³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Across the last fortnight at the (CSD) annual meeting, there have been all kinds of threads that I wanted to pick up for this blog but will have to leave un-picked up; time, for reasons that I will come to in a minutes, just vanished before my eyes.

So; reflections on a few big themes only.

Firstly, does the CSD have the power to do what it's supposed to?

It's a progeny of the , and is aimed at ensuring progress on the agenda that unifies the prime Rio concerns of the developed and developing worlds - the intersection between protecting the Earth's ecosystems and fostering economic progress in poorer societies.

That these twin aims have to be reconciled as a pre-condition for humanity's long-term good - never mind the Earth's other passenger species - seems remarkably obvious when you think about it.

It features long and loud in some of the world's global environmental treaties, notably the - but where is it made explicit and acted upon in the economic and business framework?

Does the encourage sustainable development? Do the and stimulate only when environmental protection is guaranteed?

When Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy rescue financial institutions, do they insist on those institutions adopting sustainability criteria as preconditions for lending money?

There are bright spots; but overwhelmingly, the answer has to be a resounding "no". But if the concept of sustainable development and the need for it are not understood at this level, then what is the point of trying to forge non-binding agreements on sustainability through the CSD, a much less powerful institution?

This brings me to the second big theme; who knows about the CSD and its works?

Last time I went to a meeting at UN headquarters - the - there were something like 4,000 journalists in attendance, and just getting through security on day one took almost two hours.

By contrast, hardly a news reporter came to the CSD's halls, and hardly a news report emerged.

In one sense, this is incredible. The CSD's agenda is humanity's future; so in the minds of news editors the world over, this is not a story?

Editors would argue it's not hard news because the text agreed at the end of the two-week meeting is not binding on governments, in contrast for example to the - and they're right.

But the absence of journalists (and many principal civil society groups) was unfortunate in that it allowed some pretty blatant political posturing to pass with little comment and little chance of governments being held accountable for their positions.

And this is the third big theme I would bring out: especially from the bloc, positions were adopted that from any perspective other than that of narrow politics beggared belief.

So we had repeated deletion of the word "sustainable" from the draft text - especially when placed before the word "agriculture".

So G77 countries do not want their agricultural systems to be sustainable? They would rather have support for use-it-up, burn-it-out, fertilise-it-to-death farming of inappropriate crops that would seriously compromise the next generation's capacity to feed itself?

There were concerns wrapped up in this that the EU and other western blocs might use "sustainable agriculture" as a way of foisting development-hindering environmental regulations on developing countries.

But you could also surely argue that G77 nations ought to be concerned about Western nations foisting unsustainable, grow-as-much-as-you-can-and-sell-us-the-proceeds-as-cheaply-as-possible practices on societies that do not have the capacity to resist such advances.

We even saw bids to re-open discussions about what "sustainability" means - again, incredible from any standpoint except that of politics-as-usual.

The irony of coming together for discussions on sustainable development and then trying to remove the term "sustainable" seemed lost on many delegations - another indication, I would argue, of how little the importance of the concept has permeated into governments.

What conclusions should we draw? I'm not sure I have any profound thoughts, except the pretty obvious one that 22 years after the analysed the reasons why society ought to develop in such a way as "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs", we are a very long way from that ideal (see the UN's for details), and many of the important players appear blissfully ignorant of the reasoning.

In the studio

By comparison, any feel-good news I could bring you from the CSD would be small beer.

However, it is nice to report on something that might help in its own small way to spread knowledge of the issues a bit further afield, and perhaps encourage more profound debate at public and political levels.

For the two weeks of the CSD meeting I shed the role of a web-based journalist and instead went back to radio days, running a project - - that brought four journalists from developing and former Soviet-bloc countries for a fortnight's immersion in sustainable development issues.

Each day, Armando Canchanya (Peru,) Catherine Karong'o (Kenya), Madhyama Subramanian (India) and Mirim Tenev (Bulgaria) made three radio programmes about issues featured at the CSD - land rights, soil fertility, GMOs, biochar, pastoralism and climate change, ownership of water supplies, payment for ecosystem services... the list goes on and on.

With the support of New York-based students Brett Israel, Sharon Shattuck and Matt Boms, the incredible organisational energy of Emily Benson from (one of the projects's parents - the other being the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ World Service Trust) and the unfailingly calm and kind expertise of 's corps of sound engineers, we managed to produce 30 programmes that went to the heart of the issues and - I hope - leave Armando, Catherine, Madhyama and Mirim well placed to put the issues at the heart of their reporting in years to come.

So what did they make of it? Here are some of their highlights:

Armando: "I just needed only 15 minutes chatting to Lucy Mulenkei, an indigenous activist from Kenya and one of our , to find out how important is to encourage people to raise their voices on issues that affect them directly. 'Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights,' says a pretty old song."

Catherine: "An interview with Neth Dano of and Wilfred Legg, Head of Policies and Environment Directorate at the , on the discussion programme will remain my most memorable. The issue was food sovereignty v food security - they took on each other with divergent views, and the arguments extended another 10 minutes after the interview was over."

Madhyama: "I did not attend any of the sessions where the negotiating text was being discussed, but I sure am comfortable to stalk people on the streets in foreign countries and ask them if they know the meaning of 'sustainable development'. I am much enlightened about (the CSD's) major groups, biochar, green jobs and even granola!"

Mirim: "The interview that I will always remember and possibly will replay quite often when I am back at home is with Nicodemus Illauq, an indigenous person from the Arctic. His story (reported on ) about climate change really shocked me - the new species that are appearing, the igloo that can 'survive' just two months in the winter, etc. It was the real story by a person who still is close to 'the Nature' and knows unbelievable things, based on knowledge created thousands years by his ancestors."

And for me? Well, apart from remembering how much fun you can have with intelligent and creative people in a radio studio, I feel better informed than before on some of the issues that can slip past an environment journalist in the night - trade in agricultural products, land rights, the politics of aid, and so on.

"The global environment" does not exist in a vacuum - it is increasingly filled with people, and people have real concerns.

Environmental protection means understanding and addressing those concerns as much as it does mapping the rate of species loss or analysing the chemistry of ozone destruction.

The intertwining of environmental protection and economic development makes for a complex brew; but without acknowledging the links and getting rid of the narrow politics that prevent constructive progress, our common future may end up being considerably less sustainable than we might wish.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?