Here's an article from the Inter Press Service with reactions by various Civil 
Society members as well as Gro Harlem Brundtland.


Shannon

--
Shannon K. Orr, Ph.D.
Associate Professor/MPA Coordinator
Political Science Dept.
Bowling Green State University
118 Williams Hall
419-372-7593
[email protected]


See link: 
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/rio20-promised-green-economy-was-a-fake-say-activists/



RIO+20: Promised Green Economy Was a Fake, Say Activists
By Thalif Deen Republish |       | Print | Send by email

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jun 22 2012 (IPS) - When the Rio+20 summit on sustainable 
development ended Friday, there were winners and losers - mostly losers.

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

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

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

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

The comparison with the 1992 Agenda 21 was inevitable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The most important message as we leave Rio is that the collective task of 
making the three pillars of sustainable development a reality must continue - 
and we don't have any time to lose."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is it possible, she asked, that states can speak of CBDR (common but 
differentiated responsibilities) and equity while ignoring gender equity and 
gender justice? "We are deeply disappointed that our friends remained silent," 
she said.

"The attack that has been launched by the Holy See, along with its friends and 
some very conservative governments, continues and it is very clear that they 
intend to keep this war going."



Reply via email to