to maximize these opportunities they need to be organisedin advance to enable more young people from to be involved and to give them enough time to prepare properly.

4.14 Young people in the UK had also campaigned for the Prime Minister to attend the summit and wereleft feeling that it “was not a priority” when the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State attended instead.

Knowledge, education and capacity

4.15 Awareness and knowledge of Rio+20 in the UK was low and coverage of the summit through theBritish media was niche and limited. This led to many people—including many youth—being unaware of thesummit and unable to participate effectively.

4.16 Young people reported seeing no information or publication aimed at young people informing them ofthe summit. Though we recognise that this is not the sole responsibility of the Government, and thatinternational summits are becoming increasingly frequent, this was only the second Conference on SustainableDevelopment attended by world leaders—20 years after the first—and was a major global event.

4.17 Education, information and promotion is needed to equip young people with the knowledge to engage.The participation of children and young people is one of the articles in Agenda 21 and the UK governmenthas a responsibility to ensure knowledge and education is sufficient for meaningful engagement. The BrazilianGovernment required all schools in the country to run a lesson on the conference and its significance.

4.18 Events, such as the one in the Science Museum, were positive and enabled young people to learn moreabout Rio+20, set their priorities for action and pass these directly to the Secretary of State. BYC hugelywelcome and support this. We would like to have seen this opportunity extended to many more young peopleand for adequate planning and promotion time to have been given. The event also fell in early June—the startof GCSE and A/AS Level examinations—and many young people were unable to attend.

4.19 Those young people who were informed about the Rio+20 process did so through the Major Group forChildren and Youth and through events such as “London+20” held before the summit.

5. How well the Rio declaration—“The Future We Want”—matched the actions that were needed

5.1 Sadly, the majority of young people we talked to after the event had negative opinions on the outcomesof Rio+20 and described the process as “frustrating” and “disappointing”.

5.2 Many of the young people, despite being highly engaged, were unaware of the specific impact of whatwas achieved and not achieved at Rio+20. Subsequently, they felt that wider groups of young people with littleor no involvement in the Rio+20 process would be unaware of the outcomes and their impact with littleinformation being shared and promoted.

5.3 Some of the key issues that young people had called for ahead and during the Rio+20 summit were:

— Renewed political commitment.



— Non-formal education on sustainable development.

— Ombudsman for Future Generations and a High Commissioner for Future Generations.

— Sustainable Development Goals.

— Beyond GDP/Happiness index.

— End to fossil fuel subsidies.

— Enhanced power of UNEP.

— Green jobs to reduce youth unemployment.

— Green skills and training.

— Recognition of planetary boundaries.

— UN Council on Sustainable Development.

— Access to clean water.

— Youth delegates.

5.4 Young people at our consultation event were asked to note down the outcomes that youth had beenhoping for. They were then asked to colour code them based on the level of success they felt these had beenachieved at Rio+20.

— Red indicates the outcome wasn’t achieved.

— Orange indicates the outcome was achieved to a degree but not fully as hoped.

— Green means the outcome was achieved as hoped.

Red Orange Green

Reproductive & Sexual rights Environmental Rights Council on SustainableDevelopment

Conflict & peace Gender Public participationGreen skills and training Public Participation Sustainable citiesYouth Participation/youth delegates Upgrading of UNEP Sustainable Development GoalsOmbudsman for Future Generations Sustainable development educationKnowledge sharing and technology Ombudsman for Future GenerationsRenewed political commitment Fossil fuel subsidiesGlobal strategy on green jobs

5.5 Many of the key issues were coded either red or orange indicating no or limited success. Only 4 out of18 were coded green. Though unscientific in its nature, it does suggest that young people feel the outcomes ofRio+20 have not committed to the asks of young people.

5.6 Because there was no youth consultation in the UK ahead of Rio+20 there are no formal baselines orinitial priorities in which to measure the outcomes of the conference against. The anecdotal and informalopinions of young people are, at this stage, the only measure of success we have. However, the vast numberof issues which young people wanted to see actioned at the summit have failed to be realised and this is clearfrom the outcome document as well as through our consultation.

5.7 It is difficult for young people to assess the commitments made at Rio+20 as success depends on theactions that follow both on outcomes that young people see as positive developments and where action in thetext is limited or non-existent.

