ilgtspējīga attīstība. pārmaiņas. draudi

ILGTSPĒJĪGA ATTĪSTĪBA (IA)- UTOPIJA? DRAUDI.

Īsa atbilde: patreizējā redzējumā, visos tā veidos, tā nav reāla, tā ir utopija. Taču tā ir iespējama. Un šajā mājaslapā piedāvāts tā atšķirīgs redzējums ,,Pilnvērtīga attīstība". Zemes, dzīvības uz mūsu planētas ilgi turpināties spēja ir neizbēgama (izņemot milzu astranomisku notikumu), taču pēc Katastrofas tā būtu citāda nekā pašreizējā ekosistēma, un cilvēce, ja tā pastāvētu, būtu citā skaitā un līmenī.

Vienkāršojot- ilgtspējīgas attīstības ideja radās kā atbilde uz draudiem civilizācijas ,,atkrišanai atpakaļ'' vai pat cilvēces pastāvēšanai.

Tādēļ ir 2 pamatjautājumi:

-vai draudi ir reāli?

-vai IA ir reāli iespējama?

Ilgtspējīga attīstība- UTOPIJA? Jā... un nē.

No utopijas uz īstenību.

VAI TU TICI ilgtspējai, ilgtspējīgai attīstībai?

Patreizējā Ilgtspējīgas attīstības (IA) koncepcijas varianti ir utopijas. Liela daļa, kas ilgtspējīgu attīstību (IA) māca citiem, īsteno projektus tai netic. Arī sabiedrība netic un nevēlas, lai ķeras pie tās labklājības pamatiem.

Ilgtspēja- neizbēgama?!

Bet vai Tu tici, ka uz ierobežotas planētas var bezgalīgi pieaugt resursu patēriņš, atkritumi un piesārņojums, sugu un viņu dzīvesvides iznīcināšana, klimata izmaiņas? Tik maza pēc speciālistu (ekspertu) domām ir iespēja izvairīties no vispasaules (globālās) pandēmijas, valūtu kraha (starptautiskās tirdzniecības sabrukuma), informāciju-vadības sistēmu atslēgšanās u.c. katastrofām!

Pašreiz jau pārsniegta ne tikai Zemes ekosistēmas, bet arī daudzu būtisku ekonomisko, sociālo, nacionālo, politisko, garīgo u.c. sistēmu pastāvēšanas robežas- ilgi turpināties, pastāvēt spēja- ilgtspēja (ietilpība, nestspēja) ne tikai katrai atsevišķi, bet mijiedarbībā kā Zemes (globālai) sistēmai kopumā (teogeosociuma sistēmai- Pasaules Kokam). Ilgi tā nevar turpināsies- ja nenotiks daudzu labvēlīgu procesu/notikumu sakritība- Brīnums, visa teogeosociuma sistēma pārtaps par no patreizējās ,,pasaules’’ atšķirīgā sistēmā jaunas ilgtspējas robežās ar cilvēces izdzīvošanai daudz nelabvēlīgākiem apstākļiem. Ilgtspēja kā sistēmas stāvoklis ir neizbēgama.

Ilgtspējīga attīstība- utopija.

Šāda apgalvojuma pamatā ir statistikas dati, kas liecina par dabas vides, sociālajiem un ekonomiskajiem procesiem kopš ekoloģiskās katastrofas apzināšanos 1972.gadā ANO konferencē Stokholmā, ANO Bruntlandes komisijas pasludināto IA ideju (koncepciju) 1987.gadā un IA kā 21.gadsimta galvenā uzdevuma pasludināšanas 1992.gadā pirmajā pasaulē augstākā līmeņa tikšanās reizē (samitā) Riodeženeiro, tajā pieņemto ,,Dienaskārtību 21.gadsimtam'' (,,Agenda21''). Runāts un darīts daudz, bet kļuvis sliktāk. Šāda apgalvojuma pamatā ir starptautisko tikšanās rezultāti, dokumenti, kurus pieminēšu, uzskaitīšu.

Patreizējā Ilgtspējīgas attīstības (IA) koncepcijas varianti ir utopijas. Tai skaitā 25.-27.09.2015 Ņujorkā valstu augstākā līmeņa tikšanās reizē (samitā) pasludinātā it kā jaunā IA nostādne (paradigma). Tai pakārtota Dienaskārtība (Agenda) ar 17 IA mērķiem, 169 apakšmērķiem. Jauns paradigmā ir universalitātes princips, it kā ietverot zem IA ,,jumta'' daudz vairāk nozīmīgu jomu nekā tradicionāli līdz šim (bet skat zemāk, kas no tā jau Rio+20 dokumentos bijis!). Tā būs obligātāka, ar konkrētāku izpildes plānu un tā vērtēšanu (monitoringu), sadarbības tīkla mehānismu (Global Partnership set), ar lielu uzsvaru uz vietējām darbībām u.c. Tomēr tāpat kā 2000.gada Tūkstošgades mērķi, ko tā it kā turpina, 1992.gada Agenda21, Johanesburgas Rio+20 dokumenti- tās visas ir nākotnes sabiedrības izveides programmas un ideoloģijas, kaut daudzveidīgas, kas balstās uz pārliecību, ka CILVĒKS var izveidot, noteikt, pārvaldīt savu, Zemes nākotni. Tāda IA izpratne ir pretēja cilvēka ,,dabai’’ (pieaugošu vajadzību apmierināšana) un peļņai kā ekonomikas dzinulim. Vēsture pierādījusi, ka plāni par cilvēku izveidotu nākotni vai nu paliek autoru galvās (Kampanellas ,,Saules pilsēta’’) vai piedzīvo sabrukumu (komunisma, nacisma idejas, impērijas). Neveiksmi piedzīvojuši centieni ar IA ideju pagriezt cilvēci prom no iznīcības; to atzinuši gan ekoloģiskās katastrofas draudu izpratnes pamatlicēji Medauzi, gan par to liecina statistika, to atzīst arī pētījums pieminētās Ņujorkas samita dokumentos: dzeramā ūdens, augsnes, tīra gaisa- 2/3 dabas pakalpojumu samazināšanās u.c..

