The Seven Principlesfor a Fair and Green Economy

2

Index

Introduction 3

PlanetPrincible 1 The Mother Earth Principle 4Principle 2 The Planetary Boundaries Principle 8

Societies and human rightsPrinciple 3 The Dignity Principle 12Principle 4 The Justice Principle 16

Ethics in governancePrinciple 5 The Precautionary Principle 20Principle 6 The Resilience Principle 22

Responsibility PrinciplePrinciple 7 The Responsibility Principle 26

Thanks to 29

Made by 30

3

In January 2011, ANPED organised together with the Future Justice teamof World Future Council and FPH (Foundation pour le Progrés de Homme– France) a workshop with several think tanks from around the world todesign “Principles for a Fair and Green Economy”. We worked two veryintense days in the basement of the St Mary RC Church in Long IslandCity (NY). The main goal was to define a base line for the Green and FairEconomy, to avoid green washing and the watering down of the ideas ofSustainable Development.

We sincerely hope that these Principles will be a tool to guide thedebates on a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication,started in Rio+20, to evaluate anything that comes out of Rio+20 and to become a reference for yearsto come. Because these are the values on which the ‘Future We Want’ should be based.

Leida Rijnhout, executive director of ANPED – Northern Alliance for Sustainability

In full recognition of the Rio Principles, the following set of principles is proposed to specifyguidelines for the ‘Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable Development and PovertyEradication’. These principles and guidelines will serve to enrich and focus the debate on how toensure that economic solutions become means to a vital end: the overall goal of strongsustainability and global well-being. The principles are mutually reinforcing and complementaryand as such may overlap.

Introduction

4

The Mother Earth PrincipleThe Earth, including her natural communities and ecosystems, possesses the inalienable right to exist,flourish and evolve; and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions, and processes that sustain allbeings. Every human has the duty to protect her and her inhabitants. Some of the consequences of thisprinciple are: no patenting of life, and respect for animal welfare.

Prin

ciple

1 Planet

Rationale behind the principle: There is only one planet. This planet is comprisedof networks of ecosystems, where plants, animals,and human beings live and flourish. Yet thesestrong ecosystems are often very vulnerable. Theresilience of the community, which includes thewell-being of humanity as well as the rest of theanimal world, depends upon preserving a healthybiosphere. Protection of all of the biosphere’secological systems, and avoiding irreversibleimpacts to those systems, is a first duty ofhumankind. "Earth Integrity" refers to wholeness,completeness, and the ability and right tofunction fully as an ecosystem. All living creaturesare interdependent and bound within onesystem. Intervening in the system can haveirreversible effects. Every inhabitant of the planet has theincontrovertible, inalienable right to all the basicnecessities for a secure and peaceful life with fullexpression of her/his potentials.

The planet Earth is the centre for existence andtherefore the most important base for all beings.Preservation of ecosystems in their intertwinedtotality, and with the long-term view in mind, is aprecondition for safeguarding future generations.Short-term policy decisions and economic goals mustbe of secondary priority.

Important progress has recently been achieved,mainly by innovative socio-ecological activists andmovements in the Global South. Instrumental inthis progress has been the 2010 Cochabamba

meeting (World People's Meeting on ClimateChange and the Rights of Mother Earth), resultingin the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba. TheAgreement concludes that "humanity confronts agreat dilemma: to continue on the path ofcapitalism, depredation and death, or to choosethe path of harmony with nature and respect forlife."

Barriers/Myths that go against theprinciple: Nowadays, it has become accepted by many thatto protect business interests, patents areregistered on living beings or systems. Yet thisgives research centres and corporations thepossibility to appropriate life, and to manipulateit. The appropriation of nature, of life itself, isagainst all ethical standards. Economic reasonscan never be an argument for permitting thecommodification of life. Short-term, so-called“solutions” for poverty can also end up being anincentive to destroy natural resources andecosystems. Immense financial resources have to be redirectedtoward the preservation of wilderness, as well asrestoring ecosystems from the ecological damagethat has been done. Financial means will have tocome partially from the wealthy regions of theworld, where recognition of the 'value' of natureand ecosystems is often scarce.Additionally, the traditional conservationapproach has more often than not been anobstacle to holistic culture change, because itseldom takes humans and their communities into

5

account, thus having a one-sided and narrowfocus. Furthermore, traditional conservationismpromotes a dichotomy between preserved landsand overused lands (and consequently fails toprotect the entirety of biodiversity effectively).Instead of trying to preserve just some isolatedpatches of land, what is needed is to interact withthe complete interconnected landscape in asustainable and responsible manner.

Human beings often consider themselves to beplaced above (and outside) nature andecosystems. One tragic manifestation of thishuman-superiority complex is the ruthlessexploitation of animals. This is most evident inindustrial farming, where animals are mass-processed and treated as mere commodities.Instead, animals are sentient beings, capable ofintense feelings, including pain, distress, suffering,and pleasure. If and when animals are used, theymust be allowed to express their naturalbehaviour and their welfare should be respectedand responsibly stewarded.Since ancient times, human beings haveintervened and attempted to dominate nature fortheir own (individual or collective) advantage.This has then been called "civilisation" or"development" or “progress”. In many cases thesesupposedly “civilised” interventions destroy morethan they deliver—bringing us to the urgentsituation we find ourselves in globally today, indire need of strong and well-thought-throughsustainability principles and guidelines such asthose described here.

Arguments supporting the principle:Protection of nature was one of the firstundertakings of the environmental movement.But academics also started to find it obvious thatthe environment was too important to disregard.In the 1960s, economists started to integrate theenvironment with their analyses by putting a

price on it. Nature thus became more and morepart of the economic system, and "managing" itcould yield a financial profit. In this traditionaleconomic thinking, nature was taken for grantedas free and available (clean water, fresh air, wideopen spaces, etc.). But this is clearly not the case,and we cannot continue thinking as such.Nowadays, fortunately, we are increasinglyrecognising that nature is finite, and not for sale.A market approach can never conserve nature—on the contrary, it will destroy it even more.

The limits in effectiveness of narrowly focused(‘single-issue’) environmental advocacycampaigns are more broadly acknowledged nowthan even just a few years ago. The very positionof seeing ourselves as separate from theenvironment we wish to “save” has also thankfullybegan to be critiqued, leading some activists andthinkers to feel more comfortable with the termdeep ecology rather than environmentalism.Many ecologists and eco-activists today feel andknow a powerful truth: rather than seeing theecological movement as made up of advocates orcharity-workers in defence of the separate“natural world”, we are in fact the verymountains (and rivers, forests, urban wilds, cities)defending themselves. This position of beingwhat we are defending and protecting and savingis quite a powerful pivot of perspective.

