Editors’ guidelines for national reports

The theme of the 2011 Social Watch Report is sustainable development.

The report will be presented in the context of the preparations for the Rio + 20 Summit, at a critical juncture: time has come to open up new ways to move ahead, to learn lessons from the world crises –economic, financial, climate and food- and to re-think our goals and strategies for development and social progress, in the South as well as in the North. To reach this objective each and every national report in the SW 2011 Report is a vital element, beyond the great plans and paradigms that are involved, the Social Watch organizations know better than anyone what the real situation at the national and sub national level is. It is these specific contributions that give the report its overall meaning.

What sustainable development means, above all, is finding a balance between human rights, the environment and development, and what each Social Watch national report has to evaluate is the interaction between society, economy and environment.

Sustainable development as the main theme of the 2011 report

The Social Watch Accra Assembly, in October 2009 shaped the network’s strategy and the framework of activities for the current period. On that occasion, the assembly reaffirmed the network’s commitment to peace, social, economic, environment and gender justice, and to the right of all people not to be poor. Also, the assembly recognized climate change as a threat to the very survival of our planet and that, based on the notion of environmental justice. Social Watch will be contributing to the current climate negotiations, an approach founded on its social and gender justice principles.

Abiding by these principles, Social Watch is currently promoting Rethinking Development and Progress[1], an alliance of civil society organizations whose purpose is to reflect on development perspectives. This group is made up of 15 civil society activist leaders, experts and academics from all over the world. It will evaluate conventional and alternative models for development and well-being, reconsider development indicators and goals including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), draw conclusions for future development strategies, and make specific recommendations for policies for the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

Rethinking Development and Progress is already showing awareness that to face the dramatic impact of the current multiple crises (financial, climate, food, fuel) we need a comprehensive approach based on equity and justice between countries and within countries, since the kind of growth now experienced by developing countries is not leading to job creation and poverty eradication. The immediate goals to reach are inclusive growth and sustainable development.

We find ourselves at a crucial point in time – fast approaching the 2015 deadline for the MDGs, while preparing for the 2012 Conference on Sustainable Development. Today’s unprecedented coincidence of global crises – economic, financial, food and climate – reveals the dead end to which the dominating models of development have led us. It is now time to break with past practices and break new ground, to draw lessons from these crises and to fundamentally rethink our goals and measures of development and social progress – in North and South.

The time between the Summits in 2010 and 2012 provides a unique window of opportunity to reconsider the current development paradigm and to develop strategies towards a holistic, rights-based approach of global development and well-being. The Group will contribute to this process of rethinking.

While inclusive growth will mean rebalancing the private sector with the interests of citizens and the states’ obligations to promote human rights and provide a “social floor” for all (and this in turn requires a global investment in climate security, food security, social protection and employment creation in developing countries), to reach sustainable development, its three pillars (environmental, economic and social) should be targeted.

However, this is just the beginning. A good portion of the evidence to be considered in this reflection process will come from the Social Watch Report 2011, whose might resides in the fact that national Social Watch organizations from all over the world provide concrete information about the real needs for development in each country, about what the main obstacles are and about which alternative proposals or views are presented by civil society in each country. The experiences at the national level collected in the Report 2011 will help demonstrate the extent to which the current development model aggravates social injustice.

Participation at the grassroots level is key to sustainable development: for it to be feasible there is a need to move to approaches that involve cross-sectoral co-ordination and the integration of environmental and social concerns into all development processes. In other words, as Agenda 21 (the United Nations’ action plan for sustainable development) has emphasized, there will be no sustainable development without broad public participation in decision making. In this regard, the annual international Social Watch report, based on reports made by citizens’ groups and independent coalitions, will become a key player in the discussion on sustainable development.

The muscle of grassroots groups and coalitions’ positions derives from their knowledge of facts on the ground, and from being first-hand witnesses and crucial providers of information. They are the ones who have real experience on the issues, and they are best entitled to supply specific information about the big problems and challenges affecting each country.

After all, what do we mean when we speak of sustainable development? The area of can be divided conceptually into three parts or “pillars”: environmental, economic and social. These three pillars can be understood as the continuous relationship between social well-being, the environment and economic growth. Sustainable development means both that development must be inclusive so that all actors are committed and that all actions must meet the developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. It is precisely the Social Watch national coalitions who know best what the needs of present and future generations in each country are.

