here - Beyond 2015

Webinar: Thursday 22 January 2015, 3pm - 4:15pm CET
“The false choice between people and the planet - Environment and
climate in the post-2015 negotiations”
Moderator: Lina Dabbagh, CAN ([email protected])
- Siddharth Pathak, Policy Coordinator, CAN ([email protected])
- Bernadette Fischler, Beyond 2015 UK co-chair ([email protected])
1. Quick round of introductions by participants
2. “How to bring the S into the SDGs – or why environmental sustainability matters”
Bernadette Fischler, Beyond 2015 UK co-chair
Presentation inspired by the three “Ps” of Beyond 2015 (people, planet,
participation) and based on WWF’s recent report: The State of the Planet
Slide 2: Illustrates different ways of depicting sustainable development, which is
what the SDGs want to achieve.
o Illustration on the left: bad because the three columns don’t link or interact
o Illustration on the right: shows three circles that overlap. This is a much
better representation because it shows linkages between the dimensions of
sustainable development
o Bottom illustration: most accurate because it depicts best how the three
dimensions of sustainable development depend on each other (nature
makes the people who make the economy, and vice versa)
Slide 3:
o Highlights the linkages between poverty and the environment. Vulnerable
groups are especially dependent on the environment – in many developing
countries fisheries represent up to 50% of food intake for example.
Indigenous people represent 5% of the world population, 50% of world’s
poorest, and are also generally directly in constant contact and interaction
with the natural environment.
o Since over 40 years, demands of humanity have exceeded what the planet
can replenish. “Currently we use about 1.5 planets” but “we can’t deal with
the planet later; we can’t wait another generation.”
Slides 4-8:
o Overstepping of several planetary boundaries. WWF’s report has looked at
countries’ global ecological footprints. Highest overall footprint: Kuwait,
Qatar; lowest footprint: Palestine, Timor-Leste
o SDGs: we are all in the same boat because none of us have achieved
sustainable development
Environmental degradation is an issue impacting on poverty and it is linked
to inequality – there is a lot to be done urgently! Many choices can be taken
to manage resources within planetary boundaries
Slides 9-10: highlight the importance of integrating each dimension of sustainable
development into each SDG
o Slide 9: “pizza” representation of the three dimensions of sustainable
development: we don’t want the SDGs to focus separately on the three
dimensions; instead we want each SDG to have targets for each dimension.
The varying sizes of the three dimensions in the 2nd “pizza” illustrate the fact
that the importance of each dimension varies between SDGs.
o Slide 10: analysis of the integration of the three dimensions in each SDG
proposed by the OWG: civil society must make sure that the balance of the
three dimensions of sustainability is maintained and strengthened
Questions and answers:
Q1: The 17 SDGs contained in the OWG Outcome Document are not very balanced and
there are some contradictions among them (e.g. water and energy). In your point of you,
with this analysis of the three pillars of sustainable development, is it possible at this stage
of the negotiations, to change something, to create a better balance of the three pillars of
sustainable development?
Answer (Bernadette): During a workshop WWF discussed 3 possible scenarios: 1. Everything
changes (goals and targets) 2. 17 goals remain the same, but attempt made at
fixing/changing the targets 3. Nothing changes. There is a very strong argument being made
that it took long time and lots of efforts to come up with the 17 SDGs, so not to reopen the
17 goals for that reason. Bernadette’s personal feeling: most likely that 17 SDGs titles will
stay as they are now, but countries will try to modify targets.
Q2: Have you got updates from last three days of intergovernmental negotiations?
Answer (Lina):
- First day of negotiations focused on the UNSG synthesis report. Countries supported the SG
report as a useful tool. All G77 countries and most developing countries want the OWG
outcome document to be the main input for the negotiations. No surprise for most of us.
But cards now on the table re what will be the main basis for negotiations. Big question
about reopening OWG – now called “technical proofing”. France and Germany made a
proposal for “technical proofing”. See attached document
Developing countries see this proposal as the back door to reopening the OWG document,
and they are hesitant about that, because they think this will lead to lower ambition. High
level of mistrust re concept of technical proofing. Main consensus (apart from a few like UK
and Korea): maintain 17 SDGs.
- There were discussion on indicators and on the finance for development (FfD) process, and
how this process should be linked to the post-2015 process, because the missing link from
Monterrey (FfD process) is climate change. Climate change therefore needs to be brought
into the FfD discussion. Co-chairs of FfD made a presentation on the second day of
negotiations, around 3pm: webcast available
- The Preparatory Stakeholder Forum showed that stakeholder engagement is useful.
Q3: What recommendations do you have for organisations like Save the Children who have
very limited resources on climate change and environmental sustainability, but do have
teams working on SDGs? How best can they help on this agenda?
Answer (Bernadette): don’t forget the Beyond 2015 environmental sustainable task force
which has been around for long time but has been a bit inactive lately. It will be reactivated
very soon through the Beyond 2015 google group and will be the space to share resources,
updates, views, strategies, especially for people who are not working much on the
3. COP 20 (Lima): “Outcomes and linkages to the post-2015 process” - Siddharth Pathak,
Policy Coordinator, Climate Action Network
Slide 2 - Main focus of Lima COP 20: deliverables (draft negotiating text),
commitments from each country in the new agreement; pre-2020 (how to close
immediate gaps)
Slide 3 - Outcomes of Lima COP 20: overall disappointing:
o Draft negotiating text (full of divergent views)
o Pre-2020 ambition: no resolution, there will be high-level political
engagement on and off, but this issue has been moved aside
o Non-prescriptive directive on information requirements accompanying
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
o Most interesting decision: new language of “common but differentiated
responsibilities” and “in light of different national circumstances”
Slides 4 and 5 – Linkages:
o Political will in the post-2015 agenda will have a big impact on Paris COP21
o Financial package: will encompass climate finance and finance for
o Middle income countries, with big populations, are key players
o Although the argumentation put forward by many developing countries is
that development takes precedence over climate change, climate change
impacts on development and we must achieve a strong climate goal
Questions and answers (continued):
Q4: What was the criteria for “technical proofing”?
Answer (Lina): can’t quite remember, will share the proposal with the Secretariat, who will
share it with everyone – see attached document
Q5: negotiations in March will deal with goals and targets. So this means reopening the
OWG outcome document?
Answer (Lina): co-chairs said this negotiating session would be maintained. Countries have
discussed their first opinion on OWG doc. They haven’t had much chance to engage on
OWG13. This was the first brainstorming on where we are in the process. Reopening or not
will be addressed in March.
Q6: Fourth round of negotiations set for April (Means of implementation and Global
partnership for development) – there are rumours that MoI will be addressed at the FfD
Summit instead. Any information on this?
Answer (Lina): yes this rumour is actually a proposal from Nordic countries. G77 not in
favour of moving MoI to FfD process. Co-chairs have not made call.