5.8 Many young people felt that the outcomes had provided something to move forward with.

5.9 “[The outcomes are] something to work with. Not much, but something.”

5.10 We would specifically welcome a response from the new Minister to young people and an agreementto meet with young people who attended the consultation event hosted at the Science Museum ahead of thesummit. This would provide an opportunity for young people to understand better the outcomes and for theMinister to be held to account by young people to areas deemed unsuccessful.

6. How well the UK Government’s policies and initiatives match the commitments and calls-for-action set outin “The Future We Want” declaration, the areas in which the Government has more to do, and where theGovernment’s priorities should lie.

6.1 Young people felt that it was too early to properly assess the success of Rio+20 given the short time thathas passed since the conference.

Young people felt that it was difficult to prioritise actions because of the urgent necessity for them all tobe achieved.

6.2 In our consultation session, young people were asked to rank the major headings from “The Future WeWant” document. Young people said their priorities for the UK government were:

1. Sustainable Development Goals.



2. Poverty, employment, green jobs with education, skills and training.

3. Technology, education, finance.

4. Green economy, energy, water, Happiness index, Agriculture & Farming.

5. Forests, Gender & Women, Sustainable transport/cities/tourism.

6. Climate change.

6.3 They were clear that this reflected what the UK government needed to do and not a ranking of the issues.Climate change was put last because it was felt the UK government already has progressive and proactivelegislation dealing with the issue.

6.4 The top priorities for youth were:

— Sustainable Development Goals.

— Poverty eradication.

— Employment.

— Green jobs, education, skills and training.

6.5 Sustainable Development Goals were seen as an urgent priority as they encompassed all of the otherissues and provide an opportunity where the UK can have large, immediate influence. It was felt that the UKshould consider the impact of SDGs on the UK given their universality. The Prime Minister’s internationalrole as co-chairman of the “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015” will behugely important in setting the agenda and shaping the next global development framework, but the UK canalso play a leading role in sustainable development in the UK.

6.6 It is also a very difficult time to be young and living in the UK. Although falling, youth unemploymentis over one million, university fees have tripled, housing benefit has been cut for under 25s and the EducationalMaintenance Allowance has been abolished.

6.7 Young people felt that employment and green skills were vital for providing immediate opportunities toearn a living and equip them for the future. The Government should take action to:

— Provide employment opportunities through the creation of greens job in new industries and thegreening of existing industries and sectors. This would provide immediate relief to unemployedyouth and support their economic wellbeing.

— Prepare future generations and workforces for the future employment landscape by providingtraining, education and skills programmes on green technology, innovations and industries. Thiswould secure the UK’s long-term economic development as well as supporting the transition toa sustainable world.

6.8 Young people felt that the UK government was not doing enough to support young people intoemployment and that this should be addressed as a matter of urgency. Green jobs has the ability to providedecent, well paid long term jobs, green existing industries, provide a sustainable economy, support innovationin new technology, tackle inequalities and poverty, reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment.

6.9 Young people saw this directly linking to the eradication of poverty in the UK where 33% of childrenlive in relative poverty. It would also promote social wellbeing and happiness through economic fulfillment.

6.10 Given the urgency of the environmental, economic and development crisis, a rapid transition to asustainable world is needed. While young people prioritised the issues, it was clear that a holistic approach isneeded and that the issues could not be isolated and dealt with independent of the others. The interconnectionof the issues means they need to be addressed simultaneously. A multi-lens approach is needed and thegovernment must formulate policy by recognising the interdependence of actions needed on sustainabledevelopment.

7. What role the UK Government should now play internationally in taking forward the Rio agenda,including on the Sustainable Development Goals and through the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of theUN Secretary-General’s “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on planning for post-2015”.

7.1 Young people hugely welcome the Prime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the “High-level Panel of EminentPersons to advise on planning for post-2015” and see it as a positive opportunity to have their voice heard andinfluence the post-2015 global development agenda.

7.2 Young people felt that David Cameron’s involvement presented a number of opportunities for youthparticipation and engagement to be taken seriously and that the time frame offered amble time for consultation.They hoped the UK would facilitate an open process and hold a national consultation on the post-2015 agenda.Though the UK is not one of the 50 countries sponsored by the UN to hold a consultation, we see the UK’sposition as unique an urge the UK government to make every effort to involve young people and civil societyduring this process.