This is reinforced by the fact that the strategies to reach sustainable development must be diverse and respond to the specific needs of countries. Here, again, it is the Social Watch national coalitions who are best suited to understand the particular developmental needs and strategies for each country.

The aim of sustainable development is to define and implement viable projects and reconcile the economic, social and environmental aspects of human activities. Here again, the Social Watch coalitions are best entitled to reckon the extent to which environmental factors connect to the most vulnerable sectors of society.

To demonstrate let’s consider global warming, this environmental factor was identified by the Accra assembly as a threat to the very survival of the planet. All around the world rising temperatures affect human lives, but it is the disadvantaged who suffer the most. Women, people of color, low-income, and Indigenous communities are affected by compromised health, financial burdens, and social and cultural disruptions due to climate change.

They are the first to experience the negative impacts of climate change such as heat-related illnesses and death, respiratory illness, infectious diseases, unaffordable rises in energy costs, and extreme natural disasters. Not only do they bear disproportionate burdens from climate change itself, but also from ill-designed policies to prevent climate change and the side effects of the energy systems that cause it as well.

This goes against any notion of justice: those who are most affected are the least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that cause the problem–both globally and within each country. Global warming, an issue of human rights and environmental justice, must be dealt with in national reports while considering its human, social and economic impacts.

Some points to consider while writing national reports

The realities on the ground are different for each country. However, as we will be including some 60 – 70 national reports, we will need to reach some middle ground among them. Thus, we suggest some general guidelines for the national reporters to take into consideration.

Something to bear in mind while writing national reports is that the SW 2011 is not centred only on the environment but on the interaction between society, the economy and the environment, since the aim of sustainable development is to define and implement viable projects and reconcile the economic, social and environmental aspects of human activities (in other words, on what makes development sustainable).

Some advice that may help in writing the report is given below. These points should not be taken as a questionnaire or as a list of subjects that must be covered; rather they are general guidelines that may be of use to some.

First, it would be suitable to make clear which aspects of sustainable development feature in the debate in the specific country and which do not. Therefore it may be helpful to outline the current approaches to this problem or problems. These approaches may be correct and the problem is being adequately tackled by current policies, or they may be erroneous or not known, or they may be hampered by a range of factors that might be external, like economic limitations, or internal, like local elites ignoring the problem, or there may simply be a lack of awareness about the problem.

In dealing with these factors, a good approach would be to arrange the report in line with the schema below.

1. Identify the problems
2. Identify the solutions
3. Identify the obstacles
4. Explain what should be done, and if civil society in your country has alternative proposals or views

Some examples of themes to be tackled are as follows: To what extent are climate change, soil erosion, the loss of biodiversity, desertification and the over-consumption of resources connected to the most vulnerable sectors of society? How are government policies on development and the environment set: is there a process where civil society, parliament, and the general population have input or is the agenda and policies set either by the government, by donors or other outside actors, or a combination of the two? We have learned over the years that reports are much stronger when they give concrete examples because the more specific the Social Watch Report is the more weight it carries. Therefore the national reports should be illustrative, and preferably each assertion should be backed up with a concrete example.

Suggested reference materials attached

If you are interested in checking more information on background information on sustainable development or how to write a national report for the Social Watch Report 2011, please go to <www.socialwatch.org/2011report>

Made possible thanks to the funding and support of the European Commission and Oxfam Novib.

The international secretariat of Social Watch also receives funding and support from the Coalition of the Flemish North South Movement – 11.11.11.

The contents of these guidelines are the sole responsibility of its authors and of the Social Watch network and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Commission, Oxfam Novib and the Coalition of the Flemish North South Movement – 11.11.11

What is sustainable development? The evolution of the idea

Throughout the evolution of the concept of “sustainable development” there was consensus on the fact that it does not focus solely on environmental issues. The three interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars are: economic development, social development, and environmental protection. Indigenous peoples have argued that the fourth pillar of sustainable development is also cultural diversity.

The idea of sustainability dates back to the early 20th century in the era of industrial revolution when two opposing factions had emerged within the environmental movement: the conservationists and the preservationists. The conservationists focused on the proper use of nature, whereas the preservationists sought the protection of nature from use.[1] Put another way, conservation sought to regulate human use while preservation sought to eliminate human impact altogether.