Local inhabitants have also evolved in organisingthemselves horizontally and non-hierarchically,joining forces with others who face comparablechallenges no matter the distance or specificdifferences in cultures. Perhaps more than everbefore in history, indigenous organisations areconnecting worldwide and effectively voicingdemands that, naturally and logically, often havethe rights of Mother Earth as their starting point.

6

Examples where this is happening:*) Yasuni initiative (Ecuador) — Keep the oil underthe soil!Scientists from all over the world have designatedthe Yasuni region of the Ecuadorian Amazon asthe zone with the highest biodiversity in theworld. Within one hectare of Yasuni, 644 differentspecies of trees have been identified. There are asmany different species in one hectare of Yasuni asthere are in the whole of North America. The Yasuni region has been declared a worldbiosphere reserve by UNESCO (the UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation).

This biosphere reserve is the territory of theindigenous Huaorani people and other nativetribes who live in voluntary isolation. The areaalso harbours immense oil reserves, the Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) oil field, with a valueof billions of US dollars. Under pressure fromenvironmental/indigenous organisations, thePresident of the Republic of Ecuador, RafaelCorrea, has indicated that the first option for thecountry is to leave the crude oil of Yasuniuntouched and underground. The internationalcommunity has been asked to help to achieve thisby coming up with 50% of the value of the

reserves, or $3.6 billion, over 13 years.The State will issue certificates for the crude oil ofYasuni, promising to keep the crude undergroundforever and to use the funds to better protectYasuni National Park.

*) Organic agriculture (GMO-free)Worldwide campaigns against the introduction ofgenetically modified agricultural plants (and evenanimals) have been carried out the world over, byfarmers, environmental organisations andorganisations from a score of other societalsectors. The reasons for this opposition aremanifold, but one key argument, shared by many of the opposing organisations, is theacknowledgment that the human race does nothave the right to scientifically change the genetic'hardware' of the world. Another sharedargument, connected to this, is that of the‘Precautionary Principle’: if an action or policy hasa suspected risk of causing harm to the public orto the environment, its introduction orcontinuation has to be postponed until there issufficient proof of its safety. Organic agricultureacts with these arguments in mind, and providesa way of sustainable food production thatrespects the soil, the welfare of animals, and theover-all health of the planet. More information on

Prin

ciple

1 Planet

7

the Precautionary Principle and ethics ingovernance can be found in the fifth principle inthis publication.

*) The Cochabamba Declaration (Bolivia)The People's Agreement of Cochabamba is theboldest and clearest statement of endorsement ofthe rights of Mother Earth. In widespread reactionand mobilisation after the failure of theCopenhagen Climate Conference, more than35,000 people from more than 140 countries,with official representation from 48 governments,attended the Cochabamba conference. Theconcluding declaration states, "We confront theterminal crisis of a civilising model that ispatriarchal and based on the submission anddestruction of human beings and nature thataccelerated since the industrial revolution." Thedeclaration describes seven key elements of itsprinciples.

Of course, in practice, these principles are farfrom secured — even when it comes to thegovernment of Bolivia, which was a strongendorser of the Cochabamba Meeting. TheBolivian government struggles to balance itseconomic policy with the demands and needs ofits indigenous population and small farmers.

However, it did install a Mother Nature Ministry,accountable for enforcing the Cochabambadeclaration.

For more information:Yasuni Initiative: http://www.sosyasuni.org

Against GMO's: http://www.saynotogmos.org

People’s Agreement of Cochabamba:htp://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010t/04/24/peoples-agreement

8

degradation and the widening gap between richand poor stand in direct relation to GDP-growingeconomies. This ‘growth’ requires large andunsustainable amounts of natural resources,exploited mostly in the South, and it causes CO2and other toxic emissions, again suffered most bypeople and ecosystems in the South.

Many alternative economic indicators have beendeveloped, applied, and tested that give a muchmore realistic image of the state of the global andlocal economies, not to mention the rate ofhappiness, satisfaction, and general well-being.Policy goals and monitoring need to be guided byintegrated measures on multiple fronts(environmental, social, economic), and must takeinto consideration a diversity of interpretations ofhuman welfare.

Sane economic policy should recognise the limits ofresources and the ecological and social capacities ofthe planet’s ecosystems and populations. Rawmaterials and fossil fuels exist on Earth only inlimited quantities and thus cannot be endlesslyutilised without planning limits to their use, as wellas reusing and recycling materials as much aspossible. Other finite resources that until now have beencounted as freely accessible in unlimitedquantities (such as clean water and air, openspace, human labour) must also be taken fullyinto account.

Rationale behind the principle: The neo-classical (neoliberal) way of structuringthe economy that became hegemonic first inChile in the 1970s, later in the United Kingdomand the United States, and subsequently in largeparts of the rest of the world, is based on theconcept of the constant need for unlimitedgrowth in terms of the GDP (Gross DomesticProduct). Limitless growth is a dangerous myththat can only be perpetuated through built-indefaulting indicator systems such as the use of theGDP, and by intense propagandistic pressure inthe media, in the scientific community and insociety at large. Using the GDP as the mainindicator of the state of the economy creates astructurally and fundamentally distorted image,since many costs and effects are not included,and many costs and damages are evenerroneously counted as positives. For instance,costs incurred to repair ecological damagestemming from oil spills would count as 'growth'in this traditional system of measuring. Negativeeffects in unpaid labour, such as time available totake care of parents or children, would not appearas 'costs' at all in GDP-based accounting.

In spite of this, most policy makers and civilsociety organisations remain convinced thateconomic growth (measured in GDP) is the mostefficient method to reduce poverty. But theexponential growth of most of the developedcountries is causing a myriad of problems onenvironmental and social levels. Ecological

The Planetary Boundaries PrincipleThe Planetary Boundaries Principle clearly establishes that human development is dependent on intact ecosystems and that there are limits to natural resource-based economic growth. Safe economic systems must respect such ecosystem boundaries andgovernments need to set clear long-term limits to maintain a reliable operating base.

Prin

ciple

2 Planet

9

Over the course of the last century, unsustainableeconomics has been the prevailing paradigm,without any respect for boundaries or carryingcapacity, and this has inflicted massive damage.The damage needs to be repaired and/or repaidas much as feasible in the specific circumstances,in order to restore as much as possible.Comparable with the financial damage and debtincurred by past imperialist and colonialistpractices in the Global South, this damage can benamed “ecological debt” or “sustainability debt”.