7.3 More widely, young people also demonstrate a high level of awareness and concern for globaldevelopment issues. An opinion poll by YouGov for the International Broadcasting Trust of 14—20 year-olds



explored global development issues. When asked about their own level of knowledge about global poverty andthe lives of those living in developing countries, the majority (67%) claimed to be very or fairly concernedabout levels of poverty in poor countries.

7.4 Young people are hopeful about the opportunities and role that the UK government could play in thepost-2015 debate. It is important that the UK “learn the lessons” from Rio+20 and provide a better, moremeaningful platform for young people to engage. Youth were repeatedly mentioned through Rio+20 and willbe vital in the successful achievement of both the current MDGs and the SDGs that follow them.

7.5 Young people feel that information is going to be more important during this time due to the largenumber of international conferences taking place over the next three years. Young people particularly felt thatthe stakes were high and that the Government must use its good reputation in terms of internationaldevelopment to exert influence on the world stage and facilitate a single track, ambitious framework for globaldevelopment post-2015.

8. What part greater informed public debate and wider engagement with the Rio issues needs to play.

8.1 This area of discussion has been mentioned throughout this submission and young people’s engagementin, and during, international summits needs to be improved to ensure their participation is meaningful andimpactful.

8.2 The low level of debate, awareness and knowledge of Rio+20 has demonstrated that issues of globalimportance are not necessarily prioritised that highly domestically—particularly in the media. The issuesnegotiated at Rio+20, be they energy, climate change, green jobs, economic growth, poverty eradication andglobal development are of vital importance to young people’s lives in the UK and the negotiations will have adirect impact on their futures. Much greater emphasis needs to be placed on a wide and informed public debateto ensure issues receive the attention and input they require.

9. Concluding Remarks

9.1 Young people’s participation in Rio+20 was low and this was exacerbated by the little awareness andinformation provided by the Government in the run up to the summit. Informal communication, a lack ofstructured channels for youth engagement and no sizable youth consultation has resulted in the youth voicebeing limited.

9.2 Young people are very supportive of the Prime Minister’s international role in the formation of a post-2015 development framework and call upon the Government to maximise youth and civil society inclusion.Sustainable Development Goals could be a valuable framework but must recognise the holistic approach neededfor government, NGOs and international agencies to fulfill them.

Young people feel strongly that there is an unemployment crisis in the UK and that this needs to be addressedas a matter of urgency. Green jobs need to form part of this to provide sustainable livelihoods for young peoplenow and future generations.

9.3 The lessons and missed opportunities from Rio+20 need to be addressed and remedied for futureinternational summits. Best practice of engagement should be shared across Government departments withDEFRA specically looking at DECC and DfID for guidance. Young people need to play an integral part offuture development frameworks both globally and nationally and be supported in the UK’s transition to asustainable economy.

10. Recommendations

10.1 In order to maximise the outcomes of Rio+20 and to improve participation in future events westrongly recommend:

10.1.1 An official youth delegate that is an accredited member of the UK negotiating team should beestablished as a priority for future international summits. This would bring the UK in line withother countries.

10.1.2 DEFRA should establish formal links with youth-led and youth focused organisations similarto existing channels with wider civil society. This would support clear communication andshould build upon existing and previous youth engagement methods in DFID and DECC. Thiswould provide a stronger and more effective relationship between young people, DEFRAofficials and Ministers.

10.1.3 A meeting should be held between the Secretary of State, young people and youth organisationsto explain the outcomes of Rio+20 and discuss opportunities for their implementation at anational and international level. BYC would be happy to facilitate this process.

10.1.4 Education and information should be provided by the Government and partners to ensuresufficient knowledge and awareness of key international summits to ensure young people canparticipate effectively. This should be done through formal and non-formal education structures.



10.1.5 A formal consultation should be held for future international summits of long term, globalimportance, and where young people and future generations will be significantly impacted. Anational UK consultation on the post-2015 development framework should be launched withwide participation of young people and civil society. This is particularly important given thePrime Minister’s co-chairmanship of the “High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise onplanning for post-2015”.

10.1.6 Immediate action should be taken to create employment opportunities for young people throughthe creation of green jobs in new industries and the greening of existing industries and sectors.Future generations and workforces should be prepared for the future employment landscapethrough training, education and skills programmes on green technology, innovations andindustries.

24 September 2012

The Stationery Office Limited06/2013 026116 19585