As the first evidences of an environmental crisis began to appear, several reactions took place. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was founded in October 1948 following an international conference in Fontainebleau, France. Its promoter’s sought to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

The Club of Rome, a think tank composed of a small international group of people from the fields of academia, civil society, diplomacy, and industry, raised considerable public attention in 1972 with its report The Limits to Growth that predicted that economic growth could not continue indefinitely because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil.

Sustainable development was a key theme of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972[2]. The concept was coined explicitly to suggest that it was possible to achieve economic growth and industrialization without environmental damage.

In the ensuing decades, mainstream sustainable development thinking was progressively developed through the World Conservation Strategy (1980)[3], the Brundtland Report (1987)[4], and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio (1992), as well as in national government planning and wider engagement from business leaders and non-governmental organisations of all kinds.

Over these decades, the definition of sustainable development evolved. The Brundtland Report defined sustainable as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This definition was vague[5], but it cleverly captured two fundamental issues, the problem of the environmental degradation that so commonly accompanies economic growth and yet the need for such growth to alleviate poverty.

The core of mainstream sustainability thinking has become the idea of three dimensions, environmental, social and economic sustainability. These have been drawn in a variety of ways, as ‘pillars’ (Figure A), as concentric circles (Figure B), or as interlocking circles (Figure C). The IUCN uses the interlocking circles model to demonstrate that the three objectives need to be better integrated, with action to redress the balance between dimensions of sustainability.

 
Source: http://www.vda.de/en/publikationen/jahresberichte/

B. Concentric circles

Based on "Sustainable development" diagram at Cornell Sustainability Campus: http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/csi.cfm

C. Overlapping circles

Governments, communities and businesses have all responded to the challenge of sustainability to some extent.

Almost every national government in the United Nations now has a minister and a department tasked with policy on the environment, and many regional and local governments have also developed this capacity. Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the volume and quality of environmental legislation (international, national and local) has expanded hugely, and international agreements (such as the Kyoto protocol) have not only raised the profile of environmental change but also begun to drive global policy change.

Agenda 21 is a non-binding programme of action, which was adopted by more than 178 Governments at the 'Earth Summit' in 1992. Although the Agenda lacks the force of international law, the adoption of the texts carries with it a strong moral obligation to ensure implementation of the strategies. The central belief of this "global partnership" is that all countries can protect the environment while simultaneously experiencing growth.

Regarding climate change, there is increasing recognition that the impacts are being felt disproportionately by poor people who already live under precarious conditions. Climate change, with its many facets, further exacerbates existing inequalities faced by these vulnerable groups. It threatens to undermine the realization of fundamental rights for many people and to reverse progress made towards the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It is a global justice concern that those who suffer most from climate change have done the least to cause it.

The concept of climate justice acknowledges that because the world’s richest countries have contributed most to the problem, they have a greater obligation to take action and to do so more quickly. However, many fear that whatever international agreement is reached between governments, it will compound the already unjust burden on the poor and vulnerable. A rapidly growing number of social movements and civil society organizations across the world are mobilizing around this climate justice agenda. Citizens from both the South and the North are drawn to this concept, in part, because many are already experiencing the impacts of climate change and they worry about the fate of their families, homes and livelihoods[6].

The ‘greening’ of business has grown to be a central issue in corporate social responsibility for many global companies, although for many it is still a boutique concern within wider relationship management, rather than something that drives structural change in the nature or scale of core business.

Since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, the subject of sustainable development has moved up on the political agenda. However, action is still not matching the many challenges such as climate change, poverty alleviation and biodiversity loss. Inequality is growing in the world, and the multiple global crises make it all the harder to advance the sustainability agenda effectively and to secure genuine global co-operation and partnership on the key issues.

In the light of the new and immense challenges faced by the sustainable development agenda, there were calls from many countries and stakeholders for a new World Summit in 2012. The initiative, started by President Luiz Inácio da Silva of Brazil was supported by a large variety of countries and stakeholders including the United Nations General Assembly that decided in a 2009 Resolution A/64/236 that a UN Conference on Sustainable Development will be held in 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

 has offered to host this Conference, 20 years after it hosted the landmark 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development attended by Heads of State and Governments (the “Earth Summit”).

Twenty years after the landmark Earth Summit, the objective of the 2012 Conference is “to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges. The focus of the Conference will include the following themes to be discussed and refined during the preparatory process: a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and the institutional framework for sustainable development”[7]