Kur un kas tad vēl pasaulē lemts par IA? Uzskaitu tikai dažus speciālistu aprindās zināmākos pasākumus.

,,Rio+5'' un ,,Rio+10'' konferences par Agenda21 izpildi, kurās konstatēts, ka tā nepildās, mēģināts to ,,pārstartēt''.

Tika izveidota pasaules IA veicinošo pilsētu organizācija (ICLEI), izstrādātas pašvaldību, valstu un reģionu ,,Agendas21'', piemēram Baltijas jūras baseina valstīm.

ANO ,,Tūkstošgades deklarācija. Tūkstošgades mērķi" 2000. gadā.

Barbadosas augstākā līmeņa tikšanās (samits) par IA, tā rezultatu izpildes plāns.

Mauritānijas IA tikšanās IA izpildes plāna stratēģija.

2005.gadā Dahas ,,monetārais konsensuss'' ,,Deklarācija par IA finansēšanu''.

,,Konference par apdzīvotību un attīstību".

ANO Ģenerālās asamblejas 68.sesija un daudzi citi ANO pasākumi, institūcijas.

Daudzās aktivitātes klimata izmaiņu, bioloģiskās daudzveidības u.c.jomās.

Kā piemēru sīkāk aprakstīš Rio+20 Johanesburgas samita rezultātus (plašāks teksts angliski nobeigumā).

Tās noslēguma dokuments ,,Nākotne, kādu vēlamies''. Tika izveidota ,,Atvērtā darba grupa'' un izveidots ,,Universāls starpvaldībuaugsta līmeņa politiskais forums'', kura ikdienas darbu vada un lēmumus sagatavo un īsteno IA komisija. Noslēguma dokumentā IA koncepcijā akcents pārlikts no dabas vides uz sociālo, konkrēti nabadzību (bet kāds rezultāts?!- 2015.gada Ņujorkas konferencē konstatēts, ka 1 miljards cilvēku dzīvo nabadzībā). Dokumentā ietverta skaista un pasaules uzskatam nozīmīga doma: ,,Planēta Zeme un tās ekosistēmas ir mūsu mājas. Uzskats ,,Māte Zeme'' ir daudzās zemēs nozīmīgs. Dažās zemēs tiek atzītas dabas tiesības. Dabas vide pieminēta tikai sākot ar 10.punktu. Pretēji Bruntlandes un Rio IA koncepcijas izpratnei teikts, ka ilgtspēja sasniedzama ar ekonomisko attīstību. Neatradu par netaisnīgu Zemes resursu sadali, par ekonomisko mehānismu, kas pa lēto izsūc no nabadzīgajām zemēm gan dabas, gan darbaspēka resursus, sagrauj vietējo pašuzturošo ekonomiku. Tiesa, dokumentā vispārīgi teikts, ka nabadzību veicina neilgtspējīga ražošana un patēriņš.

Pēc deklarācijas tapa tās izpildes plāns, ko angliski pievienoju. Tās ievadā (preambulā) lasām, ka pēc lielajām cerībām par jaunu ēru vides aizsardzībā pasaulē pēc RIO konferences drīz kļuva skaidrs, ka tās deklarācija un Agenda 21 ir maldīgi, mākslīgi (false). Un katrs nākošais samits, tai skaitā Johanesburgas, sava darba rezultātā izstrādāja jaunu deklarāciju. Un nu likta visa cerība uz it kā konkrētu Īstenošanas plānu. Bet, kā redzam no 2015.gada Ņujorkas konferences, atkal jāpārstartē. Tā ir veca utopiju īstenošanas taktika, ja kaut kas nestrādā, tad uzskata, ka to vajag dubultot ar jaunu sparu kaut ko pieejā pamainot. Bet ja nu tā pamatos nederīga un vajag ko citu?

Vēl vienu konferenci, deklarāciju? Nē! Jābūt citai pieejai, redzējumam. Kaut kur parādās idejas par ,,pasaules valdību'', par pasaules ,,labo līderi'', par visaptverošu cilvēces energoinformatīvo apstrādi- zomēšanu, cilvēka sugas ģenētisko uzlabošanu un/vai atlasi jau pirms dzimšanas... Visas šīs idejas iznīcina gan atsevišķa cilvēka, gan cilvēces būtību, pastāvēšanas misiju, par ko runa citviet mājaslapā. Piedāvāju savu reālas ilgi un noturīgi turpināties attīstības redzējumu kā varbūtību, ko nepieciešams veicināt. IA pašreizējās nostādnes savā ziņā pretstatu (alternatīvu) nosaucu par pilnvērtīgu attīstību.

CILVĒKS ierosina, būtiski ietekmē (PSRS izveide, klimata izmaiņas), bet nepārvalda Laika (vēstures, dabas procesu) Ritumu, kas pats ,,ripo’’. Ja nu tikai var pieņemt, ka to nosaka, pārvalda (mijiedarbībā ar cilvēka domām un darbībām) Kaut Kas no Ārpuses, ko ticīgie sauktu par Dievu. Bet... ir procesi, kas šos apstākļus tuvina, ietekmē un cilvēki, kas to dara.

Pilnvērtīga attīstība- tukša fantāzija?!

Gandrīz visi man iebilst: ,,Pilnvērtīgas attīstības (PA) iespēja? Paveries apkārt, kas notiek! Tas ir neiespējami!’’ Atbilde: ,,Jā, kamēr būs iespējama patreizējā Latvijas, pasaules virzība uz strupceļu, jebkura IA ir utopija, ne tautas (valstis), ne cilvēce sevi ar optimālu patēriņu/ražošanu neierobežos. Ja patreizējais Latvijā, uz Zemes ilgi turpināties nevar, priekšā var būt tikai 2 attīstības virzieni: degradācija vai pilnveide. Cerība par pilnveidi balstās neizbēgamā likumsakarībā, ka nākotnes pārmaiņas (kaut vai XX gadsimtā) nekad nav bijušas tābrīža norišu (procesu) turpinājums (ekstrapolējums), bet būtisks (radikāls) jauninājums (kas nebijis), pat pagrieziens. Cerība ir balstīta uz iespējamību, ka notiek iejaukšanās no Ārpuses, Augšienes- notiek Brīnums- daudzu apstākļu veiksmīgu sakritība, kas vēsturē noticis daudzkārt: Atmoda, Latvijas izveide un atjaunošana, PSRS sabrukums u.c.

Cerība ir paradigmu maiņas un laikmetu (civilizāciju) maiņas likumi. Saskaņā ar tiem patreizējo materiālo, egoistisko vērtību orientāciju var aizstāt cilvēciskās attiecības, pašpilveide, kāda pārliecība/ticība kā vērtības, došana ņemšanas vietā u.c. Tādēļ autors uzskata, ka vienīgā attīstība, ja attīstība vispār iespējama, ir ar universālajām cilvēciskajām (kultūras, garīgajām) vērtībām pilna attīstība- pilnvērtīga attīstība (PA).

PA nav ceļš uz harmoniju, paradīzi zemes virsū- vienkārši uz pašneiznīcinošu sabiedrību.

Lūk, tā ir reāla pieeja nākotnes redzējumam, ko piedāvā autors.

,,Pasaules gals’’, Jaunais Laiks vai pilnvērtīga attīstība.

,,Pasaules gals’’ nav visa beigas, bet jaunā sākums- Jaunais Laiks. To paredz Bībele, dažādas Dievatziņas. Uz tā tuvumu norāda daudzas zīmes- priekšnoteikumi. Bet... tā vēsturē jau bijis daudzkārt. Tikai Dievs zin, kad tas notiks. Gan degradācija, gan PA var būt kā posms uz Jauno Laiku. Taču autors nebūt neizslēdz 3. iespēju (scenāriju)-drīzu patreizējās ,,pasaules galu’’- Jaunos Laikus.

Kopsavilkums.

Autora piedāvātais redzējums un no tā izrietošā rīcība ilgtspējīgu attīstību var padarīt no utopijas var padarīt par reālu, jo ceļa uz to pamatā neliek idejas par to,

*ka cilvēce var pati panākt pāreju no neilgtspējīgas uz ilgtspējīgu sabiedrību (kā Minhauzens izvilkt sevi aiz matiem no purva), vadīt XXI gadsimta pārmaiņas:

*ka ar izglītību, informēšanu par globāliem draudiem iespējams kā noteicošo sabiedrībā izveidot vides apziņu, kas pretēja cilvēka ,,dabai’’ pēc aizvien augošu materiālo vajadzību apmierināšanas,

*ka to var īstenot kā kādu programmu (Agenda 21), ar politiskiem dokumentiem pārmainīt tirgus sabiedrības ražošanas mērķi- peļņu, attīstību īstenot nevis kā ekonomisko pieaugumu, bet optimumu,

*ka ilgtspējas pamatā ir ekoloģiskais, vai sociālais, vai ekonomiskais u.tml. aspekti, nevis garīgais (vērtības, ētika, pārvaldība pēc universāliem garīgiem principiem, ticība...)

*ka pasaule jau iet uz ilgtspēju, ka tā iespējama bez pagrieziena pilnīgi citā attīstības virzienā

*ka pārmaiņas XXI gadsimtā ir tikai jau esošo tendenču ekstrapolējums.

Kādi draudi Zemei un cilvēcei, Latvijai?! Viss taču notiek!

Piemēra analīze.

Eiropas Komisija ir ieteikusi ES klimata un enerģijas politikas mērķus 2020-2030.gadiem, kas paredz siltumnīcas efekta gāzes samazināt par 40% salīdzinot ar 1990.gadu. Vadlīnijas līdz 2050.gadam- 80-95% samazinājums. Izklausās neticami un pietiekoši, ja īstenotos! Tiešām pietiekoši?

ANO Starpvalstu klimata izmaiņu izpētes pilnvarota organizācija (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change- IPCC), kuras ietvaros pētījumus veic 1250 pasaules vadošo zinātnieku, 2014.gada aprīlī iepazīstināja ar savu oficiālo ziņojumu, kurā apkopoti pētījumu rezultāti. Ziņojumu apstiprinājušas kā pamatotu 194 valstu valdības.* Lai klimata izmaiņu dēļ uz Zemes nesāktos neatgriezeniski katastrofāli procesi, agrāk par pietiekamu uzskatīja noturēt siltumnīcas efektu izraisošo gāzu līmeni ne augstāku par 2% salīdzinot ar pirmsrūpniecības laiku (ne 1990.gadu, kā ES politikā). Taču vēlāki pētījumi parādīja, ka tas dotu garantiju par kādiem apmēram 66%, lai katastrofa nesāktos. Lai drošība būtu par 95%, vajadzētu 1,5% līmenis. IPCC ziņojumā uzsvērts, ka temperatūras pieaugums virs 1.5% radītu būtiskas sliktas sekas cilvēcei. Vairāk kā simts valstis jau apstiprinājušas atbalstu 1,5% robežai. Lai to sasniegtu, līdz 2050.gadam par 90% jāsamazina siltumnīcas efekta gāzes visā pasaulē.

Secinājumi:

-ES politikā gāzu samazinājums līdz 2050.gadam noteikts salīdzinājumā ar 1990.gadu, bet ANO IPCC- ar pirmsrūpniecības laiku;

-Tas nozīmē, ka ES noteiktais samazinājums ES valstīm nepietiekams;

-Nav vienošanās, lai ES līdzīgu samazinājumu līdz 2050.gadam īstenotu visa pasaule.

Taču klimata izmaiņas ir tikai viena vides problēmas joma, kaut arī atstāj ievērojamu iespaidu arī uz citām. Dabas daudzveidības, dabas resursu, vēl plašākā izpratnē- ekoloģisko resursu, dabas pakalpojumu izsīkums. Ķīmiskās vielas vielu apritē. Zemes ģeoloģisko procesu izmaiņas un aktivizēšanās...

*Nav pareizs secinājums- viss notiek, nav ko uztraukties, bet ,,Pasaule briesmās! Draudi ir reāli! Prieķšā BŪTISKAS PĀRMAIŅAS! ''

Analizējot ne tikai klimata izmaiņas, bet daudzas cilvēces izraisītas ekoloģiskas, sociālas, tautsaimniecības, drošības u.c. problēmas, procesus, redzama tā pati aina- plānotais un īstenotais ir nepietiekams.

*Piezīme. IPCC jau sen ar zinātniskiem argumentiem un politisko ietekmi (autoritāti) apstiprinājusi, ka ar ļoti lielu ticamības procentu mūsdienu klimata izmaiņu galvenais cēlonis ir cilvēka darbība, vienlaikus nenoliedzot dabisko procesu ietekmi. Vienlaikus plašsaziņas līdzekļi uztur priekšstatu, ka zinātnieku vidū uzskati par cilvēku vai dabas procesu nozīmi ir gandrīz līdzsvarā, kas ir mērķtiecīga, ļoti bīstama maldināšana, kas vērsta pret sabiedrības iesaisti cilvēces glābšanā.

Taču klimata izmaiņas nebūt nav vienīgie draudi. Pasaules sabiedriskā doma un politiķi nenovērtē šādus vides draudus, kas saistīti ar cilvēka darbību: bioloģiskās daudzveidības samazināšanās, ķīmisko vielu un nanodaļiņu nonākšana vielu apritē, atsevišķu dabas resursu un dabas pakalpojumu iespēju izsīkums, vides piesārņošana, mākslīgais elektromagnētiskais starojums, atkritumi...

Katastrofām ir dažāda īstenošanās varbūtība un skaidrība, par tās ietekmi. Atverot internetā materiālus par globālo katastrofu iespējām, saraksts ir šausminoši garš. Tās ir arī sagrupētas. Lūk, viens apkopojums: visaptverošs atomkarš, pandēmija, kurai nevar pretoties, asteorīda trieciens, supervulkāna izvirdums, klimata pārmaiņas, fanātisku (reliģisku) grupējumu spēja veikt savu un cilvēces kopējo pašnāvību (pievienoju angliski). Savā darbā šaubos, vai ir labi tās nelaimes, kas ir ar lielu varbūtību XXI gadsimtā, koncentrēti uzskaitīt sarakstā. Jo domas un vārdi materializējas. To izraisītās bailes rada negatīvo. Bat, no otras puses, jābūt priekšstatam un jārīkojas. Bez pilnīgi iznīcinošām katastrofām vēl vairāk ir tādas, kas var atsviest cilvēci tālu atpakaļ, samazināt līdz minimumam skaitu, izmainīt cilvēka būtību. Pie pēdējām pieskaitu tādas, pie kura jau zinātnieki strādā: mākslīgā intelekta pašpilnveides spējas, jaunas cilvēku sugas, esošās sugas pilnveidi ar mākslīgo izlasi, atteikšanās no dabiskās vairošanās, uzvara pār nāvi, cilvēku klonēšana, visaptveroša čipošana un/vai energoinformatīvā programēšana. No ģeoloģiskajām tādas ir magnētisko polu maiņa vai lēciens (džerks), vulkānisms uz zemestrīces agrāk drošās vietās, kontinenta mēroga magmas izlijums Krievijā, vieglo gāzu pacelšanās no Zemes dzīlēm, kas izraisa karsta efektu... Savukārt pie sociālajām katastrofām var pieskaitīt nekontrolējamu milzu apjoma bēgļu plūsmu, pasaules valūtu sistēmas sabrukumu (krahu), kad pārtrūkst starptautiskā tirdzniecība un spēja norēķināties ar naudu. Katastrofas var būt saistītas viena ar otru, piemēram magnētiskā pola maiņa var izraisīt visas elektrosistēmas un datora un interneta lietošanas neiespējamību, kā rezultātā sagrūst globālā maksāšanas un tirdzniecības sistēma.