Barriers/Myths that go against the principle: Most people understand that unlimited growth isnot sustainable, and that the concept would notbe “natural” in their daily lives, not to mentionimpossible when it comes to physics (try inflatinga balloon forever!). Yet, the myth thatunrestrained growth is a necessity for theeconomy continues to prevail today. Neoliberaleconomists and their discourse still dominate thesocial sciences and the media.

Another obstacle to regulation is the persistentbelief that “prohibitions don't work”. This hasmore to do with propaganda than with reality.Everybody knows, for example, that prohibitingthe unregulated sale of firearms helps to curbviolence, or in the case of urban planning,limiting parking space helps to regulate trafficproblems because it encourages people to useother forms of transport. But the misconceptionthat setting limits is counterproductive to ahealthy functioning system unfortunately persiststo this day, and this misconception is quiteinstrumental in the hood-winking lobbyingcampaigns that are carried out in the interest ofcorporate powers.

The belief in technological solutions to theproblem of scarce raw materials only hinders

instituting regulatory policies in a timely fashion.In short, on a finite Earth, there is no ‘techno-fix’.And the use of ‘natural capital’ as a metaphoricaltool can be problematic, as only those values thatcan be translated into monetary terms will countin the equation.

Another obstacle lies in people’s value systems,which in the developed or civilised world oftenmeans a value system ruled by the worship ofmaterial wealth, and discounting other less visibleor calculable values, those riches ironically oftenmore precious and hard to come by: freedom,happiness, love, health, leisure time, inspiredengagement, dignity.

Arguments supporting the principle:Technically it has become much moremanageable to measure the boundaries andavailability of biomass, and thus the over-allcarrying capacity of the planet to absorb waste ofall types. Long-term strategies are beingdeveloped for national economies, based onavailability of natural resources and limitations ofwaste emissions (including CO2). The issue of“food security” is receiving growing support.Projects to replace the GDP by more realisticeconomic indicators are developing rapidly aswell. The International Resources Panel of theUnited Nations should have the scope of itsmandate expanded to that of the IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), tomanage and calculate the use of natural resourcesbased on equity in access.

The recent financial crisis has made it abundantlyclear that the current model of production andconsumption has surpassed limits of availableresources, as well as illustrating just howdangerous it is to have an economy dependenton the unlimited access to these resources.Relatively new phenomena like ‘land-grabbing’

10

indicate that nation-states and corporations areprepared to wield their power to appropriate otherpeoples’ lands and resources, ostensibly to secure“their” own share of the spoils, while encounteringmore and more unified and active opposition tothis modern form of colonialism as well.

Examples where this is happening:Many government officials from relatively poorcountries have pointed out at climate changemeetings that the principle of shared butdifferentiated responsibility demands that richnations go beyond donations or adaptationcredits, and actually make reparations thatrecognise their ecological debt for excessiveemissions or pollution over several decades.However, perhaps unsurprisingly, the top USambassador to the 2009 COP (Conference ofParties) in Copenhagen, Todd Stern, flatly rejectedthese arguments. Nevertheless, diplomats frompoor regions continue to speak out, demandingthat the United States owes a debt to developingnations for the US-American emissions that have

largely contributed to global climatic disruptions. Food sovereignty and food security are conceptsthat are being adopted by an increasing numberof civic organisations (farmers, ecological groups,etc.). Check out, for instance, the Global Forumon Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum), acommunity of practitioners currently reachingmore than 3,400 members from across theworld’s five continents.

A movement against economic growthdependence is gaining momentum in manycountries—for instance in France, Spain,Germany, and Austria, as well as many othercountries. Even in the European Parliament, theissue of the faulty GDP indicator is being debated,for example in the Beyond GDP conference.

Meanwhile, ‘Peak Oil’ has become a householdterm and a focus for many movements (such asTransition Towns), with awareness growing thatmany other scarce resources are showing signs ofa coming ‘peak’, if not a passed peak.

For more information:International Resource Panel: http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel

Beyond GDP: http://www.beyond-gdp.eu

DegrowthPedia: http://degrowthpedia.org

Food Crisis and the Global Land Grab: http://farmlandgrab.org

Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition: http://km.fao.org/fsn

Southern People’s Ecological Debt Creditors Alliance: http://www.ecologicaldebt.org

Décroissance (De-growth) movement in France - Institut d'études économiques et sociales pour la décroissance soutenable (Institute of social and economic studies for sustainable de-growth):http://www.decroissance.org

Resource Cap Coalition – CEEweb for Biodiversity: http://www.ceeweb.org/rcc

Prin

ciple

2 Planet

11

Illustration by Kate Raworth, Oxfam Great Britain

12

The Dignity PrincipleThe Dignity Principle upholds that every human being, now and in the future, has the right to livelihood.Peoples’ sovereignty for food, energy, and their surrounding natural environment must be respected andimplemented. Poverty eradication and redistribution of wealth have to be the main priority ofgovernance and measured in these terms.

Prin

ciple

3 Societies and human rights

Rationale behind the principle: All people in the world have the right to live indignity. There is enough space, food, air, and waterfor everybody. It is also possible to provide everybodyon Earth with the basic provisions of shelter,education and health care. But this can only beachieved if we make conscious, informed and justchoices about the sharing and distribution of meansand resources.It will also require choosing responsible patternsof consumption. The Earth will not be able toprovide a “Western” consumption menu for all;that kind of extreme consumption level can onlybe maintained with direct and indirect violencecontinuously enforcing a high level of inequality.

Champagne Glass Distribution from Conley (2008)

You May Ask Yourself

1 "The World Distribution of Household Wealth", by James B.

Davies, Susanna Sandstrom, Anthony Shorrocks, and Edward

N. Wolff, 2006.

The current situation in the world today is farfrom equal. The global income differences aredramatic, with a huge concentration of income inthe ‘Global North’ and a tiny top segment in theGlobal South. According to ‘The World Distributionof Household Wealth’, "The top 10 per cent ofadults own 85 per cent of global householdwealth, so that the average member of this grouphas 8.5 times the global average holding. Thecorresponding figures for the top 5 per cent, top2 per cent, and top 1 per cent are 71 per cent(14.2 times the average), 51 per cent (25 timesthe average) and 40 per cent (40 times theaverage), respectively. This compares with thebottom half of the distribution, which collectivelyowns barely 1 per cent of global wealth. Thus thetop 1 per cent owns almost 40 times as much asthe bottom 50 per cent."1

The inequitable situation is maintained — andeven aggravated, as the income gap has beengrowing in most countries in the past decade —so called free trade agreements benefitingcorporate powers and deregulated financialsystems are two of many factors that contributedto this to happen.

13

To protect our own dignity of life it is necessarythat people have the right to decide, in their localsovereignty, how to organise their society, withina framework of a global set of guidelines for“responsible behaviour”.

Peoples' rights to all of the above have to beexplicitly laid down in local, national, andinternational agreements, and these rights mustgrant the same degree of legal protection asagreements on trade or investments. Apart fromthese rights being written down in internationaland local laws, there has to be an effort toprovide the legal instruments and frameworks toenforce these rights at the global level.

If patterns of trade and commerce can de-globalise, this will most of the time mean thatpeople will get more control over their localeconomy and basic needs. But there will alwaysbe circumstances, times and places in which basicrights cannot be met locally. The internationalcommunity has the duty to set up structures toprovide with support in these cases.

Where globalising processes are unavoidablerealities, emphasis should be placed on thepossibility — in fact, the essentiality — of peopleto maintain influence over these global-sizedforces that affect their lives, and new structuresfor direct-democratic global governance have tobe developed.

Barriers/Myths that go against theprinciple: Privatisation and deregulation, followingneoliberal-utopian ideas about a free-marketeconomy, are still very much the trend these days.At the same time, civil society seems fragmentedand disorganised. Reversing the dominant trend,beginning the process of de-privatising and re-regulating, will require a great coordinated and

cooperative effort, and much energy will need tobe directed toward defining collectivelysupported alternatives. It is with this collectivedefining process in mind that this publication ofprinciples came to be.

When trying to formulate laws and agreementsaimed at securing peoples' basic rights toanything, powerful lobby-initiatives fromcorporate entities immediately move in to securetheir interests.

Wealthy countries’ protectionist policies,combined with the prohibition of the sameprotections for the rest of global society, arepreventing communities in the Global South fromequalising.

Arguments supporting the principle:Many people see that the much-propagated freemarket is not ‘free’ at all, since there are hugemonopolies and strong regulation (mostly infavour of the big corporations and monopolies).Recent crises like the financial crisis, food crisis,and climate/energy crisis have confirmed the factthat a drastic change in methods of productionand consumption is necessary, as well as anassertion of people’s rights of access to their basicneeds, food and resources.

The use of other economic indicators than theGDP will show the need for redistribution ofwealth and a coming together on the appropriateand sustainable use of natural resources. Theimportance of the concept of ‘environmentalspace’, for instance by the method of theecological footprint, has been dramatically shownby ecological (and thus, social) disasters in the lastseveral years. Nobody can deny, for instance, thatexcess water in Northern Europe (partly producedby the effects of climate change) needs space toflow into; otherwise it will flood entire cities.

14

And humans have clearly recognised that there isadded value in forests, now that we know thatthey absorb an important part of the CO2 weproduce and release into the atmosphere.

Examples where this is happening:Indigenous organisations all over the world areexpressing their right to preserve their livelihood,regardless of corporate or governmental claimson the space and resources in their territory. Sincethe Universal Declaration of Human Rights in1948, efforts to lay down the rights of Earth’sinhabitants have continued, from the local to theglobal level. See for instance the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights2, where, among many other rights, theright to access to drinking water is articulated.In fact, most countries in the world in some waylimit the reach of the so-called free market orrestrict the power of corporations in one way oranother, in order to at least minimally protect theenvironment and give some kind of rights to thelocal population. For example, social-democraticwelfare states were built up by requiring a largertax from wealthy persons and corporations.Although this tendency has been largelydismantled and comes under heavy pressurethese days, it is also safe to say that recentoccupations and manifestations against austeritycuts in Europe and around the world demonstratethat people are willing to speak out and put theirbodies on the line to defend these hard-wonrights and social securities. Thanks to this social

protest and pressure and a skeleton framework ofhelpful laws in place, human and environmentalrights are at least partially upheld.

Ideas for a worldwide social security system arebeing developed and pilot projects such as theNamibia Basic Income Grant have proved verysuccessful.

Solutions that are more embedded in hybrideconomics are projects such as the Bolsa Familiain Brazil, showing how support can substantiallylift people out of poverty.

Bhutan included these kinds of rights and valuesin an alternative economic indicator system,called the Gross National Happiness (GNH)indicators.

In July 2011, Bolivia enacted “La Ley deRevolución Productiva Comunitaria” (The Law ofProductive, Communal and AgriculturalRevolution), which seeks to ensure food security,while safeguarding national sovereignty andprotecting the environment.

Internationally, many groups are designingproposals for global agreements on a set ofimportant universal rights, such as the right toclean drinking water, access to food, the naturalworld, etc. ("La Ley de Derechos de la MadreTierra" or "The Law of the Rights of MotherEarth")

2 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm

15

For more information:Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report), by the United Nations WorldCommission on Environment and Development (WCED), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.

Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective, by Ha-Joon Chang,Anthem Press, London, June 2002.

General Basic Income: http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html

Namibia Basic Income Grant: http://www.bignam.org

Bolsa Familia (Brazil): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Familia

Worldwide social security: http://www.issa.int/Topics/About-social-security

Bhutan Gross National Happiness indicators: http://www.undp.org.bt/Integration-of-GNH-indicators.htm

Bolivia Set to Give Nature a Set of Rights: http://www.huliq.com/3257/bolivia-set-give-nature-set-rights-including-right-exist

16

The Justice PrincipleThe Justice Principle calls for the equitable sharing of all economic benefits as well as burdens. Thisapplies to access to goods and services, the use of natural resources, and the responsibility to strive toavoid harmful practices, while being prepared to provide satisfactory compensation should any damageoccur. All institutions, corporations, and decision-makers need to be held to the same standard ofaccountability and personal responsibility for their actions.

Prin

ciple

4

Rationale behind the principle:The natural resources required for humanity’sbasic living conditions are becoming ever morescarce. Even those lands essential to food cropproduction have become the object of massivespeculation and monopolisation. Currentpollution emissions by far exceed the limits of the

Earth’s carrying capacity. And social pressuresfrequently boil over due to large-scale exhaustionof the human labour of millions of people whohave to work their fingers to the bone just tosurvive. The extreme power inequality is the mainreason why a privileged few reap an unequalshare of the world’s scarce provisions.

17

More equal societies produce less crime and havemore happier inhabitants, as vast scientificevidence shows. More equal societies are alsomore stable and resilient, as people have moretrust in and affinity to each other.

Therefore there is a dire need for legal frameworks(on all levels, from local to global) to protectpeoples’ rights to the basic elements of adignified life (as outlined in the previousprinciple).

Laying down these important basic rights in solidagreements and laws, holding accountable those inpower (whether they be governmental authorities orcorporations), will make it much more possible forpeople in less powerful positions to get their rightfulshare of the planet’s wealth.

Of course the problem also lies in the practicalenforcement of these laws. There are alreadymany declarations and international agreementswith idyllic-sounding promises that never get fullyelaborated, much less implemented. Partly thisproblem arises because the agreements do nothave the same scope or authority as other laws,for instance laws laid down by the WTO (WorldTrade Organisation). Yet at the same timemovements are learning how to use internationalagreements as effective leverage tools in theircampaigns.

Barriers/Myths that go against the principle:In spite of the fact of economic globalisationrapidly engulfing the world, international lawsremain weak. Many of the free trade agreements

made by institutions like the WTO seek to activelyweaken the position of those that suffer theeffects of corporate power, by placing corporateenterprises in a special, protected position. Thestrategy can be seen in the way the OECD(Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment) is attempting to formulate theMultilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) infavour of the rights of corporate investors. Thisattempt was scaled back after growing protestmade it too unpopular, but the key elementscontinue to appear in proposals, co-opting andundermining the effectiveness of internationalagreements.

Corporations and governing authorities hide theirculpability behind an often-feigned lack ofunderstanding in the chain of production ofproducts (or services) they sell. This is also doneby corporations who refuse to give informationthat is needed to pay a fair amount of taxes. Theycreate an opaque web of internal relations thatmakes it possible to shift capital and goodswithout proper control.

As for assessing damages, there are manyarbitrary factors that make it difficult to reachconsensus about what constitutes faircompensation, especially as transnational causesand effects may be involved, like cross-borderpollution or extraction. How far back in time canwe legitimately take into account? Movements inAfrica have started to claim that to accuratelyassess the damage, one must go as far back as theslave trade of the 1600s. The cost of manynegative effects can also be quite difficult toestimate.

Prin

ciple

4

18

One clear example that has been hamperingstrong legal regulations of water is in the case oftransnational rivers, where one country canextract too much water for agricultural irrigation,or dam the river for energy production, thusdepleting the amount of water that flows to thenext country.

Arguments supporting the principle:Some international court processes are drawingmuch attention and achieving the castigation ofindividual war criminals, though they are stilldisputed in international political relations. Theinstallation of the International Criminal Court inThe Hague for specific UN cases has set aprecedent, albeit only for specific persons orcases. Other comparable courts are being set upfor other thematic areas, such as the InternationalCourt of Environmental Arbitration andConciliation1. Often these courts are multilateralconstructions, combined with the signing ofagreements that allow the court to serve as adispute-settlement agency.

Campaigns to hold transnational corporationsaccountable have been elaborating strong andtransparent methods for corporations’ social andenvironmental behaviour, with recognition ofecological debt calculations and compensation fordamage caused.

A specific method of accounting for corporateactivities is that of LCA, life-cycle assessment oranalysis. It allows us to assess environmentalimpacts associated with all the stages of aproduct's life.2

Despite being controversial, the recent experiencesof 'capping and trading', especially of carbondioxide emissions, set an example of measuringand pricing pollution. A whole different discussionis whether we think it realistic that the pollutioncan be phased out merely using market forces.

Examples where this is happeningThe Stand Up For Your Rights initiative for theacknowledging and upholding of human rights.The initiative delivers explicit watch-dogging onthe implementation and violation of human rights.

Beginning in 1989, the Clean Clothes Campaign(CCC) has worked to help ensure that thefundamental rights of workers are respected. TheCCC "educates and mobilises consumers, lobbycompanies and governments, and offer directsolidarity support to workers as they fight for theirrights and demand better working conditions."The Campaign is an alliance of organisations in 15European countries. Members include tradeunions and NGOs representing a broad spectrumof perspectives and interests, such as women’srights, consumer advocacy, and poverty reduction.

There are also many cases of multinationals beingprosecuted for the damage done abroad, such asthe Texaco case in Ecuador, where localinhabitants sued the oil company for the pollutionof their environment. Another example is that ofShell in Nigeria and Mercedes Benz in Argentina.

To help encourage people and corporations torecognise the Rights of Mother Earth, it is essentialthat the crime of ecocide should be recognised.

1 For more information go to the United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) website:

http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Compliance/NegotiatingMEAs/

DisputeSettlementProvisions/Resource/tabid/660/Default.aspx

2 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment

19

Ecocide has been defined as the extensivedamage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s)of a given territory, whether by human agency orby other causes, to such an extent that: • peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants has been

severely diminished; and or• peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of

another territory has been severely diminished.

The Nagoya Protocol on Access to GeneticResources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing ofBenefits Arising from their Utilisation (ABS) to theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is asupplementary agreement to the Convention onBiological Diversity. It provides a transparent legalframework for the effective implementation ofone of the three objectives of the CBD: the fairand equitable sharing of benefits arising out ofthe utilisation of genetic resources.

The Nagoya Protocol on ABS was adopted on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan and enteredinto force 90 days after the fiftieth instrument ofratification. Its objective is the fair and equitablesharing of benefits arising from the utilisation ofgenetic resources, thereby contributing to theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The Nagoya Protocol will create greater legalcertainty and transparency for both providers andusers of genetic resources by: • Establishing more predictable conditions for

access to genetic resources• Helping to ensure benefit-sharing when genetic

resources leave the contracting party providingthe genetic resources

By helping to ensure benefit-sharing, the NagoyaProtocol creates incentives to conserve andsustainably use genetic resources and thereforeenhances the contribution of biodiversity todevelopment and human well-being.3

Then there are examples of “public tribunals” thatmay not yet have official jurisdiction, but do havethe support of a broad array of the localpopulation, who can use the outcome to pressurecorporations and authorities to act. Examplesinclude the Russell Tribunal and the tribunal fromEnlazando Alternativas, which focuses onEuropean transnational corporations in LatinAmerica.

3 See http://www.cbd.int/abs/text

For more information:Standup for your Rights:http://www.standupforyourrights.org

Clean Clothes Campaign:http://www.cleanclothes.org

Eradicating Ecocide:http://www.eradicatingecocide.com

Russell Tribunal:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal

Enlanzando Alternativas: http://www.enlazandoalternativas.org/spip.php?rubrique=3

20

The Precautionary PrincipleThe Precautionary Principle should be applied to ensure that new products and technologies do not have destructive or unexpected effects on environmental, social, or human wellbeing. The ‘burden ofproof’ lies with the developer or initiator and problem shifting needs to be avoided.

Prin

ciple

5 Ethics in governance

Rationale behind the principle: The precautionary principle or precautionary approachstates that if there is a suspected risk that an action orpolicy causes harm to the public or to the environment,in the absence of scientific consensus that the actionor policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is notharmful falls on those taking the action. Or to put itsimply: any actor carrying out an activity thatinfluences the social or ecological environment has toprove first that that activity is not harmful, or at leastnot irreversibly harmful, before being allowed toexecute that activity.

The principle sounds logical and is in fact thecommon rule in many countries and internationalentities, but is seldom upheld categorically.Powerful actors can circumvent the precautionaryprinciple, as industry has proven time and timeagain.The principle implies that there is a socialresponsibility to protect the public from exposureto harm, when scientific investigation has found aplausible risk. This protection can be relaxed only iffurther scientific findings emerge that providesound evidence that no harm will result.The principle is enacted nowadays mainly in theenvironmental field, where it is commonly acceptedthat it is far more effective to prevent damagebeing inflicted, than to have to repair it afterwards,which, in many cases, is not even possible.

The principle is in fact the basis for the commonlyaccepted principle that 'the polluter should pay'(and not the victim, or the tax payer via the state).

Barriers/Myths that go against theprinciple: It is a legal battlefield in which producers ofpotentially harmful actions or products claim there isno known risk attached to the same. This oftenconcerns chemical additives or new technologies(such as GMO or nanotechnologies). Innovativeforces in certain industries claim strict regulation willunnecessarily hamper development. It is alsodebated which restrictions cover enough safety.

There is also a lack of knowledge about potentialrisks. It is difficult to assess the risks and damagescaused by specific products.

Many products have already been allowed orwere introduced without legal procedures orpermission. By now they have become commonand complex technical and political procedureswould be required to reverse the situation. Theprocess accompanying the REACH-legislation onchemical additives in the European Union is aclear illustration of the difficulties faced inreversing an existing situation.

Lobby campaigns by powerful chemical andmedical industries are very effective in influencingpolitical decisions and the media.

Proving that certain products are not harmful canbe very costly for the industry wanting to producethem. They accuse opponents of using theprinciple against them to stop them developingnew products.

21

Arguments supporting the principle:In many cases where the precautionary principlewas not followed, the harmful consequences haveproven to be irreparable or much more costly torepair. Asbestos is a good example, as is thenuclear industry. If costs for damage controlarising from accidents at nuclear power plants ornuclear waste had not been externalised, theprice for the energy they produce would beunacceptably high.

Article 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environmentand Development states: "Where there are threatsof serious or irreversible damage, lack of fullscientific certainty shall not be used as a reasonfor postponing cost-effective measures to preventenvironmental degradation.” In other words, ifdamage is likely but not certain, the lack ofabsolute certainty is no excuse for failing tomitigate the damage.

The precautionary principle is accepted as thebasis of the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol agreedin Montreal in January 2000, already signed by 68nations who attended the Convention onBiological Diversity Conference in Nairobi in May2000. The principle is to be applied to all GMOswhether used as food or as seeds forenvironmental release.

Examples where this is happeningThe REACH legislation within the EU: REACH is theEuropean Community regulation on chemicalsand their safe use. It deals with the Registration,Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction ofChemical substances. The law entered into forceon 1 June 2007. But the initial legislation wasseverely weakened after lobbying by the chemicalindustry.

ETC Group has proposed to launch a Conventionon New Technologies to reach common

agreement on procedures and practices forcoming new technologies and the productsresulting from those.

Campaigns to regulate the introduction ofgenetically modified agricultural produce andnanotechnology base their campaigns on thesame principle.

The precautionary principle states that whenthere is reasonable suspicion of harm, lack ofscientific certainty or consensus must not be usedto postpone preventive action. There is indeedsufficient direct and indirect scientific evidence tosuggest that GMOs are unsafe for use as food orfor release into the environment. And that is whymore than 300 scientists from 38 countries aredemanding a moratorium on all releases of GMOs.

For more information:Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/prec.php

Bulldozing Reach:http://archive.corporateeurope.org/lobbycracy/BulldozingREACH.html

Applying the Precautionary Principle toNanotechnologyhttp://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm

Open Letter from World Scientists to AllGovernments Concerning Genetically ModifiedOrganisms (GMOs): http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

Open Letter from World Scientists to AllGovernments:http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/openlet-cn.htmETC Group: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/rio

22

The Resilience PrincipleThe Resilience Principle emphasises that diversity and diversification are preconditions for sustainabilityand quality of life. A diversity of organisational models and governance levels needs to be cultivated,along with diversified economic activity that minimises commodity dependence.

Prin

ciple

6 Ethics in governance

Rationale behind the principle: Systems and structures are the strongest and the most inclusive (and interesting to live in)when they have a broad spectrum of diversity.The ecosystem has this relation with biodiversity.It is known that the abundance in relationsbetween organisms, many of which are not evenfully understood, make an ecosystem resilientand that taking out one or some organisms canharm the whole system fatally. Therefore it isalways needed to have 'a plenty' of diversitybecause some organisms/populations cantemporarily weaken or disappear, but others, or a set of others can take over their 'function' inthe ecosystem.

This 'law of diversity' also counts for the socialenvironment that we – and all other creatures –live in as well as the economic systems theydevelop.

The more diverse and the more horizontal therelations within the social structures are, the moreresilient they are, and the more capable to absorbshocks and sudden ruptures, and the better they arecapable to recover 'from below'.

Democratic structures should function to endorse,facilitate and affirm the greatest possible diversityin economic and political systems. In reality, thecurrent trend is the opposite: powerful(economic) groups use their power to centralisepower and property and monopolise the decision-making process. This has led to gigantic ' vertical'structures – for instance in energy production orfinance. They are at the same time unstable andvulnerable to crises, and have acquired strategicpositions within society that make them 'too bigto fail'. The phenomenon is not restricted toconservative power groups. Trade unions andother political organisations often have difficultywith a self-conscious grassroots constituency, andtry to limit their power and influence.

Barriers/Myths that go against theprinciple:A narrow definition of democracy limits the sameto merely casting a vote (instead of realparticipation) and merely a political process.Genuine democracy – ensuring a plethora ofsmaller scale governance units that can creategrassroots solutions that have the active supportof participating citizens – is often considered

23

'radical'. Economic democracy is often excludedfrom the sphere that decisions can be takenabout. For instance large multinationals, oftenwith an economic volume larger than manynations states, do not have any substantialregulation on internal democracy.

Under modern capitalism, many areas haveundergone massive transformations towardsmono-cultures. Agriculture is a case in point.Small producers and manufacturers are driven outof business. This can also be seen in moderncities, where gentrification creates entireneighbourhoods with only corporate chain stores,leaving small enterprise bankrupt. The samehappens with social structures, as poorer peopleare driven out of the neighbourhood.

The modern democratic political system favoursmonoculture and hinders diversification. It favours'old' powers (like existing political parties) andimpairs newly emerging bottom up organisations,especially if they refuse the logic of the status quo.

Arguments supporting the principle: Our understanding of the value of diversity hassubstantially increased with the crisis ofbiodiversity. Biodiversity has become a focal pointfor many campaigns and political forces that wantto prevent a further ecological deterioration.

In reaction to the monopolising effects ofneoliberalism, many people see the value of

diversity. See for instance the reaction against'McDonaldisation' of culture and commerce.

(Semi)-official institutions against monopolistictrends in the neoliberal economy have also beencreated, such as the Autoriteit Financiële Markten(AFM) in the Netherlands, or the European UnionCompetition Law (1*). Although critics state thatthey have far too little power to effectively correctthe centralising trends in economy, they are theliving proof that corrections are necessary.

Examples where this is happening

• In reaction to gentrification, several large citieshave developed a 'right to the city' movement,where all kind of 'users' of the city worktogether to keep their city as diverse aspossible. Right to the City Hamburg is a goodexample. Their manifestos have been signedby hundreds of small entrepreneurs, artistsand other users of the city. “The Right to theCity is defined as the equitable enjoyment ofthe city by all its inhabitants while respectingthe need of sustainability and social justice sothat the primary object of achieving anadequate standard of living for all is attained.Particular attention is dedicated in thedocument to the more vulnerable sectors ofthe population, for whom the rights of libertyof action and organisation in accordance withlocal custom and habits are of considerableimportance”.

24

• An example of the demand to influencedecision-making processes (in this case of thelocal government budget) is that of theParticipatory budget, where the population hasa direct say in part of the expenditure. One ofthe cities where this was developed was PortoAlegre. See a more detailed explanation in,amongst others, Hillary Wainwright: Reclaim theState (Adventures in Popular Democracy).

• It is no coincidence that the World Social Forum(WSF) had its initial base in Porto Alegre. TheForums (after the first World Social Forum in2001 many others emerged; local, regional andthematic) enshrined diversity firmly in their coreprinciples. They have always been framed as anopen, decentralised process, with space formany voices and positions (as long as theyrejected the neoliberal status quo). Theinfluence of traditional political parties isexplicitly restricted.

• Complementary or alternative currencies havebeen developed on local and regional scales,such as the Brixton Pound (UK) or the WIR inSwitzerland.

• Finally, the Slow movement has emerged inreaction to the monopolisation and growth ofmono-cultures, first in agriculture and food andthen in many other basic elements of life. TheSlow movement stresses the need for diversityand for 'other values than money and cheapproduction'. Slow Food in Italy has developedinto a very broad network of producers andconsumers, and soon became international.

For more information:

Right to the City Hamburg:http://www.rechtaufstadt.net

Global Governance:http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/resources/world-charter-on-the-right-to-the-city.

Workshop and document: "World Charter ofthe Rights to the City": January 28:http://www.choike.org/2009/eng/informes/2243.html

Reclaim the State:http://www.tni.org/archives/books_reclaim

World Social Forumhttp://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br

Slow Food: http://www.slowfood.com

Complementary currencies: (1*) European Union competition law arose out of the desire to ensure

that the efforts of government could not be distorted by corporations

abusing their market power. Hence under the treaties are provisions to

ensure that free competition prevails, rather than cartels and

monopolies sharing out markets and fixing prices. Competition law in

the European Union is largely similar and inspired by United States

antitrust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law

25

26

The Responsibility PrincipleThe Responsibility Principle upholds that all social institutions, including corporations, banks andmarkets, need to match power with institutional and personal liability. Being accountable to others at every level of governance is a core element of citizenship and of the socialcontract. The level of accountability should be proportionate to power and knowledge. Accountability isthe condition for legitimacy of any form of governance. Government and civil society organisations have to take leadership in establishing a participativedemocracy. Appropriate public investments should make structural transformation possible thatguarantee benefit sharing.

Prin

ciple

7 ResponsibilityPrinciple

Rationale behind the principle: Responsibility is a universal value, as it lies at thecore of the social fabric, reflecting the necessaryreciprocity in inter-human relationships. It alsoforms the basis for law-making, which defineswho is accountable, to whom and under whichcircumstances. Global interdependence impliesuniversal responsibility. However, a major gapexists today between the scale of theinterdependences and the reality of the law.Major political and economic institutions are stillonly accountable towards their nationalconstituencies: their voters or citizens; theirshareholders and national jurisdictions. Universallyapplicable principles are therefore difficult toenforce.

Since 1972 it has become clear that the UNCharter and the Universal Declaration of HumanRights are not sufficient to ensure the protectionof the planet and that a third pillar is needed. This pillar should be grounded on universallyrecognised values and address the issue ofinterdependence between societies and thebiosphere: a Charter of Universal Responsibility isbest suited to address this interdependence. At present, existing ethics and laws are largelyrestricted to state boundaries. Responsibility andaccountability still remain within the scope of

so-called sovereign states, except for the mostsevere crimes, such as crimes against humanityand more recently – with the extension of the UNHuman Rights Covenants – also crimes againstbasic human rights. Therefore, the impact of ouractions on the world outside our nationaljurisdictions is not taken into account and neitherlaws nor jurisdictions are dealing with themadequately. In that sense, our political andeconomic leaders are truly irresponsible: whenclimate change is threatening Bangladesh’s meresurvival, where can the country and its citizensseek redress? How can those executive officers ofthe financial system who are co-responsible increating a global economic and social crisis bebrought to justice?

Economic globalisation is rapidly transforming theworld, without developing necessary relatedstructures of democratic control, and withoutgranting all societal sectors equal rights. Global lawsand institutions have been set up for trade, forinstance, securing rights for multinationals and largeagro-industrial actors, but not, or to a much lesserdegree, for people affected by their actions.International regulation for the protection of theenvironment or the rights of small-scale farmers andfishers, workers, or women is either severelyunderdeveloped or lacking altogether.

27

To counter this structural and growing imbalance,non-corporate entities and individuals have to beable to organise counterweight and demandtransparency. But they need to back themselveson universal principles of responsibility and oninternational law. The structures of governing anddecision making should be adjusted so as to putthe general public and their interests at thecentre, and not those that are in powerfulpositions already. Conversely, corporations, banksand markets (and their shareholders) must bemade accountable to the effects of theiroperations.

Barriers/Myths that go against the principle:The neoliberal trend of the last 20 years hasshifted ever more areas out of the sphere ofdemocratic control towards corporate control,which is by definition undemocratic. Onlyshareholders and the managers of a corporationhave a real say in corporate activities. At the sametime, they are often not legally accountable fortheir actions. But the other barrier to the principleof universal responsibility is the so-calledsovereignty of states, which implies thatgovernments are only accountable towards theirown citizens, even when many of their actionshave a global impact.

Arguments supporting the principle:It is a concept that exists in all cultures, unlike, forinstance, the human rights concept ininternational law whose expression can beculturally specific;• It is a necessary condition for all the other

principles to be enforced;• It is the outcome of inter-dependence;• It is the consequence of freedom of choice;• It lies at the core of citizenship;• It forms the basis of the social contract;• It is the condition for legitimacy of governance.

Examples where this is happening:Since the beginning of the 21st century, manysocial movements have developed withconstitutions ranging from city dwellers, scientistsand journalists, to professionals or service men;each of them developing a balance of rights andresponsibilities and redefining their social contractwith the rest of society. There have also beenmany campaigns by citizens and organisations touse existing laws to address the globalresponsibility of large corporations.One example of this is AGTER, an association setup in France with the aim to “clarify the linksbetween poverty, underdevelopment and accessto resources, in order to set up lasting alternativesto the ongoing policies”. AGTER further “aims atcontributing to improve the governance of land,water and natural resources and at conceivingnew ways of managing those resources, betteradapted to face the challenges of the twenty-and-first century”. This includes the responsibility thatarises from ownership of natural resources, suchas land, for their sustainable management.

• In France the Confédération Paysanne is thesecond largest (in membership) organisation offarmers and farm workers. It actively opposedthe regulation of the WTO in 1999 that forcedthe EU to open its markets to imports that wereproduced with growth hormones or GMOs. The organisation and its members also activelyoppose the introduction of genetically modifiedagricultural plants and presents alternatives forviable rural development and food security. ViaCampesina, of which they are member, doesthis on a worldwide scale.

• On 15 May 2011, a movement of 'commonSpanish people' mostly young and unemployed,started the occupation of parks and squares inmany towns in Spain. This soon spread to othercountries, and on 17 September the same year -

28

with the occupation of a park in Wall Street,New York - to the USA. One of their maindemands is 'Real Democracy'.

• The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency andEthics Regulation (ALTER-EU) is a coalition ofover 160 civil society groups, trade unions,academics and public affairs firms concerned

For more information: Forum Ethique et responsibility www.ethica-respons.net

International initiative for managing social responsibility www.iresca.net

International alliance of journalists www.alliance-journalistes.net

Fondation sciences citoyennes www.sciencescitoyennes.org

International military alliance for peace and security www.world-military.net

International alliance of inhabitants www.habitants.org

Alliance internationale terre citoyenne www.terre-citoyenne.org

Alliance international of youth www.vamoscuidardoplaneta.net

Global ethics network for applied ethics www.globethics.net

Charter of human responsibilities www.charter-human-responsibilities.net

Forum for a new world governance www.world-governance.org

AGTER: http://www.agter.asso.fr/rubrique69_en.html

Via Campesina: http://viacampesina.org/en

Real Democracy: http://www.democraciarealya.es

Alter EU: http://www.alter-eu.org

World Governance: http://www.world-governance.org

with the increasing influence exerted bycorporate lobbyists on the political agenda inEurope, the resulting loss of democracy in EUdecision-making and the postponement,weakening, or even blockage, of urgentlyneeded progress on social, environmental andconsumer-protection reforms.

29

Thanks to

With many thanks to the participants in the workshop:

Leida Rijnhout (ANPEDMaja Göpel and Randy Hayes (World Future Council)Juan Hoffmeister Third World Network (Costa Rica)Daniel Barstow (CIEL) WashingtonJoachim Spangenberg, Sustainable Europe Research Institute, (Germany)Axel Naersted Norwegian Development Fund (Oslo)George Varughese, Club of Rome and Alternative Development, (India)Candido Grzybowski., Brazilian Institute for Social and Economic Analysis Ibase, (Brazil)Neth Dano, ETC group, (Philippines)Niclas Hälstrom, What Next Forum (Sweden)Patrick Bond, Durban Centre, (South Africa)Maria Schultz, SwedBio – (Stockholm)Peter Adriance, Bahai, USABrian Czeck, CASSE, Canada/USAMonica Moore, CS Fund (San Francisco)Maria Jose Guazelli, Centro Ecologica (Brazil)Benjamin Graub, IAASTD (Washington)Raimund Bleischwitz, Wuppertal Institute, GermanyPierre Calame, FPH (France)Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International (Nigeria)Representatives of Via CampesinaTakashi Otsuka, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies IGES, (Japan)Felix Dodds and Hannah Stoddaert, Stakeholder Forum, (UK)Jan Gustav Strandenaes (ANPED)

30

ANPED, the Northern Alliance for Sustainability, is an international not-for-profit organisationrepresenting a vast network of NGOs in the Northern hemisphere with a mission to pro-activelypromote the agenda on environmental justice and systemic change for the Economy. It alsoempowers Northern civil society through capacity development, exchanges and knowledge sharingwhile working in close cooperation with Southern civil society and other stakeholders, for the creationand protection of sustainable societies worldwide.

www.anped.orgChaussée St. Pierre 1231040 BrusselsBELGIUM

FPH, Fondation Charles Leopold Mayer for the progress of humanity is an independent internationalfoundation under Swiss law. From the beginning of the nineties it has devoted itself to the mainchallenges humanity was facing in front of the needed systemic changes. It supported the creationand development of the global Alliance for a Responsible and united world in 1993, which organizedin 2001 the first ever World citizens assembly, with a fair representation of all the regions of the worldand all stakeholders. The two outcomes of the Assembly have been the Charter of humanresponsibilities and the Agenda for the 21st century which highlights the four dimensions of the"great transition": the emergence of a global community; the agreement on common values, with afocus on the universal concept of responsibility; the revolution of governance; the passage fromeconomy (the present model) to oeconomy (producing well being for all while respecting the planetboundaries).

www.fph.ch38 rue Saint Sabin F - 75011 ParisFRANCE

Editor: Kees HudigGraphic Design: JACQUES, agency for graphic design, Netherlands, www.jacques.nu

This publication is made by: