- Date submitted: 25 Oct 2011
- Stakeholder type: Major Group
- Submission Document: Download
- Additional Document:
General Contenta) What are the expectations for the outcome of Rio+20, and what are the concrete proposals in this regard, including views on a possible structure of the Outcome document? Expectations for the Outcome of Rio+20:
Action and implementation at the Local Level.
Reasonable financial support for these local activities now barely paid for by some NGOs thru credit card borrowing.
b) What are the comments, if any, on existing proposals: e.g., a green economy roadmap, framework for action, sustainable development goals, a revitalized global partnership for sustainable development, or others? A green economy roadmap should include more communication with local and Indigenous communities and NGOs.
As it is today, world Indigenous representatives attend UN international fora but the information obtained does not necessarily trickle down to local and remote villages in their native countries.
Yachay Wasi, itself an Andean Indigenous NGO, member of the Mountain Partnership, has held encounters and small conferences in various local and remote Indigenous communities in Peru Andes to inform on the work of the United Nations on their behalf and to discuss issues of interest to them: protection of biodiversity and sacred sites; human rights; intellectual properties, etc?
Funding for these activities has recently become scarce. The framework for action should include financial support towards these activities.
Sustainable development goals should include SUSTAINABLE TOURISM as it was discussed and defined at the 7th Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in 1999. Unfortunately, since then, the social aspects of SUSTAINABLE Tourism (not ECOTOURISM as it has been since promoted by the World Tourism Organization) have been forgotten. Especially, the following one:
? If more Indigenous ownership could be developed, the perception of tourism as a foreign-dominated sector would be reduced.? (UN Doc. E/CN.17/1999/5/Add.2 Chapt. III Parag.30).
c) What are the views on implementation and on how to close the implementation gap, which relevant actors are envisaged as being involved (Governments, specific Major Groups, UN system, IFIs, etc.); Implementation: As stated before, Communication and more funded involvement by various actors should take place.
Actors to be more involved: Major Groups: Indigenous, and Local authorities
Existing CSD partnerships: The Mountain Partnership
d) What specific cooperation mechanisms, partnership arrangements or other implementation tools are envisaged and what is the relevant time frame for the proposed decisions to be reached and actions to be implemented? No comment
Specific Elementsa) Objective of the Conference: To secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges. Contributions could include possible sectoral priorities (e.g., (e.g., energy, food security and sustainable agriculture, technology transfer, water, oceans, sustainable urbanization, sustainable consumption and production, natural disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation, biodiversity, etc.) and sectoral initiatives that contribute to integrate the three pillars of sustainable development could be launched and endorsed at Rio+20. Priorities in the Andes and in other mountain areas are climate change, protection of mountain lakes and glaziers, protection of biodiversity, planting of high altitude native trees, sustainable tourism ?..
Ref. Mountain Partnership statement:
?Since 1992, when chapter 13 on mountains as fragile ecosystems was introduced in Agenda 21, the demand for goods and services from mountains has grown considerably. Moreover, the ability of mountain systems to provide essential goods and services for all of humanity is increasingly under threat from climate change, globalization, a chronic lack of investment and ongoing land degradation.?
As a Mountain Partnership member, Yachay Wasi recognizes ?that despite the progress that has been made in promoting sustainable development of mountain regions, national and international development agendas still treat mountains, if at all, as marginal environments. As a result, poverty rates are higher than in non-mountain areas.?
b) Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication: views regarding how green economy can be a means to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions, and poverty eradication; what is its potential added value; experience to date, including what has worked and how to build upon success, what are the challenges and opportunities and how to address the challenges and seize opportunities, and possible elements of an agreement in outcome document on a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication Ref. Mountain Partnership statement:
?In the context of a Green Economy, new opportunities for investments by the private sector are emerging in some mountain regions, especially in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and ecosystem goods and services. However, innovative institutional arrangements are urgently required to trigger governance models and decision support systems aiming at both the integration of the social, ecological and economic capital at all scales in mountain regions, as well as the actual mainstreaming of mountains into overall national development and conservation processes.
Enhancing the global political commitment that translates into increased investments tailored to mountain regions will directly benefit poor mountain communities and indirectly humanity as a whole. Hence, sustainable mountain development, notably through integrated and socially inclusive policies, as well as low carbon technologies, should have a prominent place in the Rio 2012 agenda and in particular in its final declaration. To achieve these ends strong and united advocacy for mountain issues with tangible results in future UNCSD negotiations is essential.?
c) Institutional framework for sustainable development: Priorities and proposals for strengthening individual pillars of sustainable development, as well as those for strengthening integration of the three pillars, at multiple levels; local, national, regional and international. No comment
d) Any proposals for refinement of the two themes. Recall that Resolution 64/236 describes the focus of the Conference: "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". No comment