Pie visu draudu novēršanas un iespējamo cīņu ar sekām ,,tiek strādāts', bet nepietiekami, tam nav sagatavota sabiedrība. Cilvēce kopumā dzīvo pēc strausa galvas smiltīs, lai briesmas neredzētu, principā un kā krievu sakām vārdā ,,Kamēr pērkons nenorībēs, zemnieks nepārkrustīsies". Tālāk pieminētais teksts no interneta.

,,In the near future, anthropogenic extinction scenarios exist: global nuclear annihilation, total global war, overpopulation[1] or global accidental pandemic; besides natural ones: Meteor impact and large scale volcanism; and anthropogenic-natural hybrid events like global warming and catastrophic climate change. Naturally caused extinction scenarios have occurred multiple times in the geologic past although the probability of reoccurrence within the human timescale of the near future is infinitesimally small. As technology develops, there is a theoretical possibility that humans may be deliberately destroyed by the actions of a nation state, corporation or individual in a form of global suicide attack. There is also a theoretical possibility that technological advancement may resolve or prevent potential extinction scenarios. The emergence of a pandemic of such virulence and infectiousness that very few humans survive the disease is a credible scenario. While not necessarily a human extinction event, this may leave only very small, very scattered human populations that would then evolve in isolation. It is important to differentiate between human extinction and the extinction of all life on Earth. Of possible extinction events, only a pandemic is selective enough to eliminate humanity while leaving the rest of complex life on earth relatively unscathed.''

Informācija par iespējamām katastrofām:

humanknowledge.net/SocialScience/.../Catastrophes.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster

www.global-catastrophic-risks.com/

Global catastrophes and trends: the next fifty years

http://earthbeforeflood.com/great_catastrophes_in_history_of_earth.html

Latvijas IA un draudi ir atšķirīgs stāsts. Pasaules procesiem mums pievienojas nacionālas, demogrāfiskas un drošības briesmas, kas apdraud latviešu tautas, Latvijas izdzīvošanu un pilnvērtīgu attīstību.

Pievienoju IA Rio+20 dokumentu fragmentus, lai gūtu priekštatu par starptautisko IA redzējumu un darbību.

Rio+20 Sustainable development goals

One of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference was the agreement by member States to launch a process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will build upon the Millennium Development Goals and converge with the post 2015 development agenda (click here for information on different work streams). It was decided establish an "inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process open to all stakeholders, with a view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the General Assembly".

In the Rio+20 outcome document, member States agreed that sustainable development goals (SDGs) must:

Be based on Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
Fully respect all the Rio Principles.
Be consistent with international law.
Build upon commitments already made.
Contribute to the full implementation of the outcomes of all major summits in the economic, social and environmental fields.
Focus on priority areas for the achievement of sustainable development, being guided by the outcome document.
Address and incorporate in a balanced way all three dimensions of sustainable development and their interlinkages.
Be coherent with and integrated into the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015.
Not divert focus or effort from the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
Include active involvement of all relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, in the process.

It was further agreed that SDGs must be:

Action-oriented
Concise
Easy to communicate
Limited in number
Aspirational
Global in nature
Universally applicable to all countries while taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities.

The outcome document further specifies that the development of SDGs should:

Be useful for pursuing focused and coherent action on sustainable development
Contribute to the achievement of sustainable development
Serve as a driver for implementation and mainstreaming of sustainable development in the UN system as a whole
Address and be focused on priority areas for the achievement of sustainable development

The Rio+20 outcome document The Future We Want resolved to establish an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process on SDGs that is open to all stakeholders with a view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the UNGA. The outcome document mandated the creation of an inter-governmental Open Working Group, that will submit a report to the 68th session of the General Assembly containing a proposal for sustainable development goals for consideration and appropriate action. The outcome document specifies that the process leading to the SDGs needs to be coordinated and coherent with the processes considering the post 2015 development agenda and that initial input to the work of the Open Working Group will be provided by the UNSG in consultation with national governments.

The Rio+20 outcome document The Future We Want

resolved to establish an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process on SDGs that is open to all stakeholders with a view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the UNGA. The outcome document mandated the creation of an inter-governmental Open Working Group, that will submit a report to the 68th session of the General Assembly containing a proposal for sustainable development goals for consideration and appropriate action. The outcome document specifies that the process leading to the SDGs needs to be coordinated and coherent with the processes considering the post 2015 development agenda and that initial input to the work of the Open Working Group will be provided by the UNSG in consultation with national governments.

THE FUTURE WE WANT

I. Our Common Vision

2. Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. In this regard we are committed to

free humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency.

3. We therefore acknowledge the need to further mainstream sustainable development at all

levels integrating ec

onomic, social and environmental aspects and recognizing their

interlinkages, so as to achieve sustainable development in all its dimensions.

4. We recognize that poverty eradication, changing unsustainable and promoting sustainable

patterns of consumption and production, and protecting and managing the natural resource

base of economic and social development are the overarching objectives of and essential

requirements for sustainable development. We also reaffirm the need to achieve sustainable

development by: promoting sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating

greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living; fostering

equitable social development and inclusion; and promoting integrated and sustain

able

management of natural resources and ecosystems that supports

inter alia

economic, social and

human development while facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration and restoration

and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges

10. .. as well as an enabling environment are essential for sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger. We reaffirm that to achieve our sustainable development goals.

11. … promotion of social equity, and protection of the environment, . and the protection, survival and development of children to their full potential, including through education.

12. We resolve to take urgent action to achieve sustainable development. We therefore renew

our commitment to 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. We express our determination to address the

themes of the Conference, namely a green economy in the context of sustainable development

and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development.

13. We recognize that people’s opportunities to influence their lives and future, .. We underscore that sustainable development requires concrete and urgent action. It can only be achieved with a broad alliance of people, governments, civil society and private sector, all

working together to secure the future we want for present and future generations

protect and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of

any kind to race, colour, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or social

origin, property, birth, disability or other

status.

10. We acknowledge that democracy, good governance and the rule of law, at the national and

international levels, as well as an enabling environment are essential for sustainable

development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, soc

ial development,

environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger. We reaffirm that to

achieve our sustainable development

goals

. We need institutions at all levels that are

effective, transparent, accountable and democratic.

11. We

reaffirm our commitment to strengthening international cooperation to address the

persistent challenges related to sustainable development for all, in particular in developing

countries. In this regard, we reaffirm the need to achieve economic stability an

d sustained

economic growth, promotion of social equity, and protection of the environment, while

enhancing gender equality and women’s empowerment, and equal opportunities for all, and

the protection, survival and development of children to their full pot

ential, including through

education.

12. We resolve to take urgent action to achieve sustainable development. We therefore renew

our commitment to 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. We express our determination to address the

themes of the Conference, namely a green economy in the context of sustainable development

and poverty eradicat

ion, and the institutional framework for sustainable development.

13. We recognize that people’s opportunities to influence their lives and future, participate in

decision making and voice their concerns are fundamental for sustainable development. We

underscore that sustainable development requires concrete and urgent action. It can only be

achieved with a broad alliance of people, governments, civil society and private sector, all

working together to secure the future we want for present and future ge

nerations.

II. Renewing Political Commitment

A. Reaffirming Rio principles and past action plans

14. We recall the Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972.

15. We reaffirm al

l the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,

including inter alia

, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, as set out in

Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration.

16. We reaffirm our commitment to fully implement

the Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, the

Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg

Declaration on Sustainable Development and th

e Plan of Implementation of the World

Summit on Sustainable Development, the Barbados Programme of Action and the Mauritius

Strategy for Implementation. We also reaffirm our commitment to the full implementation

the Istanbul Programme of Action for Lea

st Developed Countries

(IPOA)

, the Almaty

Programme of Action for Landlocked Developing Countries, the Political declaration on

Africa’s development needs, and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. We recall as

well our commitments in the outcomes

of all the major United Nations conferences and

summits in the economic, social and environmental fields, including the UN Millennium

Declaration and the 2005 World Summit outcome, the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha

Declaration on Financing for Developme

nt, the outcome document of the High

Level Plenary

Meeting of the UN General Assembly on the MDGs, the Programme of Action of the

International Conference on Population and Development, the Key Actions for Further

Implementation of the Programme of Action,

and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for

Action.

17. We recognize the importance of the three Rio Conventions to advancing sustainable

development and in this regard we urge all Parties to fully implement their commitments

under the United Nations Fr

amework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat

Desertification (UNCCD), in accordance with their respective principles and provisions, as

well as to take effective and

concrete actions and measures at all levels, and to enhance

international cooperation

it still lag

s behind on commitments that were previously made. We underscore the key

priority for the international community of supporting Africa’s sustainable development

efforts. In this regard, we recommit to fully implement the internationally agreed

commitments

related to Africa’s development needs, particularly those contained in the

United Nations Millennium Declaration, the Declaration on the New Partnership for Africa’s

Development, the Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for

Deve

lopment, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the 2005 World Summit

Outcome as well as the 2008 Political Declaration on Africa’s development needs.

. We recognize the serious constraints to achieve sustainable development in all its three

dimens

ions in landlocked developing countries. In this regard, we reaffirm our commitment

to address special development needs and the challenges faced by landlocked developing

countries through the full, timely and effective implementation of the Almaty Program

me of

Action as contained in the Declaration on the mid

term review.

. We recognize the progress made by middle

income countries in improving the well

being

of their people, as well as the specific development challenges they face in their efforts to

adicate poverty, reduce inequalities, and achieve their development goals, including the

MDGs, and to achieve sustainable development in a comprehensive manner integrating the

economic, social and environmental dimensions. We reiterate that these efforts s

hould be

adequately supported by the international community, through various forms, taking into

account the needs and the capacity to mobilize domestic resources of these countries.

. We recognize the need for broader measures of progress to complement

GDP in order to

better inform policy decisions, and in this regard, we request the UN Statistical Commission

in consultation with relevant UN System entities and other relevant organizations to launch a

programme of work in this area building on existing

initiatives.

. We recognize that the planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home and that Mother Earth

is a common expression in a number of countries and regions and we note that some countries

recognize the rights of nature in the context of the prom

otion of sustainable development. We

are convinced that in order to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and

environment needs of present and future generations, it is necessary to promote harmony with

nature.

. We call for holistic and int

egrated approaches to sustainable development which will

guide humanity to live in harmony with nature and lead to efforts to restore the health and

integrity of the Earth's ecosystem.

. We acknowledge the natural and cultural diversity of the world and

recognize that all

cultures and civilizations can contribute to sustainable development

among academic, scientific and technological community, in particular in developing

countries, to close the technological gap between developing and developed countries,

strengthen the science

policy interface as well as to foster international research c

ollaboration

on sustainable development.

. We stress the importance of the participation of indigenous peoples in the achievement of

sustainable development. We also recognize the importance of the UN Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples in t

he context of global, regional, national, and sub

. We affirm that policies for green economy in the context of sustainable development and

poverty eradication should be guided by and in accordan

ce with all the Rio principles,

Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and contribute towards achieving

relevant internationally agreed development goals including the MDGs.

. We affirm that green economy policies in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication should:

(j) enhance the welfare of indigenous peoples and their communities, other local and

traditional communities, and ethnic minorities, recognizing and supporting their

identity, culture and interests and avoid endangering their cultural heritage, practices

and traditional knowledge, preserving and respecting non

. We recognize that urgent action on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption

where they occur remains fundamental in addressing environmental sustainability, and

promoting conservation and sustainable

use of biodiversity and ecosystems, regeneration of

natural resources, and the promotion of sustained, inclusive and equitable global growth.

High level political forum

. We decide to

establish a universal intergovernmental high level political forum, building

on the strengths, experiences, resources and inclusive participation modalities of the

Commission on Sustainable Development, and subsequently replacing the Commission. The

high l

evel political forum shall follow up on the implementation of sustainable development

and should avoid overlap with existing structures, bodies and entities in a cost

effective

manner.

. The high level forum could:

(a) p

rovide political leadership, guid

ance, and recommendations for sustainable

development;

(b) e

nhance integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in a

holistic and cross

sectoral manner at all levels;

rovide a dynamic platform for regular dialogue, and stocktaking an

d agenda

setting to advance sustainable development;

(d) h

ave a focused, dynamic and action

oriented agenda, ensuring the appropriate

consideration of new and emerging sustainable development challenges;

(e) f

ollow up and review progress in the implementat

ion of sustainable development

commitments contained in Agenda 21, Johannesburg Plan of Implementation,

Barbados Programme of Action, Mauritius Strategy for Implementation and the

outcome of this Conference and, as appropriate, relevant outcomes of other U

summits and conferences, including the outcome of the Fourth United Nations

Conference on the Least Developed Countries, as well as their respective means of

implementation;

(f) e

ncourage high

level system

wide participation of UN Agencies, funds and

pro

grammes and invite to participate, as appropriate, other relevant multilateral

financial and trade institutions, treaty bodies, within their respective mandates and in

accordance with UN rules and provisions;

(g) i

mprove cooperation and coordination within

the UN system on sustainable

development programmes and policies;

(h) p

romote transparency and implementation through further enhancing the

consultative role and participation of Major Groups and other relevant stakeholders at

the international level in

order to better make use of their expertise, while retaining the

intergovernmental nature of discussions;

(i) p

romote the sharing of best practices and experiences relating to the

implementation of sustainable development, and on a voluntary basis, facilit

ate

sharing of experiences, including successes, challenges, and lessons learnt;

(j) p

romote system

wide coherence and coordination of sustainable development

policies;

(k) s

trengthen the science

policy interface through review of documentation bringing

gether dispersed information and assessments, including in the form of a global

sustainable development report, building on existing assessments;

(l) e

nhance evidence

based decision

making at all levels and contribute to strengthen

ongoing efforts of capac

ity building for data collection and analysis in developing

countries.

.We decide to launch an intergovernmental and open, transparent and inclusive negotiation

process under the General Assembly to define the high level forum’s format and

organization

al aspects with the aim of convening the first high level forum at the beginning of

the 68th session of the General Assembly. We will also consider the need for promoting

intergenerational solidarity for the achievement of sustainable development, taking i

nto

account the needs of future generations, including by inviting the Secretary General

88.We are committed to strengthening the role of the United Nations Environment

Programme as the leading global environmental authority that sets the global environmental

agenda, that promotes the coherent implementation of the environmental dimens

ion of

sustainable development within the United Nations system and that serves as an authoritative

advocate for the global environment. We reaffirm resolution 2997 (XXVII) of 15 December

1972 which established UNEP and other relevant resolutions that rein

force its mandate, as

well as the 1997 Nairobi and 2000 Malmö Ministerial Declarations. In this regard, we invite

the United Nations General Assembly, in its 67th Session, to adopt a Resolution strengthening

and upgrading UNEP in the following manner:

(a)

Establish universal membership in the Governing Council of UNEP, as well as

other measures to strengthen its governance as well its responsiveness and

accountability to Member States;

(b) Have secure, stable, adequate and increased financial resources from

the regular

budget of the UN and voluntary contributions to fulfill its mandate;

UN system by strengthening UNEP engagement in key UN coordination bodies and

empowering

UNEP to lead efforts to formulate UN system

wide strategies on the

environment;

(d) Promote a strong science

policy interface, building on existing international

instruments, assessments, panels and information networks, including the Global

Environmental

Outlook, as one of the processes aimed at bringing together

information and assessment to support informed decision

making;

(e) Disseminate and share evidence

based environmental information and raise public

awareness on critical as well as emerging enviro

nmental issues;

(f) Provide capacity building to countries as well as support and facilitate access to

technology;

(g) Progressively consolidate headquarters functions in Nairobi, as well as strengthen

its regional presence, in order to assist countries, u

pon request, in the implementation

of their national environmental policies, collaborating closely with other relevant

entities of the UN system;

(h) Ensure the active participation of all relevant stakeholders drawing on best

practices and models from rel

evant multilateral institutions and exploring new

mechanisms to promote transparency and the effective engagement of civil society.

We stress the need for the continuation of a regular review of the state of the Earth’s

changing environment and its impact on human well

being and in this regard, we welcome

such initiatives as the Global Environmental Outl

ook process aimed at bringing together

environmental information and assessments and building national and regional capacity to

support informed decision making

We recognize that

sustainable development should be given due consideration by the

programmes, funds and specialized agencies of the UN system and other relevant entities such

as international financial institutions, and the United Nations Conference on Trade and

Developmen

t (UNCTAD), in accordance with their respective existing mandates. In this

regard, we invite them to further enhance mainstreaming of sustainable development in t

respective mandates, programs, strategies and decision

making processes, in support of all

countries in particular developing countries’ efforts in the achievement of sustainable

development

VI. Means of implementation

252

. We reaffirm that the means of implementation identified in Agenda 21, the Programme

for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, Johannesburg Plan of Implement

ation, the

Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development and the

Doha Declaration on Financing for Development are indispensable for achieving full and

effective translation of sustainable development commitments into tan

gible sustainable

development outcomes. We reiterate that each country has primary responsibility for its own

economic and social development and that the role of national policies, domestic resources

and development strategies cannot be overemphasized. We

reaffirm that developing countries

need additional resources for sustainable development. We recognize the need for significant

mobilization of resources from a variety of sources and effective use of financing, in order to

promote sustainable development

. We acknowledge that good governance and the rule of law

at the national and international levels are essential for sustained, inclusive and equitable

economic growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and hunger

national

implementation of sustainable development strategies.

. We stress the importance of the active participation of young people in decision making

processes as the issues we are addressing have a d

eep impact on present and future

generations, and as the contribution of children and youth is vital to the achievement of

sustainable development. We also recognize the need to promote intergenerational dialogue

and solidarity by recognizing their views.

. We stress the importance of the participation of workers and trade unions to the

promotion of sustainable development. As the representatives of working people, trade unions

are important partners in facilitating the achievement of sustainable develop

ment in particular

the social dimension. Information, education and training on sustainability at all levels,

including in the workplace, are key to strengthening workers’ and trade unions’ capacity to

support sustainable development.

. We recognize tha

t farmers, including small

scale farmers and fishers, pastoralists and

foresters, can make important contributions to sustainable development through production

activities that are environmentally sound, enhance food security and the livelihood of the

poor

, and invigorate production and sustained economic growth.

. We note the valuable contributions that non

governmental organizations could and do

make in promoting sustainable development through their well

established and diverse

experience, expertise a

nd capacity, especially in the area of analysis, sharing of information

and knowledge, promotion of dialogue and support of implementation of sustainable

development.

III. Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication

. We affirm that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each

country, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities, to achieve sustainable

development i

n its three dimensions which is our overarching goal. In this regard, we

consider green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication as

one of the important tools available for achieving sustainable development and that it could

provide options for policy making but should not be a rigid set of rules. We emphasize that it

should contribute to eradicating poverty as well as sustained economic growth, enhancing

social inclusion, improving human welfare and creating opportunities f

or employment and

decent work for all, while maintaining the healthy functioning of the Earth’s ecosystems.

Johannesburg Rio+10

Implimitation Plan

The high hopes of a new era of global environmental cooperation that had been ignited by Rio, soon proved false.

The results of the Johannesburg Summit have been criticized in subsequent years as being too vague and for setting weaker goals than those agreed upon in previous summits

Johannesburg was testimony to the fact that the term ‘sustainable development' had gained policy acceptance.

It became clear fairly early on in the Johannesburg process that WSSD would not be able to match the ambition or scope of UNCED; certainly not in terms of its products. Like Stockholm and Rio before it, the Johannesburg Summit also sought a political Declaration as its principal output. In addition, it also sought a Plan of Implementation; one that was much less ambitious in scope or scale than Agenda 21 but more extensive than the Stockholm Plan of Action.

The major innovation at Johannesburg were the so-called ‘Type 2’ agreements. These were informal agreements involving non-state parties, sometimes amongst themselves and sometimes with individual governments. On the one hand, Type 2 agreements were a reflection of the massive change in landscape that had occurred over the previous 10 years, with NGOs and business taking a far more important role in international environmental affairs.

Declaration

The Johannesburg Declaration was a principal outcome of the Summit. The declaration is a collection of general political statements, reaffirming a commitment to agreements made at the Rio de Janeiro summit and at the Stockholm Summit on the Human Environment 30 years prior. International cooperation, decreasing world poverty, special attention for developing nations, empowering women, and maintainingbiodiversity, among other things, are outlined as key points to building a sustainable future. The document is meant to serve as a contract for the participants of the summit, binding them to the outlined agreements.

Plan of Implementation.

A Plan of Implementation laid down more specific goals for the nations and organizations that participated in the summit. Some of these goals include: