La visione generale di Greenpeace sulla scadenza di Rio+20 del 2012 si può leggere sui molti documenti che l'Associazione sta via via rendendo disponibili. In particolare Greenpeace ha risposto al questionario promosso dalle nazioni unite attraverso il Panel high-level del Segretario generale sulla sostenibilità globale (GSP). Nel documento che qui suggeriamo di consultare (> leggi il documento di Greenpeace) si possono leggere la presentazione dell'iniziativa del questionario e le risposte preparate da Greenpeace.

Citiamo di seguito per esteso tre interventi del responsabile delle politiche generali di Greenpeace.

Tre contributi di Daniel Mittler, Direttore delle politiche internazionali di Greenpeace

             * Rio+20 - while Rio dances, the UN talks ... (7 marzo 2011)

Many of you reading this are under 30. So the Earth Summit 1992 is simply history for you. If you were thinking about Rio today at all - you were probably thinking about carneval, not politics. Pity Brazilian diplomats and bureaucrats, then, who are not dancing on the streets  today. Instead, they are at the United Nations Headquarters in New York with me, Daniel, Greenpeace´s Political Director. We are attending a pretty humdrum meeting preparing to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Earth Summit 1992 in Rio de Janeiro next year.

Rio 1992 was a decisive moment. The concept of "sustainable development" was adopted by governments for the first time, making it clear that development and environmental protection must - and can -  go together. Key political processes, like the global climate negotiations, that you will have heard about, got launched at Rio. Just a few years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, there was hope in the air. Some believed that governments will now move the billions that they spent on arms during the Cold War on solving the real problems of the world: poverty, disease, environmental destruction. That did not happen.

Today, we still spend around 1600 billions on arms every year - and emissions are rising. Will "Rio+20", to be held in June 2012, be more than a footnote in history? Will it deliver for people and the planet? At meetings like this, it is often difficult to believe that the change we need will happen. Sitting in a room without windows, I remember being here at the UN exactly ten years ago.

Then, governments were making the same speeches about how concerned they are about the state of the climate, forests or oceans. But the last Rio anniversary Summit (held in Johannesburg in 2002), was a failure. Rio+10 adopted a Plan, which civil society mocked as the "Johannesburg Plan of Inaction". 9 years on, that seems no longer a critical joke, but simply reality. Even the better part of the Rio+10 plan - such as a call by governments to hold corporations accountable globally for their actions - governments have failed to act upon ... You may wonder why I am still here ... The answer is simple and two fold:

1. I strongly believe that we would have made even less progress over the last 20 years if it hadn´t been for groups like Greenpeace putting pressure on government.

2. There are many positive changes that have happened over the last 20 years. 20 years ago, for example, renewable energies were not yet taken seriously.

I remember discussing wind and solar energies with friends at university. I was considered pretty mad for thinking that wind and solar will one day be a cornerstone of the globe's energy system. Today, even here at this meeting, there is hardly any government that does not agree that renewable energies are a key to the energy future. And we know that the energy revolution is already underway.

So Greenpeace will work that Rio+20 will deliver real steps forward. Why should Brazil not announce at the Summit, for example, a zero deforestation law that ends deforestation in the Amazon? Why should governments not finally commit to protecting our high seas and create the legal frameworks needed to do so?

In 15 months I want to no longer be stuck in a room with no windows. I want to dance in the streets of the Rio celebrating real successes for people and the planet ... Let´s together prevent that governments get lost in Rio. There is a real danger of that.

     *       Greenpeace Vision for 2012   (preparato per il PrepCom 2, maggio 2011)  

Almost twenty years after the Earth Summit in Rio we face a paradox: We know that solutions are available and affordable, that investments in clean technologies are rising and that deforestation can be stopped if there is sufficient political will. But we also know that development in North and South today remains unsustainable.

Resource use is rising, climate change is spiralling out of control, deforestation is destroying the livelihoods of many, toxic pollution is increasing and we are gambling with global food supplies through the contamination of our food chain with genetically modified crops.

There has been a lot of talk of sustainable development since Rio 1992. But promoting sustainable development is meaningless unless it means ending unsustainable practices. We at Greenpeace do not want you to talk about “sustainable development”, if your government continues to give billions in subsidies to produce climate-damaging fossil fuels. Developed country governments that talk about sustainable development at this PrepCom, but still support new coal fired power stations to be built at home have not understood the scale of the change we need. Developing countries that talk about sustainable development but at home support e.g. the destruction of valuable forests that many depend upon for their livelihoods to enrich the few and damage the environment; they too, have not understood the scale of the problem we face, nor the opportunities green, just development provides.

The truth is that a year and a half before we reconvene in Rio as the world community, there is a lot of cynicism about sustainable development and the broken promises of 1992. As we approach Rio+20 we need to resurrect a notion of sustainability that fully respects ecological limits and makes the economy a mechanism to deliver our societal goals. Former German Chancellor Willy Brandt famously remarked that “Peace isn't everything, but without peace there is nothing!”. The same is true for the environment. Since 1992, there has been a lot of pious talk about “balancing” social, economic and environmental needs. But without the environmental base, without the natural environment and the services it provides – there is no economy – nor any basis for livelihoods for the poor.

The good news is: Poverty eradication and a clean energy future can go hand in hand. The  Energy Revolution scenario we have developed together with business partners shows that we can deliver energy to more people, especially the poor in developing countries, cut emissions – and create more jobs doing so. In South Africa, for example, switching from fossil to clean fuels would create 78,000 new jobs by 2030 - more than the business-as-usual model that keeps us dependent on coal and nuclear power.

Rio+20 must make some key commitments to deliver. It must:

• Support an energy revolution based on renewable energy and energy efficiency and providing access to energy for all – see www.greenpeace.org/energyrevolution . The energy revolution must be the cornerstone of any green economy roadmaps.

• Commit to zero deforestation by 2020. This requires commitment and actions by both governments and businesses around the world. Developed countries and corporations must end policies and funding that drive deforestation. In order to reduce pressure on forests, developed countries need to address demand-side causes of deforestation and implement policies and measures to reduce and ultimately stop the import and consumption of goods stemming from deforestation and degradation (including unsustainable timber, palm oil, and other commodities).

• Make the transition to a green economy fair and equitable and commit to a decent jobs agenda.

• Strengthen the governance system that delivers an “environment for development” by upgrading the UN Environment Programme to specialized agency status. Sustainable development needs a global authority on the environment and stronger implementation mechanisms.

• Specifically, the gaps in oceans governance that are hampering progress on marine protection must be urgently addressed. Greenpeace calls for a new implementing agreement under UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)  for the conservation of marine biodiversity and sustainable management of human activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This new implementing agreement would be based on the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach and provide for the establishment and management of marine reserves in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The year 2012 marks the deadline for the establishment of networks of marine protected areas in the world’s oceans, as agreed by states in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and the CBD. Today, however, MPAs cover a mere 5.9% of territorial seas and only 0.5% of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The urgency is clear.

• The global community needs to establish and implement strong safeguards to ensure (a) the protection of natural forests, (b) maintenance of native biodiversity, and (c) the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in international mechanisms and funds for forests.

 Delegates, the eyes of the world will be on you on the road to Rio+20. Let us start a conversation on how to deliver for people and the planet here in New York.

  *            *     One year to Rio+20 - is there hope? (4 giugno 2011)

19 years ago more heads of states than ever came together in Rio de Janeiro for what was termed the Earth Summit. They agreed on a few sensible things, such as that "the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations" or that "states shall enact effective environmental legislation". The language is typical of bureaucrats. But the message is pretty good.

Exactly one year from today, governments will meet in Rio again to mark the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit. Few heads of states that were present in 1992 will attend when governments meet from June 4th to 6th 2012 for Rio+20. And many will be happy not to be there. That way, they can avoid admitting that they utterly failed to deliver what they promised. In 1992, for example, governments agreed the UN Climate Convention, which states that the: "ultimate objective of the Convention ... is to achieve ... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". If they had meant it, of course, we would have stopped the relentless rise in climate damaging emissions long ago. Instead, as you probably read, 2010 was the worst year ever in terms of humanity's impact on the fragile climate we depend on.

There was plenty wrong with what governments agreed in detail in 1992. They endorsed nuclear power, for example. Still, 1992, for those of us old enough to remember it, often seems like the proverbial good old days. At least then, unlike in Copenhagen in 2009, governments could agree. At least then, we could be hopeful that the Earth Summit would be truly a turn around moment.  Shortly after the end of the Cold War, many believed that governments would finally be ready to move the billions that they spent on arms during the Cold War on solving the real problems of the world: poverty, disease, environmental destruction. That did not happen. Today, we still spend around 1600 billions on arms every year. So will "Rio+20" be worth anything? Will it deliver for people and the planet? 

So far, the official preparations do not give much ground for hope. Governments are arguing over terms like the "Green economy" rather than getting on with what is needed, such as delivering an energy revolution or ending deforestation. In Brazil, the host nation, deforestation is rising and forest protections are under threat rather than being extended. President Dilma Roussef needs to act to protect the integrity of Brazil´s forest code. Otherwise, with brutal irony, the current increase in deforestation will continue, just as the world descends on Rio for another Earth Summit. 

No question, there is plenty the Earth Summit 2012 could - and should - achieve. We have our demands ready. Politics being politics, though, June 2012 is, realsitically, not a great moment for major advances to be made. While one significant change since 1992 is that powers such as China, Brazil, India or South Africa - to name just a few - are much more powerful, it´s still difficult to make global progress on fundamental matters such as a fair and green economy without the United States. In June 2012, however, the United States will be busy with the looming presidential election. Obama - who has failed to lead on climate change so far at the global level - will be loath to agree to anything that his Republican opponents may criticize in the election, let alone something progressive. That´s sad, wrong and should be different. But it´s likely how things will be.

But likely does not mean certain, of course. Who would have thought one year ago, that we would see a conservative government in Germany abandon nuclear power, for example? If we can learn anything from the Fukushima tragedy, it is that politics is never linear, and never entirely predictable. There are moments when real change is possible.

And there are some concrete steps that could be agreed upon at Rio. The vast high seas, for example, could finally get the legal protection they deserve (a small step in that direction was taken in New York this week). Governments could create a true global institution that can protect the environment and enforce environmental rules. Governments could commit to zero deforestation by 2020 - with the host Brazil reversing the current trends and leading the way. 

May be in June 2012 the global winds of change will be such, that global steps forward for the environment and people will be possible. It´s not exactly likely. But it´s worth fighting for. We at Greenpeace will be ready to hold governments accountable for their failures, to propose sensible ways forward and to push for the best deal possible for people and the planet. As Bob Hunter, one of Greenpeace´s founders, was fond of saying: "Big change looks impossible when you start, and inevitable when you finish" Such may it soon be with the energy revolution, zero deforestation and protected high seas.

 

TORNA SU