unanz news - september 2012

UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2UNANZ NEWS

ISSN 11798009 (print) ISSN 11790817 (online)

UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2

THE PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT FOR THE UNITED NATIONS 2 UNANZ.ORG.NZ

UNANZ NewsContentsIn this issue:The UN and the Olympic Truce 3UN Report: NZ government'sperformance on economic, socialand cultural rights 11Who broke the UN 4Eliminating the extremes ofPoverty and Wealth 5Weathering uncertainty in theArctic 9Sustainability:Rio+20 andbeyond 11Responding to the two globalcrises 15

Five things we've learnt fromRio+20 16UN calls for international tax toraise $400 billion to financedevelopment needs 19UN Regional Groupings need toreshuffle the deck 22NZ's report to CEDAW 24President's Column 23Branch reports 24UN Youth President's Report 31

UNANZ EVENTS21 September: InternationalDay of Peace. R2P roundtable,5:3, Rutherford House22 September: National CouncilMeeting. 11am St Andrew's onThe Terrace, Conference Room24 October: United NationsDay, 5:30 at Premier House10 December: Human Rightsday

UN INTERNATIONAL YEARUpcoming events:


The ancient Greek tradition of theekecheiria, or ‘Olympic Truce’, was born inthe eighth century B.C., serving as ahallowed principle of the Olympic Games.In 1992, the International OlympicCommittee renewed this tradition bycalling upon all nations to observe theTruce. Through its resolution 48/11 of 25October 1993, the General Assemblyurged Member States to observe theOlympic Truce from the seventh daybefore the opening to the seventh dayfollowing the closing of each OlympicGames. This appeal was renewed in theMillennium Declaration.The Olympic movement aspires tocontribute to a peaceful future forhumankind through the educational valueof sport. It brings together athletes from

all parts of the world in the greatest ofinternational sports events, the OlympicGames, and it aims to promote themaintenance of peace, mutualunderstanding and goodwill — goals itshares with the United Nations. As anexpression of these common objectives, in1998 the International Olympic Committeedecided to fly the United Nations flag at allcompetition sites of the Olympic Games.The United Nations for its part, isexpanding its cooperation with theInternational Olympic Committee and theOlympic family at large through a numberof agreements and partnerships.Its relevance todayTaking into account the global context inwhich sport and the Olympic Games exist,the International Olympic Committee(IOC) decided to revive the ancientconcept of the Olympic Truce with theview to protecting, as far as possible, theinterests of the athletes and sport ingeneral, and to encourage searching forpeaceful and diplomatic solutions to theconflicts around the world.Through this global and symbolic concept,the IOC aims to : mobilise youth for the promotion of theOlympic ideals; use sport to establish contacts betweencommunities in conflict; and offer humanitarian support in countriesat war; and more generally to create a window of opportunities fordialogue and reconciliation.The IOC undertakings for the OlympicTruce extend beyond the period of theOlympic Games and have led to theimplementation of a series of ‘sport forpeace’ activities through its NationalOlympic Committees.“Sport alone cannot enforce or maintain peace.But it has a vital role to play in building abetter and more peaceful world.”


SecretaryGeneral Ban Kimoon speaks at an eventdedicated to the Olympic Truce, ahead of the 2010Winter Games in Vancouver, Canada. With him isthe Premier of British Columbia, Canada, GordonCampbell. (UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe)


Who Broke the U.N.?Long a target for ‘reform,’ the UnitedNations has taken heat for a bloatedbureaucracy and gridlocked SecurityCouncil. Foreign Policy surveyed topexperts about what role it should play intoday's evermoretangled global conflicts,with Madeleine Albright guiding us throughthe results.BY MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHTThe amount of time that has been spent inthink tanks and inside the U.S. StateDepartment trying to figure out whetherand how to reform the United Nationswould be impossible to calculate. Therefrain of ‘U.N. reform’ is heard over andover, yet infighting and gridlock continueto block bolder U.N. action, as the latestsituation in Syria makes clear.Like any organization, the U.N. does needto be reformed — from the structure andprocedures of the Security Council, which28 percent of Foreign Policy's surveyrespondents identify as the part of theU.N. most in need of rethinking, to thebody's staffing, leadership, and budget.But reform is not an event; it is a process.Although people tend to blame ‘the U.N.’fundamentally it is a collection of nationstates, often with competing interests. Nowonder more than 40 percent of therespondents consider this fact the greatestinternal obstacle preventing the institutionfrom being more effective.Although twothirds of respondentsendorse the idea of enlarging the SecurityCouncil, the reality is that finding a way todo so is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube.For example, when I served at the U.N.,

European Union states often votedtogether. The logical move would havebeen to give the EU one permanent seaton the Security Council, but it's hard tovisualize the British or the French givingup their individual seats. At that time, theUnited States supported Germany andJapan as additions to the SecurityCouncil's permanent members;respondents to The FP Survey list Japanand Germany as candidates for SecurityCouncil seats today. Their top choice byfar, however, is India, which U.S.President Barack Obama has now alsoendorsed for a permanent seat. So theRubik's cube continues to shift — and yetthe council's membership is unchanged.Individual countries can take the lead onpushing for reforms, but they must bewilling to adapt. When I was at the U.N.,the United States pushed hard formanagement reform. At the very sametime, we unilaterally decided we wouldpay only 25 percent of the peacekeepingbudget (our allotment was more than 30percent). We also drew criticism becauseof the way our fiscal year begins inOctober, while many other countries paytheir bills in January. There I was,constantly saying, “You need to reform onthis; you need to tighten your procedures;you need to do projections on whatpeacekeeping operations will cost,” wheneveryone else was saying, “So when areyou paying up?” It got to the point thatour best friends, the British, stood up inthe General Assembly and delivered a linethey had waited more than 200 years todeliver: “No representation withouttaxation.”The issue of how to deal with Syria hasonce again prompted questions about notjust the U.N.'s structure and procedures,but also its purpose — whether and inwhat circumstances it has the‘responsibility to protect’ and whether itsmember states should ever take up thatmantle on their own. I agree with thethreequarters of respondents who thinkthe U.S. military should not interveneunilaterally in Syria. The reality is thatthere are always other channels. During




negotiations over Kosovo in the 1990s, theRussians made very clear to me that theywere going to veto whatever the UnitedStates was going to do. I then went backto my hotel room in Moscow and calledevery single ambassador backingintervention — and then we went to NATO.Every situation is slightly different, butmany options are on the table. I'm thefirst one to say it would be better to get aU.N. mandate for military action, butultimately I am for what I have alwayscalled the ‘doability doctrine.’Americans tend to dislike the word‘multilateralism’ — it has too manysyllables and ends in an ‘ism.’ The reality,however, is that the U.N. is the world'smost visible multilateral organization andhas the most members. No one country,even the United States, can tackle thebundle of issues the world faces — fromterrorism to nuclear proliferation,economic inequality to environmentaldegradation.I often tell my students that Americandecisionmakers only have a handful oftools in the toolbox to achieve the kind offoreign policy they want: bilateraldiplomacy and multilateral diplomacy;economic tools; threat of the use of forceand use of force; law enforcement; andintelligence. That's it. I don't believe inmultilateralism as an end in itself. But Ibelieve in it as an important instrument ofpolicy. If we start thinking that the UnitedNations doesn't work, that we don't haveto pay our bills, or that everything indiplomacy will turn out exactly the way wewant it, we are leaving out anindispensable tool.Source: Foreign Policy websitehttp://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/who_broke_the_un?wpisrc=obinsite

ELIMINATIONOF THEEXTREMES OFPOVERTY &WEALTHJust prior to theUNANZ AGM on 19May a forum washeld to considerthe views of NGOsand the spiritualcommunities onRIO+20. Izoldapresented theBahá’í International Community’scontribution to the 50th Session of theUnited Nations Commission on SocialDevelopment

Poverty eradication programs havegenerally focused on the creation ofmaterial wealth. While these measureshave improved living standards in someparts of the world, inequality remainswidespread. In its 2005 Report on theWorld Social Situation, the United Nationshighlighted the growing chasm betweenformal and informal economies, thewidening gap between skilled andunskilled workers, and the growingdisparities in health, education as well asin opportunities for social, economic andpolitical participation. It has been welldocumented that the focus on growth andincome generation has not necessarilytranslated into significant socialimprovements, and that growinginequality has rendered the globalcommunity increasingly unstable andinsecure.The Bahá'í International Communitywishes to contribute to the Commission’sdiscussion of poverty eradication byconsidering the related phenomena of theextremes of poverty and wealth. While thegoal of poverty eradication is widelyendorsed, the notion of eliminatingextremes of wealth is challenging to many.Some fear that it could be used toundermine the market economy, to stifleentrepreneurship, or to impose income

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/who_broke_the_un?wpisrc=obinsite



equalization measures. This is not what wemean. To be sure, material wealth is ofcritical importance to the achievement ofindividual and collective goals; by thesame token, a strong economy is a keycomponent of a vibrant social order. Wepropose that recognition of the problem ofthe extremes of poverty and wealthconcerns itself, in essence, with the natureof relationships that bind individuals,communities and nations. Today, most ofthe world’s people live in societiescharacterized by relationships ofdominance — whether of one nation overanother, one race by another, one socialclass by another, one religious or ethnicgroup by another, or one sex by another.In this context, a discourse on theelimination of the extremes of poverty andwealth presumes that societies cannotflourish in an environment that fuelsinequitable access to resources, toknowledge, and to meaningfulparticipation in the life of society.In this contribution, we briefly reflect onthe manner in which the following aspectsof society contribute to these extremes: amaterialistic worldview, assumptions abouthuman nature, the means of generatingwealth, and access to knowledge. Wepropose an alternative set of assumptionsand consider how these might advance amore equitable economic environment.The dominant model of developmentdepends on a society of vigorousconsumers of material goods. Endlesslyrising levels of consumption are cast asindicators of progress and prosperity. Thismaterialistic worldview, which underpinsmuch of modern economic thinking,reduces concepts of value, human purposeand human interactions to the selfinterested pursuit of material wealth. Theinevitable result is an unfetteredcultivation of needs and wants which hasled to a system dependent on excessiveconsumption by the few, while reinforcingexclusion and poverty for the many.As most would acknowledge, however, thematerialistic worldview does not capturethe totality of human experience. This

includes expressions of love and selfsacrifice, the quest for knowledge andjustice, attraction to beauty and to truth,the search for meaning and purpose, toname but a few. In fact, the progress andvitality of the social order requires acoherent relationship between the materialand spiritual dimensions of human life.Within such an order, economicarrangements support the development ofjust and peaceful human relations andpresume that every individual has acontribution to make to the betterment ofsociety.Consider that nearly 800 million adultscannot read or write; that two and a halfbillion people lack basic sanitation; thatnearly half of the world’s children live inpoverty. At the other extreme, a merehandful of individuals (approximately 500billionaires) controls 7% of the world’sGDP. We have an economic system thatgenerates extreme inequality. Manyassume that such inequality, whileundesirable, is necessary for thegeneration of wealth. If the process bywhich wealth is accumulated ischaracterized by the oppression anddomination of others, how, in such anenvironment, can we hope to mobilize thematerial, intellectual, and moral resourcesneeded to eradicate poverty?Many would acknowledge that thelegitimacy of wealth depends on how it isacquired and how it is expended. Wealth iscommendable to the highest degree if it isacquired through earnest effort anddiligent work, if the measures to generatethat wealth serve to enrich society as awhole, and if the wealth obtained throughthose measures is expended to promoteknowledge, education, industry, and, ingeneral, to advance human civilization.The principle of justice can be expressedon different levels related to the process ofthe acquisition of wealth. Employers andtheir employees, for example, are boundto the laws and conventions that regulatetheir work. Each is expected to carry outhis or her responsibilities with honesty andintegrity. At another level, we can consider



whether the measures generating thewealth are serving to enrich society and topromote its wellbeing. The variousapproaches to obtaining wealth must enterinto the discourse on poverty eradication,so that measures which involve theexploitation of others, the monopolizationand manipulation of markets, and theproduction of goods that promote violenceand tear at the social fabric can be fullyexplored and scrutinized by the generalityof the people. Alongside this discourse, theeradication of the extremes of poverty andwealth will require no less than aknowledge revolution. Such a revolutionwill need to redefine the role of everyindividual, community and nation in thegeneration and application of knowledge.It will need to acknowledge both scienceand religion as two complementarysystems of knowledge, which throughouthistory have made possible theinvestigation of reality and theadvancement of civilization. As theseprocesses unfold, they will help totransform the quality and legitimacy ofeducation, of science and technology, aswell as patterns of consumption andproduction. The masses of the world’speople cannot continue to be regardedonly as consumers and endusers oftechnology originating in industrialcountries. Such an orientation suffocatesthe necessary levels of human enterpriseand creativity needed to address today’spressing challenges. The development ofcapacity to identify technological need, toinnovate, and to adapt existingtechnologies is vital. If successfullydeveloped, such capacity would serve tobreak the unbalanced flow of knowledgefrom North to South, from urban to rural,and from men to women. It would help toexpand the concept of ‘modern’ technologyto one characterized by locally definedneeds and by priorities that take intoaccount a community’s material andspiritual wellbeing.As expressed in the introduction to thisdocument, the eradication of povertycannot be conceived in terms of improvingthe material wealth of the poor alone. It is

a larger undertaking rooted inrelationships that define the interactionsbetween individuals, communities andnations. We invite others actively workingto establish a more just and equitablesocial and economic order to engage withus in dialogue about these underlyingissues in order to learn from each otherand to collectively advance efforts towardsthese ends. We conclude with a number ofquestions for your consideration:What is the purpose of an economy? Whatassumptions about human nature underlieour understanding of the purpose of aneconomy? How do we understand theconcept of wealth?In what ways do the extremes of povertyand wealth stifle development,empowerment and healthy relationships?What kinds of identities are formed withthe existence of these two extremes (e.g.dependent, selfrighteous, consumer,producer, etc.)? How do these identitiesperpetuate inequality?What is the role of knowledge — derivedfrom both science and religion — intransforming our economic structures andprocesses?How can we conceptualize the nature andpurpose of work, wealth, and economicempowerment beyond notions of utilitymaximization on the part of selfinterestedindividuals?What are the roles of the individual, thecommunity, the corporate sector andelected leaders visàvis the elimination ofthe extremes of poverty and wealth? Whatdoes this look like in practice?What are the entry points for makingchanges in the economy? What motivatesindividuals, communities, corporations andgovernments to reform economicstructures and processes? From where dothey derive their purpose andcommitment?What widely held conceptions or beliefshinder our ability to transform theeconomic systems we have today? Howcan these be overcome?Izolda Kazemzadeh.



[email protected]

This from Report in Outreach Rio dailyjournal prepared by StakeholdersForum.At Rio the Brazilian Bahai Communityhosted a side event on the inextricablerelationship between the extremes ofwealth and Poverty. It was held on thefirst day and attracted a large audience.They presented the paper produced abovebut linked it to the Rio Documentextending the discussion to the linksbetween extreme concentrations of wealthand poverty globally.Dr Steven Stone of UNEP, Farooq Ullah ofStakeholders Forum, Daniella Hiche of theBrazilian Bahai and Professor MichaelDorsey of Dartmouth College each gaveinformative and impassioned perspectiveson this pressing issue. Ideas were sharedregarding the purpose of development, theimportance of individual initiative, andintergenerational fairness. Dr Stone asked“what is economic progress?” – a questionthat must be answered if the negotiationsare to produce a visionary Outcome

Document.Each panellist addressed a fundamentalreality: ultimately, it is not solely wealthgeneration that improves our wellbeing.The nature of the relationships betweenindividuals, communities, and institutionsare of primary importance in securing andshaping our collective life. The purpose ofthe green economy, or any economy,then, must be to facilitate humanwellbeing without sacrificing that of futuregenerations. Societal progress requires thedevelopment and implementation ofeconomic models which reflect the centralrole that relationships play in human life.Certain consequences of extreme povertyare well known, including reduced accessto healthcare and education, Likewise, theimpact of extreme concentrations ofwealth have a profound impact on humanrelationships; such extremes undermineeconomic vitality, thwart participation indecisionmaking in public life, obstruct theflow of knowledge and information, andisolate people and communities.There is much to learn about bothextremes of the povertywealth spectrum,as well as the relationship between them,and discussion around the green economycan provide such an opportunity... To beeffective and relevant, the OutcomeDocument and the institutionalarrangements it legislates for, mustacknowledge that every economictransaction has a social dimension, andgive due consideration to the relationaldimensions of our economic life. Guidedby this insight, the economy can shiftbeyond removing the ills of poverty toaddress a greater purpose: providing themeans for all of humanity to participatefully in the construction of a more justglobal order.

Comment: Sadly the final document willnot deliver on this unless we are preparedto reform our economic system so we canhave a truly inclusive global society.Robin Halliday



Weathering uncertainty in theArctic©UNESCO/D.Nakashima Inuit on Ice,ArcticOne of the most novel developments sincethe last report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) appearedin 2007 has been the growingcollaboration between indigenous peoplesand scientists in assessing the impact ofclimate change on the environment.Nowhere is this change taking place morerapidly than in the Arctic, wheretemperatures are rising at a rate twice theglobal average. The following excerpt fromWeathering Uncertainty, a UNESCOUNUpublication launched at the Rio+20Conference, focuses specifically on Arcticpeoples. It highlights their remarkableobservation skills but also their distress ata phenomenon which is threatening theirmillennial way of life.For over two decades, Arctic indigenousmen and women have been reportingincreasingly erratic weather conditionsthat confound their efforts at weatherprediction. Mabel Toolie of St LawrenceIsland expressed this unsettlingcircumstance by saying that ‘the Earth isfaster now’. Yup’ik from the Bering Seacoast of southwestern Alaska give voice totheir dismay by declaring that ‘theweather is becoming an incessant liar’. Nomatter how it may be expressed, the

phenomenon of increasingly variable andunpredictable weather resonates from oneArctic community to the next across thecircumpolar North.These changes have been particularlyevident to Inuit hunters of Clyde River inNunavut (Canada) since the 1990s.Experienced traditional weatherforecasters remark that they feel theyhave ‘lost their skills’. Some hunters nowpack additional gear when heading out onthe land, recognizing that the weathermay suddenly and unpredictably change.Reports by hunters of a specific turningpoint in weather predictability since the1990s coincide with recent meteorologicalanalyses.One change inscribed in the landscaperelates to what the Inuit refer to asuqalurait, snowdrifts that form parallel tothe wind and that serve as a navigationalaid for hunters. In the past, uqaluraitpointed in a consistent direction dictatedby the dominant wind. When visibility waspoor, hunters could plot a reliable coursein relation to the orientation of theuqalurait in order to arrive at theirdestination. Today, however, the dominantwind is reported to have shifted and winddirection is more variable. Hunters nowonly rely on uqalurait for navigation if theyhave been on the land on a regular basisand have kept track of shifts in wind andin the orientation of uqalurait. Young orinexperienced hunters risk getting lostbecause they may not be aware of thisrecent variability and may assume that theuqalurait are as reliable as in the past.Indigenous observing systemsOne of the most innovative developmentssince the last IPCC report in 2007 hasbeen a multiplication of collaborativeresearch efforts involving indigenouspeoples and natural and social scientists.These emerging partnerships build upon along history of joint research andmanagement that, in the Arctic, date backseveral decades to the land claimprocesses in northern North America in the1970s and 1980s.

UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2One example of continuous observation ofecological change is provided by theNenets in Northwest Russia, who reportincreases in the height of willow and aldershrubs in the tundra zone. The reportsfrom the Nenets are independentlyconfirmed by groups of herders on bothsides of the Polar Urals, travelling alongtraditional migration routes used fordecades. They are also linked to discerniblechanges in reindeer management inresponse to gains in shrub height.Specifically, herders now in their fiftiesobserve that shrub thickets, which weremostly less than 1m tall in the 1970s, inmany cases now top the antlers of theirreindeer (>2m). This obliges them to keeptheir animals out of the tall, dense thicketsto avoid losing sight of them during therapid summer migration. In other words,indigenous observers have their own goodreasons to develop and maintainobservations of their environment, whichmay not be quantitative but are no lessaccurate and detailed.Krupnik and Weyapuk (2010) report over120 Inupiaq terms for sea ice andassociated vocabulary from Wales, Alaska,including almost 75 terms for types of seaice and ice conditions. Each term is used todesignate a meaningful and distinctphenomenon, and thus illustrates therefinement and subtlety with which Inupiatperceive and interact with their local iceenvironment.Sea ice vocabularies of similar magnitudeand sophistication are reported from Inuitcommunities across the circumpolar North.These elaborate vocabularies alsoconstitute particularly finegrained andhighresolution conceptual frameworks forobserving ice environments and notingsubtle transitions and trends. Many sea iceterms are bundled with information abouthazardous conditions and potential sourcesof danger.Safety and survival on the sea ice is in partmanaged through the group’s ability toshare critical information rapidly andefficiently. Being sitespecific, locallanguages serve as vehicles for sharing

knowledge and experiences about adynamic and potentially risky environmentthat is now subject to rapid andunpredictable climate change.In a project within the International PolarYear called Igliniit, Inuit hunters recordedtheir observations of wildlife, sea ice,weather or other environmentalphenomena as they travelled across theland. These observations weresystematized, made spatially accurate andregistered on the spot through thedevelopment of a minicomputer equippedwith a global positioning system thathunters affixed to their snowmobiles.Another project involved the establishmentof daily ice and weather observations byindigenous monitors in Alaska, Canada andRussian Chukotka, thus providing anuninterrupted record of indigenousobservations covering four consecutive iceseasons.Collaborative initiatives such as these,which bring together indigenous andscientific knowledge, make an importantcontribution to climate change monitoringand adaptation. They provide meticulousand systematic local observations that areinformed by indigenous experience andunderstanding. These observations are allthe more precious in that they areenriched with information related tosubsistence livelihoods and communityconcerns and needs.

Douglas NakashimaExtract of the article 'Weatheringuncertainty in the Arctic', published in AWorld of Science Vol 10 n°3

Weathering Uncertainty. Traditionalknowledge for climate change assessmentand adaptation.




controlling Ozone Layer depletion. Sincethen there have been many conferences toaddress Climate Change with the controlof greenhouse gasses but with onlylimited success to date. While climatechange is the most pressing environmentalchallenge to sustainability, sustainabilityrepresents a wider range of issuesincluding issues such as populationcontrol, biodiversity, lifestyles, energyresources and the economic system.Rio+20 Conference on SustainabilityRio+20 was the major UN conference ofthe year, attended by almost all of the 194countries of the world and around 50,000people. It involved a wide range ofactivities with many aspects:1. The formal outcomes document.This document was the focus of the officialprogram, was developed by consensusover a year’s process of negotiations, andwas approved by all state delegations.2. Side programs of sessions on a widerange of related issues, ranging from localsustainability initiatives to concepts of anew economy. These including theinnovative Dialogues process whichallowed members of civil society to voteon issues that they considered to be mostimportant to the Rio+20 agenda.3. Exhibitions, principally by NGOs,with around 500 displays on relatedactivities as well as demonstrations ofvarious types.4. Youth Blast to enable youth to sharetheir ideas and experience localsustainability initiatives.5. Business programs involving around1000 businesses, including involvement inthe UN Global Compact, which bringstogether businesses around the world toraise the standards of business.6. Congresses and symposiumscontributing to Rio+20 immediatelypreceding or running parallel to the officialProgramme e.g. the ICLEI World Congress2012 for Local Governments or the WorldSymposium of Sustainable Development atUniversities.

SustainabilityRio+20 and beyondIntroductionThis report is a result of an interest in thedevelopment of the Rio+20 conference,engagement with MFAT during itspreparation, following the conferenceremotely, attending the debriefingsessions on the 9th August as well asholding interviews with several relevantparties. It is intended as a generaloverview of the issues and activities, andnot as a complete analysis.Sustainability, the ability for humansociety to continue on the planet, is themost critical issue facing us today, andRio+20 is a hallmark event in theprogression of that issue. Formal activityon the topic has consisted of a long seriesof conferences reaching back to theStockholm Conference in 1972, with amajor advance at the Rio Earth Summit in1992. There was also major achievementwith the Montreal Convention in 1987 in



the conference.A more detailed account of thenegotiations and the outcomes is providedby Vitae Civilis.While the official outcomes documentattracted the main attention of analysts,the broad range of other activities atRio+20 indicated diverse outcomes thatare very difficult to specify, and lie largelyin the experience of those involved. Nonofficial delegates attributed value to thenetworking and educational opportunitiesafforded at a summit of this scale.Unfortunately, many of the negotiatorswere preoccupied with reaching agreementin a limited time frame and had little timeto engage with the side activities.New Zealand’s ContributionNZ’s preparation for the Rio+20conference was a relatively lowkeyprocess with minimal publicity and limitedconsultations with NGOs, business and thecommunity. The key issues that werefocussed on included the management ofthe oceans, elimination of inefficient fossilfuel subsidies, and agricultural emissions.There was little that addressed NZ’smainstream economy. The officialdelegation was led by the Minister for theEnvironment, Amy Adams, and containedseveral departmental representatives aswell as a civil society member.Various NGOs collaborated to form a CivilSociety platform group, the NZ NGORio+20 Platform, coordinated by ANGOA,CID, ECO, UNANZ and UNICEF, whichnominated the delegate on the official NZdelegation and supported delegates withinformation, publicity and meetings. Therewere also youth contingents, and adelegate from business, farming, iwibusiness journalist and several from localgovernment. Also, the person selected bya group of global organisations torepresent youth worldwide, BrittanyTrilford, was from New Zealand.NZ distinguished itself in its contribution tothe Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Group,campaigning against fossil fuel subsidies(which account for ~$600 billion

7. Commitments – over 700commitments involving well over half atrillion dollars were made betweengovernments, business, civil societygroups, universities etc.8. Online activities before, during andafter the event involving people aroundthe world.The outcomes document The Future WeWant is a formal agreement amongstvirtually all the world’s governments. Thishas considerable legitimacy as it is agreedto by consensus. The document included,as part of sustainability, issues such as theeradication of poverty, equity, the greeneconomy and integration of environmental,economic and social perspectives. Thedocument has 283 clauses and is a wealthof valuable information. Amongstcontinuing programs prescribed were thedevelopment of Sustainable DevelopmentGoals (SDGs) (para 245251) to take overfrom the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) in 2015, and negotiations toaddress Sustainable Production andConsumption (para 226). Another was theHigh Level Political Forum to replace thediscredited Commission for SustainableDevelopment created in 1992 (para 8486).At the same time the document isseriously deficit in many areas. Agreementwas achieved in the last days before thefinal summit by removing many sectionswhich represented an intractable conflict.Deficits include its lack of firmcommitments to decisive action inaddressing environmental threats and itsweakness in such areas as populationcontrol and CO2 emissions. The documentis far short of prescribing the actionsneeded to ensure a sustainable future.Some talked of ‘a failure of internationalgovernance’ and one described the note as‘the longest suicide note in history’. Youthcommented that the outcomes documentwas rather removed from reality. At best itis an important basis for progress, butthere was common agreement that thereis much more to be done by nations,business and civil society following on from



expenditure). Unfortunately the statementachieved (para 225) was disappointinglyweak. NZ also contributed to a substantialsection on oceans (para 158 – 177) as wellas a very much strengthened content onhealth. It was reported that NZ’snegotiators were very professional anddedicated, and were generally supportiveof progress. However, some expressedconcern that the policies promoted atRio+20 were not wholly consistent withdomestic policies.Brittany Trilford also contributedsubstantially in representing the interestsof global youth in urging decisive action.There was concern about the low level ofpolitical representation from NZ and thelack of business representation.Followup from Rio+20The challenges of sustainability wereconsidered to be extraordinarily difficult bythe policymakers and bureaucratsinterviewed. One saw it as ‘the first trulyglobal challenge’. While the ozone hole hadglobal dimensions, it affected only a fewindustries. Sustainability, however, affectsthe whole of society, potentially involvingsubstantial cultural change and stressesmultilateral institutions. It was importantto recognise that many of the solutions layoutside government and NGOs hadimportant contributions to make.The formal responsibility for followup liesprincipally with the Ministry of theEnvironment which is linking the Rio+20outcomes with national legislation in thelight of the concerns of the variousstakeholders. One of their main challengesis the complexities involved and the task ofpromoting the involvement of nonstateactors such as business and NGOs. Manyother activities are talking place as well.The following are examples of activitiesthat support the outcomes of Rio+20, butmay predate them.1. The government had developed anEmission Trading Scheme (ETS) to controlcarbon emissions, and a green growthstrategy to encourage business to becomemore sustainable.

2. There was work in developingeconomic systems that were moresustainable, with Statistics NZ working onindicators of wellbeing to offset the focuson GDP, and Treasury is developinghigher living standards. Treasury was alsoaddressing resilience in the nationalinfrastructure, including public transport,as well as resilience in organisations. Theissue of consumption patterns seemed tobe a sensitive one, however.3. Local governments such asWellington City Council were active onboth mitigation, such as promotingelectric cars, and adaptation in respondingto increasing sea level.4. NGOs are being coordinatedthrough a number of centres, particularlythrough the NZ NGO Rio+20 Platform (seeANGOA). Diana Shand (ECO and NZIUCN)provides a slide show on Rio+20, outlininga suggested basis for cooperation.5. Unions are active through a UnionClimate Change Action Network, as wellas the development of an AlternativeEconomic Strategy. The NZCTU, which hasa statement on climate change, wasassociated with the Green Alliance in theUK, and its youth wing worked withgroups such as Generation Zero and350.org.6. Maori are addressing the indigenousperspectives in caring for nature and werelooking at the Bolivian initiatives inensuring the rights of nature.7. A Charter of Responsibilities wasbeing developed to better present thecontribution that we can all make tosustainability, as well as other issues. Weneed to promote a sense of ‘stewardshipof the commons’.8. There are moves to enhanceeducation to better prepare youth to dealwith the issues, and to use social mediamore effectively. Organisations such asEnviroSchools were active in the area.9. A proposal for achieving strongglobal action through the UN SecurityCouncil and the General Assembly wasproposed by Kennedy Graham. This



proposal is being promoted nationally andinternationally through the United NationsAssociation.10. The Hikurangi Foundation andSustainablity Trust are just two examplesof important local initiatives forsustainability.Recommendations:Amongst the many activities, there wereseveral issues which warranted moreattention:Awareness of environmental risks andcosts of delay. It appeared that few peoplewere paying adequate attention to thenature of the environmental risks, the timeconstraints on action and the costs ofdelay. This was also a feature of theRio+20 outcomes document.Consequently the pace of action seemed tobe more a matter of what was politically orpractically possible, rather than what wasnecessary to protect the environment.A catastrophe? Some referred to a needfor a catastrophe to precipitate the level ofaction required to significantly reduceenvironmental degradation. There wasuncertainty about what the catastrophemight be (perhaps collapse of theeconomic system), or what the responsemight be (although Kennedy Grahamsuggested action through the UNSC andGA). This is a theme explored inconsiderable detail by Paul Gilding in ‘TheGreat Disruption’.Engagement of the community. There wasa need to engage the broader communityin appreciating the need for change andpreparing them to participate. It would bedifficult for politicians to take stronginitiatives without sympathetic publicresponses. However, the number of pressreleases were very limited, as was themedia coverage. There appears that therewere significant emotional factors involvedin the public reaction to climate changediscussion, with denial being a commonphenomenon. We were also informed thatthe media had become tired of theconfusion and uncertainty about the topic,with seemingly endless debate about

scientific conclusions and chaotic andunsatisfactory international conferences.There is a need to develop a promotionstrategy recognising these emotionalfactors in communication.Economic growth and sustainableconsumption need careful consideration.While sustainable growth was a majortheme of the outcomes document, drivenlargely by the desire of developingcountries to raise their standards of living,it is not clear that continued growth isviable in developed countries. It isimportant to ensure that consumption doesnot unnecessarily use resources. However,excesses may be difficult to control in ourcurrent economy in which consumption ispromoted by sophisticated marketingtechniques.ConclusionRio+20 represents a global recognition ofthe challenges of sustainability as well asmany of the issues that need to beaddressed. However we seem to be farshort of the legal, political or institutionalframeworks required to drive the changesneeded for succeeding generations.There is much more work to be done!Resources:Occupy World Street A Global Roadmap forRadical Economic and Political Reform byRoss JacksonThe Stiglitz Report: Reforming theInternational Monetary and FinancialSystems in the Wake of the Global CrisisJoseph E StiglitzThe Price of Inequality: How Today'sDivided Society Endangers Our FutureJoseph E. StiglitzThe Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Note: This is a work in progress, andexpected to be supplemented following aforthcoming visit to Australia. I welcomeadditions and corrections, that will beconsidered for any upgrading.

Gray Southon, [email protected]

UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2Responding to the Two GlobalCrises: Thoughts on the Rio+20ConferenceDr Kennedy Graham

Humanity today faces the first truly globalcrisis in its 5,000year political history. Aswe enter the Anthropocene period: Our ecological footprint, surpassingEarthshare (bioproductive capacity percapita) in 1981, recorded an overshoot of18% in 1992 and 50% in 2010. Humanityis grossly overconsuming the planet’sresources, engaging in permanentecological theft from the next generation.If each human pursues the consumerlifestyle of North America, the sustainablepopulation is some 2.2 billion; at present,we are 7 billion, heading to 9. Biodiversity loss continues, at 100 to1000 times the natural rate. Our emissions continue to rise,portending serious anthropogenic climatechange with average global temperaturerise between 2°C (difficult) and 6°C(intolerable).It is not clear thatwe have theforesight and resolveto get through theecological crisissuccessfully.The internationalcommunity respondsto this situationthrough the meansof UN conferencemachinery. I haveattended the mostcritical of these – theRio Earth Summit in'92, Cairo '94 onpopulation,Copenhagen '09 onclimate change, andRio+20 on sustainability.Our contemporary machinery is provingincapable of solving global problems. Theinternational community of states,

configured along Westphalian lines ofnational sovereignty, is failing the globalcommunity of peoples, who existentiallyembody the common interest. Our 193UN member states competitively strive tomaximise national interests throughinternational negotiation. By definition,that cannot resolve a global problem. Inaddition, we have a dysfunctionalinterface between the scientific andpolicymaking communities – wherein theintegrity of objective and impartialscience is impugned by directconsumption, even intrusion, frompolitical interest.So we have a two global crises: anecological crisis and a governance crisis.It is a question of cognitive framework. Ifthis were a normal problem, it would notmatter – these things would be resolvedat evolutionary pace. But if it is of animminence and magnitude that constitutea crisis, then a qualitatively differentcognitive framework is necessary.As early as 1982, UNEP observed: ‘At the[1972] Stockholm conference, it wasgenerally assumed that theworld’s system of nationalgovernments, regionalgroupings and internationalagencies, had the power totake effective action. … Bythe early 1980s, there wasless confidence in thecapacity of national andinternational managerialsystems to apply knownprinciples and techniques orin the effectiveness withwhich international debateslead to action. … Twentyyears after Stockholm, it isstill not possible to … saywith confidence that theGovernments of the worldhave the knowledge or thepolitical will to deal with theglobal problems which we already knowexist’. (Saving Our Planet, p. 165).Forty years after Stockholm, twenty yearsafter the Earth Summit, Rio+20 validated


Dr Kennedy Graham

UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2that prescient insight, with its limpdeclaration of 283 platitudinousparagraphs.Popular attention focuses on climatechange. Yet the Global Ecological Crisis iscomprised of an interlocking series ofnine planetary boundaries. Three arealready exceeded: climate change,biodiversity loss, and nitrogen removalfrom the atmosphere. A fourth(stratospheric ozone depletion) isrecovering from boundary excess. Threeothers (freshwater, ocean acidification,land use) are approaching the boundary.With the final two (chemical pollution,atmospheric aerosol loading) we lacksufficient data to be certain.International negotiations havebequeathed framework conventions forozone depletion, climate change andbiodiversity. Their subsequent bindingprotocols proved successful with ozonebut manifestly inadequate with the othertwo. With the six other boundaries, littleor no policy development has occurred todate.Rather than international legislativenegotiations, we need global executiveaction. This would be based on a creativeinterpretation of the UN Charter, for thesake of the (imperfect) legitimacy wehave devised to date. It might take thefollowing form: the UN Security Council declaring theEcological Crisis a threat to internationalpeace and security, triggering its bindingpowers on behalf of the total UNmembership; an empowered SecretaryGeneral,taking more personal initiative (alreadysanctioned under the Charter); an independent highlevel panel, onbehalf of the SG, acting as intermediarybetween the scientific community and thepolicymaking community, makinganalytical and prescriptive input into theSecurity Council.The next few decades may be all we haveleft to take decisive action on the crisiswe are in.

Dr Graham is a New Zealand MP. He wasformerly a NZ diplomat, UN official anduniversity lecturer.

Five things we’ve learnt fromRio+20Ton Bigg, 3 July 2012, InternationalInstitute for Economic DevelopmentTwo weeks after the event it is still toosoon to assess the value of the Rio +20Summit. This hasn’t stopped pundits fromeither labelling it a disaster and the finalagreement ‘283 paragraphs of fluff’, orflagging up reasons for optimism andperspective.All global summits are written off in theimmediate aftermath. While the outcomesfrom Rio +20 may not currently givegrounds for much optimism, its value islikely to be in less tangible, longertermchanges in attitudes and understanding.

Here are five things I think we have learntfrom the Rio process, which will shapethose longerterm assessments and framekey issues that need to be followedupover the news few years:1. Sustainable development is still a longway from the top table of policy andpower.One of the most striking images of theSummit weekend was of Angela Merkelcelebrating another German goal againstGreece in Warsaw. She had no problemfinding time to watch her national footballteam, but there was no likelihood of MrsMerkel taking a detour from the G20meeting in Mexico to be in Rio.


Debate at a meeting on the sustainable developmentof the Amazon at Rio+20. Credit: Fora do Eixo

UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2If anything, the Summit constituted a stepback in the decadeslong effort thatstarted with the Brundtland Commission inthe late 1980s, to place equity, sufficiencyand international collaboration at the heartof global and national policy. Manygovernments are still represented byenvironment or development ministers,while their counterparts from finance,planning and business are few and farbetween. By contrast, heads ofcorporations such as Unilever, Puma, andthe biggest Brazilian companies wereubiquitous in Rio, some bullishly assertingthat if governments won’t take steps to fixglobal problems then they will step into thegap. Twenty years on from the originalEarth Summit it’s a major indictment ofsustainability wonks and advocacyorganisations that our leaders still don’t‘get’ the basic significance of sustainabledevelopment, and also that it’s so easy forthem to relegate it to a policy footnote.2. Southern governments are moreassertive and have clear agendas – evenif, for some, this currently only entailssaying ‘no’.Thirty months ago in Copenhagen,European governments had a bluntawakening when they were sidelined in theclimate change negotiations by a stitchupbetween the US, China and India. Thisshift in power was less evident in Rio+20 –perhaps because there was thought to beless at stake. But the growing influence ofthe G77 countries was a striking feature ofthe event. The governments of Colombia,the United Arab Emirates and Guatemalawere closely associated with theSustainable Development Goals. Africancountries expressed strong interest in thenotion of ‘green economy’ as a potentialmeans to plan their future developmenttrajectories; and China focused on thepotential impact that a greater focus onenvironmental wellbeing could have on jobcreation.On the flip side, many Latin Americancountries vociferously rejected what hasbeen termed the ‘commodification of

nature’ through policy tools, such aspayments for ecosystem services andvaluation systems, which put a monetaryworth on environmental resources, whilethe G77 collectively turned down EUefforts to introduce targets and timetablesinto the negotiated text. Perhaps the mostpositive reflection to draw is that asmiddleincome countries, which areoutside the G20 continue to grow, theyincreasingly need an effective and stablemultilateral system to provide the rulesand systems they require. Unlike thebiggest countries, they can’t secure thisstability through their own influence alone.This seems to lie behind Colombia’s pushfor clear goals and commitments, andthere is surely potential for this positivecritique to spread more widely in future.3. The UN multilateral process doesn’twork – at least not for a global negotiationon sustainable development.The Rio +20 juggernaut was set on a twoyear course for failure from day one. Itcertainly didn’t help that many countrieswere suspicious and confused by theagenda which emerged from the UNGeneral Assembly. This was particularlyevident in the poorlydefined ‘greeneconomy’ elements, which could havebeen a positive and new area forexploration, but were never satisfactorilyexplained or put in context.But the more fundamental problem is withthe UN consensus process itself. As VirgilioViana of the Brazilian organisationFundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS)put it, if UN negotiators had to decidewhether they should all have coffee or abeer then they would never reachagreement. So imagine how much morechallenging it is to arrive at a set ofstrong, collective commitments across thebroad agenda set for the Summit – withentrenched vested interests, suspicionsand ideological differences toaccommodate. The process is alsoseverely hampered by a lack of credibility:governments conveniently removed anyassessment of the (lack of) progress inimplementing previous global


UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2commitments, or attention to trendsheading dangerously away from stabilityand fairness.Despite all these shortcomings,governments still failed to reachagreement on the final outcomedocument; a day before their heads ofstate arrived only 28% of the text hadbeen finalised. The Brazilians cut theGordian knot by substituting in a ‘take itor leave it’ communique which strippedout any strong commitments but (as aresult) could be endorsed by all. This wasenormously attractive because it avoided aCopenhagenstyle collapse and allowedleaders to talk glibly about the successfuloutcome.But the Rio+20 agreement is of little valuegoing forward – it is woefully thin oncommitments or agreed actions; it doesn’tactually reflect hardwon consensus acrossgovernments; and it fails to establishbetter governance arrangements to tacklethese global challenges. On the plus side,this should represent the death knell forthese overblown UN processes, but it’sless clear how something more positivecan take their place.4. We need a narrative for systemicchange; ‘natural capital’ and greeneconomy approaches could provide theframework.It’s hugely frustrating that Rio+20 didn’tpresent sustainable development as thebest means the world has to tackleeconomic volatility, social unrest andinequality, and the dangers posed byexceeding environmental limits andreaching system tipping points. This onceinageneration global event failed toresonate with anyone beyond thosedirectly involved or interested.‘We can’t claim on any major indicatorsthat we’ve turned the corner, butunderneath the global metalevel ofanalysis there is extraordinary innovationand practice,’ said the head of the UNEnvironment Programme, Achim Steiner.‘We’re inventing a million times thedifferent solutions, but unless we can


create the structures and systems topromote change we will remain thelaboratories and test grounds to showwhat could be done.’Such initiatives must engage andchallenge the mainstream. The emergingalliance focused on ‘Natural Capital,’ anapproach that extends the economicnotion of capital to natural ecosystems,has the potential to build momentum forchange.The transformative effects of a greeneconomy approach were discussed indetail at IIED’s Fair Ideas conference priorto Rio+20. One of the conference’s keyconclusions was that a green economicapproach has the potential to lift peopleout of poverty through a better use ofnatural resources, and wouldn’t act as ananticompetitive brake on development, asmany fear. Yet the concerns expressed bymany in Rio are wellfounded, and a greeneconomy approach which doesn't prioritisepoverty reduction, equity andenvironmental stability in the interests ofthe poorest countries and people wouldconstitute a major setback.5. Sustainable Development Goals musttrack improvements and increaseaccountability.The Sustainable Development Goals couldchart a course to a fairer and moresustainable world. To do so, they mustpinpoint problems with the unsustainablecurrent economic model which the UNSecretary General Ban Ki Moon called anenvironmental ‘global suicide pact’, andthey must track improvements andincrease accountability at all levels ofgovernance.This is a tall order. It will mean directlychallenging powerful vested interests andputting longterm wellbeing above shortterm benefits.How to get from an idealistic vision to anagreed set of goals is far from clear.Meaningful goals won’t emerge from anegotiation between governments – andthey will be of most value initially to thoseadvocating major change rather than to



Survey 2012: In Search of NewDevelopment Finance, (WESS 2012)launched today, the UN says, in the midstof difficult financial times, many donorcountries have cut back on developmentassistance. In 2011, for the first time inmany years, aid flows declined in realterms.The survey finds that the financial needsof developing countries have longoutstripped the willingness and ability ofdonors to provide aid. And finding thenecessary resources to achieve theMillennium Development Goals and meetother global challenges, such asaddressing climate change, will be tough,especially for least developed countries.The need for additional and morepredictable financing has led to a searchfor new sources – not as a substitute foraid, but as a complement to it. A numberof innovative initiatives have beenlaunched during the past decade, mainlyto fund global health programmes aimedat providing immunizations, AIDS andtuberculosis treatments to millions ofpeople in the developing world. The UNsurvey finds that while these initiativeshave successfully used new methods tochannel development financing to combatdiseases, they have hardly yielded anyadditional funding on top of traditionaldevelopment assistance.‘Donor countries have fallen well short oftheir aid commitments and developmentassistance declined last year because ofbudget cuts, increasing the shortfall to$167 billion,’ according to the lead authorof the survey, Rob Vos. ‘Although donorsmust meet their commitments, it is timeto look for other ways to find resources tofinance development needs and addressgrowing global challenges, such ascombating climate change.’‘We are suggesting various ways to tapresources through internationalmechanisms, such as coordinated taxes oncarbon emissions, air traffic, and financialand currency transactions,’ Mr. Vos said.‘Such taxes also make economic sense, asthey help stimulate green growth and

those locked into political constraints andtradeoffs. The relationship between theSDGs and a postMillennium DevelopmentGoals framework for internationaldevelopment assistance is another thornyproblem to address.Many obstacles lie along the way, but ifcurrent thinking is challenged and new,measurable environmental goals get set totrack progress, then the Summit couldleave an important legacy.Themes:• Moving beyond the preamble to creatinga new story at Rio+20• Defining the agenda for Rio+20: myanalysis• Earth Summit 2012: crucial opportunitythat needs broader buyinThe item contains the author’s personalviews and does not represent the view ofIIED.IIED is one of the world’s most influentialpolicy research organisations working atthe interface between development andenvironment.

UN calls for international tax toraise $400 billion to financedevelopment needsFinancial needs of developing countrieshave long outstripped the willingness andability of donors to provide aidNew York, 5 July 2012 –The UnitedNations is proposing an international tax,combined with other innovative financingmechanisms, to raise more than $400billion annually for development and globalchallenges such as fighting climatechange.In its annual report on globaldevelopment, World Economic and Social



mitigate financial market instability. Inshort, such new financing mechanisms willhelp donor countries overcome theirrecord of broken promises to their ownbenefit the world at large.’Realizing the potentialThe WESS finds the scope for scaling up orreplicating existing initiatives is too limitedto meet the needs for developmentfinancing in the coming decades. Hence,new sources will need to be tapped.Experts who carried out the survey seepotential to raise over $400 billion peryear through the following mechanisms: a tax on carbon dioxideemissions in developedcountries: a tax of $25per tonne would raise anestimated $250 billion peryear, collected bynational authorities, butearmarked forinternational cooperation; a tiny currencytransaction tax of onehalf of a ‘basis point’(0.005 per cent) on alltrading in four majorcurrencies (the dollar,euro, yen and poundsterling), which could yieldan estimated $40 billion per year forinternational cooperation; earmarking a portion of the proposedEuropean Union financial transaction tax(which is expected to raise up to €55billion or $71 billion per year) forinternational cooperation; regular allocations of IMF special drawingrights (SDRs) and use of ‘idle’ SDRscould yield about $100 billion per yearfor the purchase of longterm assetswhich would then be used asdevelopment finance.The survey says such mechanisms aretechnically feasible and economicallysensible. They could readily provide themeans of meeting urgent globaldevelopment financing needs. Vos saidthat ‘realizing the potential of these

mechanisms will require internationalagreement and corresponding political will,both to tap sources as well as to ensureallocation of revenues for development.’The survey also suggests other optionswhich could be explored but would requirefurther technical elaboration, such as abillionaire’s tax, which would consist of asmall tax of, say, 1 per cent on individualwealth holdings of $1 billion or more withthe revenue destined to financeinternationally agreed global developmentpurposes.‘The survey provides important

suggestions to generate solid financialunderpinnings for the actions to beundertaken in follow up to the agreementreached at the recent United NationsRio+20 Conference to achieve globalsustainable development’, according toSha Zukang, UnderSecretaryGeneral ofthe UN Department of Economic andSocial Affairs.The survey points out that the design ofappropriate governance and allocationmechanisms is crucial for innovativefinancing to ultimately meet developmentneeds and contribute to financing thepost2015 development agenda.The beginnings of innovativedevelopment finance – health as atesting groundIn recent years, a number of mechanismshave been developed under the rubric of



innovative development finance, mostly inthe field of health. These include theInternational Finance Facility forImmunization, Advance MarketCommitments for pneumococcal vaccine,the Affordable Medicines Facility –malaria, Debt2Health and Product Red.The social survey confirms that thesemechanisms have improved aideffectiveness and incentivized research;contributed significantly to the financing ofthe Global Fund to Fight AIDS,Tuberculosis and Malaria and especiallyUNITAID and GAVI; and they havecontributed to fighting AIDS, tuberculosis,malaria and vaccinepreventable diseases.However, the survey also finds that thefunds channeled through theseprogrammes have mainly come fromexisting aid budgets, rather thangenerating additional resources. Overall, atotal of $5.8 billion has been channeledthrough these innovative mechanismssince 2006, but only a few hundred milliondollars can be counted as additional toexisting aid.To date, innovative financing resources inthe field of health have generally beenallocated for vaccines and pharmaceuticalproducts to fight specific diseases, such asHIV, tuberculosis and malaria. This hasbrought important benefits to specificareas of disease control. The WESS warns,however, that in some cases these globalfunds have bypassed broader nationalhealth priorities in developing countriesand contributed to the fragmentation ofinternational support to health systems inlowincome countries. The surveyconcludes that instead of an array ofdisease specific funds, it would be betterto focus on finding new resources for moregeneral budget support for health systemsin developing countries in need andconsolidate the existing diseasespecificdisbursement mechanisms into a single‘global fund for health’.Climate financing mechanismsThe potential for innovative developmentfinance is particularly high in the area of

fighting climate change, according to thesurvey. Innovative development financemechanisms have raised about $1 billionfor climate change, althoughdisbursements have, so far, beenrelatively limited. Innovative financing forclimate change has the potential toincrease substantially in the coming years,as the European Union shifts to auctioningemissions allocations, potentiallygenerating some $20‒35 billion in annualrevenues. However, with the exception ofGermany, European Union members have,so far, been unwilling to commit toallocating a specified proportion of theserevenues to international programmes, inpart due to domestic financial pressures.Nonetheless, $3‒5 billion per year couldbe raised if other countries were to matchGermany’s commitment.Increasing finance for climate changerelated uses in recent years has given riseto a proliferation of separate climatefunds, with limited coordination amongthem. The WESS says it is important toavoid further fragmentation as traditionaland innovative financing increase. As inthe case of health, a more effectiveapproach would be to consolidatedisbursement mechanisms. The surveyconcludes that the internationalagreement to establish the Green ClimateFund could serve as the starting point forsuch a consolidation.Background:The World Economic and Social Survey isan annual report produced by the UnitedNations Department of Economic andSocial Affairs. Each year, it focuses on adifferent issue. The report is available athttp://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/index.shtmlA USB drive with the report and previouseditions of the WESS can be requested bysending an email to [email protected]

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/index.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/index.shtml



CANBERRA — Come October, Australia willbe competing with Finland andLuxembourg for two of the elected twoyear seats open on the United NationsSecurity Council, starting next year. Whyagainst Finland and Luxembourg and notothers also contesting for the five seats upfor grabs? Well might you ask.Most public debate on UN structural reformis focused on the council. Arguably, aneven greater historical anomaly is the UN’ssystem of regional groupings that shapesso many of its entities and activities.The founders of the UN system believedthey were providing fair and reasonableopportunity for all members to share in themanagement of the system throughperiodic elections to key decisionmakingbodies, including the Security Council. Sothey divided the UN’s original 51 membersinto regional groups. The five groups of thecurrent 193 members are: Africa (54members), Asia (53), Latin America andthe Caribbean (33), Western Europe andOthers (WEO, 29) and Eastern Europe(23). Kiribati, an island nation in the PacificOcean, does not belong to any group.One immediate anomaly is Israel. Becauseit is persona non grata, so to say, in itsown region, it is located in the WEO group.But so, too, are Australia and NewZealand, with Canada and the UnitedStates making up the remaining ‘others’.Notions of equity, national identity andgeopolitics have changed dramaticallysince 1945. For Australia and New Zealandto be considered representatives of Europetoday is bizarre. For the ‘others’ to have to

compete with Europeans, who begin with a47strong Council of Europe or a 27strongEuropean Union, is semidisenfranchisement.The equilibrium is inequitable but stablebecause it has developed entrenchedinterests. But the increasingly idiosyncraticand anachronistic system of regionalgroups has major consequences. Failure tochange is damaging the UN’s capacity tobe relevant and responsive to itsmembers. The deep disenchantment anddistance of member countries fromimportant decisionmaking bodies not onlyerodes UN authority, but it alsoundermines its effectiveness and risksmoving it to the periphery of world affairs.

The UN’s Regional GroupingsNeed to Reshuffle the DeckRamesh ThakurPassBlue

20 June 2012



The electoral groupings remain a criticalpillar of UN legitimacy. The currentconfiguration negates the UN Charterprinciple that all countries should be ableto take part in the key UN institutionsbased on fair rotation. The present systemdoes not produce such an outcome, andthe result hurts the legitimacy of thesystem and the decisions that are made.The unfairness arises first from the widedisparity in the size of regional groups,which range from 23 to 54. The disparity isworse in terms of population weights. TheWestern and Eastern European groupswere also transformed substantially whenthe cold war ended.Another question is, does ‘equitable’ referto opportunities or to outcomes? Whatabout countries that are permanentlydisenfranchised, most notably Israel?Geographical representation anddistribution also applies to UN staffingarrangements. In most groups, contestsfor quota seats to elected positions is realand sometimes bitter and divisive, evenhovering on the margins of questionablepractices.Reorganizing the number and compositionof electoral groupings would enhance therepresentational credentials of the UNsystem, consolidate its legitimacy andimprove its efficiency. Reflecting thequadrupling in numbers since 1945, themembership could be split into eightregional groups of 25 to 35 each, say. Forexample: subSaharan Africa; Asia; MiddleEast and North Africa; Western Europe;North America and the Caribbean; EasternEurope and Central Asia; Latin America;and Oceania (including Australia and NewZealand).The work of redoing the groupings shouldbe separated from the debate on thereform of the Security Councilcomposition, yet it could feed into it. Suchan approach might also help revive themomentum for council reform.There is always the fear, of course, thatlinking the issue of group restructuring tocouncil reform will kill both efforts.

Ironically, a consensus for change coulddevelop from the discomforts ordisappointments with the existinggroupings.Any new system must also demonstratemutual benefits through “winwin” results.This can be achieved by increasing thenumber of groups and thereby shrinkingthe size but strengthening thehomogeneity of each.The secretarygeneral could begin theprocess by canvassing member countries’views through a simple resolution of theGeneral Assembly. Or a highlevel panelcould study the issue and makerecommendations within one year.Meanwhile, three of the five permanentmembers come from the Council ofEurope: Britain, France and Russia.Azerbaijan, also in the Council of Europe,is on the Security Council until the end of2013. If Australia loses in October, 6 ofthe 15 Security Council members will hailfrom Europe: a vast overrepresentation,given its population of 800 million in aworld of 7 billion.



New Zealand's Dialogue reportto the UNHCHR Committee forthe Elimination ofDiscrimination Against Women(CEDAW) by Beryl Anderson, UNWomenWhen a country (a States Party) ratifies ahuman rights treaty, they are committedto a reporting process which is usuallyevery four years. New Zealand presentedits seventh periodic report to theCommittee on the Elimination ofDiscrimination against Women in New Yorkin July 2012. Publicly available reports canbe found athttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/cedaws52.htm.The NZ delegation was led by Jo Goodhew,Minister for Women’s Affairs, with supportfrom Ministry of Women’s Affairs (KimNgarimu and Deb Moran), the PermanentMission to the United Nations (Jim McLay,Juliet Hay, Tara Morton, and NathanCrombie), and Rebecca Tane from theMinister’s office.NCWNZ (1), Women’s Health Action (2),Shakti (4), and Pacific Women’s Watch (1)had representatives in New York. Theseorganisations had facilitated or preparedshadow reports to provide the MonitoringCommittee with information. Two otherNGOs, the Auckland Coalition for theSafety of Women and Children and theInternational Disability Alliance submittedwritten reports. Oral statements werepresented by Beryl Anderson (for theNCWNZ facilitated report) and ChristieParker (for the Pacific Women’s Watch

report), covering violence against women,the gender pay gap, labour forceparticipation, participation in political andpublic life, sexual health, a women’s actionplan, forced and underage marriage,reproductive choices, and the adoption ofthe recommendations from thetransgender inquiry.The NGO representatives held a meetingwith the Monitoring Committee, and wereable to present additional information tothem both orally and in writing. TheHuman Right’s Commission, which hadsubmitted a written report and made anoral statement, was represented by JudyMcGregor and Sylvia Bell. Lobbying of theCommittee members also occurred.The Minister opened the country dialoguewith a statement outlining the key issuesfrom the Government report. Committeemembers then questioned the Minister,with the questions grouped by the Articlesof CEDAW. Many of these questionsreferred to ‘alternative sources’ and ‘datawe have received’ being references to theinformation provided from shadow reports,oral statements and lobbying activities.The Minister fielded over 100 questionsthroughout which there was reference toNZ’s impressive background in women’shuman rights and that while theCommittee members had highexpectations of improved equality in NZthey saw the current status as beingdifferent from that being reflected inglobal indicators.Following the country dialogue there is anopportunity for the NGO representatives tosubmit a gap analysis. This includedcomments on the staffing of the Ministryof Women’s Affairs, gender impactstatements on Cabinet papers, genderimpact statements under the NZ Bill ofRights, disaggregated data, human rightstreaty promotion, the use of the 10 keygoals as a de facto action plan for women,temporary special measures, refugeservices, women in the judiciary, genderpay gap, trades training, seasonal workeraccess to paid parental leave, and forcedmarriages.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/cedaws52.htm.



The Concluding Observations of theCommittee were issued in draft formwithin two weeks. It is an excellent andcomprehensive report that provides detailsof the principal areas of concern andmakes recommendations for the StateParty including:•Increased dissemination of the Stateparty report as well as the Committee’sconcluding observations andrecommendations to all Parliamentarians•Consideration be given to establishing aHuman Rights Select Committee inParliament to strengthen Parliamentaryoversight on human rights generally andespecially on women’s rights and genderequality•Incorporation into the constitution and/orother legislation, of the principle ofequality between women and men•The relevance and usefulness oftemporary special measures•Four recommendations on the traffickingof women and girls•Measures to increase the number ofwomen in decisionmaking positions atall levels and in all areas, in the light ofthe Committee’s generalrecommendation No. 23 on women inpolitical and public life•Disseminate information on the Conventionto increase awareness and understandingof the meaning and content of substantiveequality of women and men•Review the targets, goals and timeframes set for the advancement ofwomen in decisionmaking positions toensure that they sufficiently enhanceprogress in women’s representation•To ensure that parents understand thevoluntary nature of payments requestedby schools and monitor schools’ practicesregarding the collection of fees fromparents•To collect data on the real cost ofeducation to parents.•To implement measures to decrease dropoutrates among Māori girls and to reintegratethem into the educational system

•To introduce measures to desegregategender thematic subjects with a view toensuring that women and girls equallyaccess nontraditional thematic subjectareas•Effectively enforce the principle of equalpay for work of equal value•Introduce appropriate legal measures toensure parental leave, including paidparental leave for men as well as paidleave for seasonal or fixedterm workerswith multiple employment relationships•To eliminate occupational segregation,both horizontal and vertical•Carry out an independent evaluation ofthe gendered impact of the reform ofcollective bargaining and ensure that itdoes not negatively affect women’semployment and trade union rights•Ensure that there is a monitoringinstitution for gender pay inequity withinthe State party’s administration•Provide in its next report data andinformation on the situation of womenwith disabilities, rural women, olderwomen and women from ethnic minoritygroups, including with regard to theiraccess to education, employment andhealthcare services•Ensure that the ongoing welfare reformsdo not discriminate againstdisadvantaged groups of women andthat an independent evaluation of theirgendered impact is made•Ensure the gender mainstreaming ofpolicies relating to the process ofrecovery from the 2011 earthquake, andengage in analysis of their gender impactby using data disaggregated by sex, age,ethnicity and other status•Revise the legal minimum age ofmarriage to 18 years without anyexceptions for parental consent•Introduce legal measures to prohibitunderage and forced marriages and promotemeasures to protect women harmed bypolygamy and dowryrelated violenceAs well as these recommendations, therewere requests for information on the Beijing



National PresidentGraham HassallPresident's Column

Declaration and Platform for Action, theachievement of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals, and the dissemination of theConcluding Observations in New Zealand.The State Party will need to report onprogress against these recommendationsin its next periodic report. As well it isrequested to provide, within two yearswritten information on the steps taken toimplement the three recommendationsaffecting disadvantaged groups of womenand the two on marriage.The NGO sector will need to activelymonitor the State Party’s progress againstthese recommendations and be preparedto comment on both the information to beprovided within two years and the nextperiodic report, which is due forsubmission in 2016.

Global society faces a range of criticalissues at the current time that defy easysolution by international gatherings ofnation states. Whilst some of usemphasise the apparent lack ofleadership on environmentalstewardship, others point to the extentof not merely human rights abuses butfailure to protect life itself by those inauthority, and others still to thecondition of the world’s banking andfinancial system. All of these issues andmore were brought to the fore at theUnited Nations Conference onSustainable Development held in Rio deJaniero, Brazil, 2022 June 2012, twentyyears after a conference on Environmentand Development held in that city in1992. 172 governments and 2,400representatives of NGOs attended the1992 ‘earth summit’, and at least 17,000

others attended a parallel NGO GlobalForum.The 2012 conference was larger, as arethe challenges. Whereas the 1992 eventgenerated the anticipatory ‘RioDeclaration on Environment andDevelopment’, the outcomes documentof the 2012 meeting ‘The Future WeWant’ provides a comprehensive list ofneeds at global level without a matchingset of global commitments, and hasgenerated for some communities a postconference mood of foreboding.In this context UNANZ looks to itsNational Council meeting on 22ndSeptember to examine how best topromote the ideals of the United Nationsin the New Zealand context in the nearfuture, both nationally and through theactivities and outreach of its branches inthe North and South Islands, andthrough its collaborations with bothgovernment and nongovernmentpartners.The 2012 National Conference of theUnited Nations Association of Australia,held in Brisbane 2224 August, providedan excellent opportunity to network withour Australian colleagues, and gaininsights into Australian perspectives onglobal and Pacific issues. We were givena warm welcome by President of theQueensland Branch Virginia Balmain,and I was given the opportunity tointroduce the small New Zealandcontingent (Gray Southern, RobinHalliday and myself) at the conference’sopening session. One distinct impressiongained from the Australian conferencewas the mutual respect between the UNAssociation and various branches ofgovernment. The Conference opened bythe Governor of Queensland PennyWensley AC, herself a former diplomatwith extensive experience at the UN,and conference speakers includedQueensland Chief Justice Pal de JerseyAC. At an evening reception hosted bythe Mayor of Brisbane the longassociation between the city council andthe United Nations Association was

UNANZ NEWS SEPTEMBER 2012 ISSUE No 2BRANCH REPORTSUNANZ has active regional branchesin Auckland, Waikato, Tauranga,Whanganui, Wellington andCanterbury.The best way to get involved in UNANZis through your nearest regional branch:Auckland: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]


CoPresidents: Michael Shroff & GaryRussellNORTHERN BRANCHEach month the Northern Branch invites arelevant speaker along on a topic.In July we had Bradley MacDonald whoshowed a film on the Esperanto languagedevelopment and had questionsafterwards. Interesting film added withBradley knowing many of the people in thefilm and his added comments made for amore personal journey of understanding ofthe history of the language.In August we had JeanPaul Ibozzi, fromthe Auckland Refugee Society who spokeof his personal journey as a refugee out ofAfrica and the differing complex tribalconflicts that govern central Africacountries. He stated the importance ofNew Zealand maintaining a presence inthis area with support for refugees and thenow for more follow up study on theoutcome of refugees when they leave therefugee transition centres. There is a needto clearly define the difference betweenimmigrants and refugees.In September we have the UN Peace walkand a Peace art exhibition beginning Sept.22nd.In October we have Kennedy Graham theGreen Party MP who will be speaking tothe Northern Branch, thanks to LaurieRoss organising it.The Branch felt strongly about finding out

given appreciation. The AustralianBranches have strong support fromcurrent and former members of federaland state parliaments, and AusAID isassisting UNAA in fostering UNassociations in various Pacific Islands.The program also featured notable

academics with interests in internationallaw and with United Nations operations.Another notable feature of theconference was vibrant participation byUN Youth and a newly established YoungProfessionals division.This month we are pleased to welcomeMs MarieCharlotte de Lapaillone as anintern with UNANZ National Office inWellington. MarieCharlotte is preparinga policy paper for UNANZ on refugeepolicy and practice in New Zealand, fordiscussion at the National Councilmeeting on 22nd September. We hopethis marks the beginning of systematicconsideration of such critical issues,which are being faced not only by thiscountry but by countries worldwide. Theideal of the United Nations is to seekpeaceful solutions to crises thatotherwise divide us, and commitment toUN ideals through participation in UNANZactivities provides a vehicle for thesepeacebuilding aspirations within us.

Graham Hassall with Pacific Islands delegatesto the UNAA conference in Brisbane, 2224August. Photo: Graham Hassall



them to come dressed up in thenational costume of the country theywill be representing.Model UN General Assembly will beheld in the Pricewater House Cooperlecture theatre, Management School,University of Waikato. Senior Lecturerfrom the University of Waikato will bethe acting Secretary General for theday. Hamilton City Council staff andWaikato Museum Education officer willbe the judges for the day. A WaikatoUniversity student who is doing hermasters had agreed to be the timekeeper for the day.The topic is ‘the right of the people ofeach state to have legal issuesaffecting them and their state withintheir state, resolved by their State'scourt and legal system and that neitherthe people nor their state shall besubordinated to any other courts ortribunals established underinternational treaties, whether byforeign corporations or other States, towhich they the people and state are notparty excepting the international Courtof Justice, should they be party to it’.The Model UN General Assembly washeld on Saturday 8th September 2012at 9.00 am.

President: Kate SmithWANGANUI BRANCHWe had a successful Mid Winter Brunch inJuly with Nelson Lebo as the guestspeaker. Nelson is heavily involved increating low cost, ecofriendly housingwith many suggestions for everydayimprovements to save money. He writesregularly in the local papers. His topicwas:Essential Food and Energy Solutions:Discourse on Rio+20 and how food andenergy inflation disproportionally hurts thepoor everywhere, including NZ.Nelson was very willing to answerquestions from those present.

what is NZ Government policy towards theUN.It looks to be adopting isolation & limitedpolicy with its aid distribution and littleopen communication with the UN in notsupporting UN agencies and initiatives.The Branch at its next meeting will bediscussing our future military role asindications are the NZ Government maystill increase its military presence in theMiddle East.Michael Powles and Gray Southon’s lettersin response to the NZ Government policytowards UN agencies were indicative ofmost support from the Northern Branchmembers.

President: Gray SouthonTAURANGA BRANCHIn brief in the August month we had JeanPaul Bizoza our Refugee spokespersonspeak on the topic of NZ refugee policyand his own personal experiences.Planning underway for the UN Peacecelebration Sept 21st, we have a Peacewalk to take in Peace designated sitesaround Auckland. Also supporting a PeaceArt exhibition with NZ artist displayingtheir works with the theme of Peace.In July we had Bradley MacDonald show afilm on Esperanto and he spoke about thefuture of the Esperanto language.Also tried to stimulate discussion on whatis the National Government policy towardsthe UN, with the withdrawing of NZ fromAid support to Africa particularly and anonsustainable global policy of isolationand gain mutual support and aid for alldeveloping nations.

President: Mano ManoharanWAIKATO BRANCHWaikato branch has been involved inorganizing this year's Model UN GeneralAssembly. At the moment, 77 studentshave registered to take part in theassembly. We have allocated 31 countriesto the students and have requested



At the moment we are busy preparing forthe International Day of Peace, 21September. This year has the added bonusof being the 10th Anniversary of thededication of Handspan – the peacesculpture to promote a Culture of Peaceand NonViolence for the Children of theWorld. An outline of the events takingplace around this time is attached.Our guest speaker will be Dr Kate Deweswho will speak at the afternoon functionon the topic: Sustainable Peace for aSustainable Future.We are working closely with OperationPeace Through Unity on all Peace Dayevents.As a contribution to Push4Peace, we willbe initiating a project to collect ‘Peace –OneLiners’ from all sections of thecommunity. These will then be preparedinto various formats for display, exhibition,viewing on video or DVD by students ofthe Whanganui School of Design.Contributions will be accepted from groupsas well as individuals. More details will beavailable soon. Project will run from 21September – International Day of Peace,until 10 December – Human Rights Day.

President: Robin HallidayWELLINGTON BRANCHThe focus of the Wellington branch sincethe last Newsletter has been reportingback on Rio+20. I was fortunate with myhusband to attend, as an individual underthe Association of Non GovernmentalOrganisations in Aotearoa. I representedUNANZ.The Non Governmental organisationrepresentative in the official New Zealanddelegation was Dr Sudhvir Singh, a formerPresident of Auckland UN Youth. A medicaldoctor he worked with WHO and Ministersof Health on the health and populationareas of the Outcome Document.Wellington members were invited in Julyto an Institute of Policy Studies Forum onthe Outcomes of Rio+20 with Minister forthe Environment Hon Amy Adams, Greens

Environment spokesperson Dr KennedyGraham and Diana Shand the Chair of theNGO Rio +20 Platform. They gave a goodoverall review of the outcomes to a packedlecture theatre at Victoria University.The Ministry of Foreign Affairs officialdebriefing on August 9th included many ofthe over 30 New Zealanders in Rio and theGovernment officials who supported themfrom Wellington. Dame Laurie Salas, GraySouthon and myself attended.Wellington UNA followed this up with aRoundtable discussion facilitated byGraham Hassall where around 14 of uswho had been to Rio gave presentationsfrom our different perspectives andreported on the many side events andforums held in different venues some twohour drive apart. This gave us a wider andI believe more accurate picture than themore negative and limited reports in themainstream media. It allowed even thoseof us who were there to learn from eachother.There are many informed and to be hopedinfluential people with experience,proposals, and ideas and if we canharness some of their passion and energywe can have the future we want.

Contributors to the Wellington Roundtableincluded Dr Kennedy Graham, Dr SudhvirSingh, Dr Wren Green, Diana Shand, DrBetsan Martin, Maryann Greaney, BrittanyTrilford, Sophie Goulter, Calum Revfemand the Youth Delegation. Wellington UNAmembers joined us and ten of us went onto dinner later and a number of

post Rio+20 Roundtable held at St Andrew'sConference Ctr. Photo: Graham Hassall



resentations are now taking place aroundthe country.I have spoken to two informal lunches inWellington and Kapiti and am now going tothe UNA Australia Conference where thetheme of the Seminar is Rio+20.Discussion Groups are now being plannedon Renewable Energy in the Pacific andFinancial Transaction Tax both interrelated topics.

The United Nations of AustraliaConference and Annual GeneralMeeting August 22 – 25thAlong with Graham Hassall and GraySouthon I attended the UNAA NationalConference and AGM. For me it was afollow up to Rio and a chance to link withanother United Nations Association.While much of the programme focussedon follow up to Rio+20, Human RightsDevelopment in the Pacific, Peace andSecurity and the role of the UnitedNations were covered in both theworkshops and Conference Sessions.Beginning with a series of four workshopson the Status of Women, Global Systemsfor Sustainability – which I attended –Human Rights and Climate Change andSustainability recommendations wereprepared for the two day NationalConference opened by The Governor ofQueensland Ms Penny Wensley.The Conference covered a wide range oftopics with presentations fromdistinguished Academics and

researchers. The highlight of the firstday was a lively and informed Youthpanel. Held in Queensland’s Parliamentthe conference began with a breakfastand concluded with a gala dinner allvery elegantly served and accompaniedby interesting speakers.The Hon Robert Hill President of UNAAfor the last three years stood down andDr Russell Trood, Adjunct Professor inthe Defence and Security Program USStudies Centre University of Sydney waselected after a vote.UNAA has divisions in each state somemore active than others, a thrivingYouth Association who hold Model UNs,a National Trophy debate andinternational tours to The Hague andEast Timor. They also select theAustralian youth representative at theGeneral Assembly.The recently formed but growing fastYoung Professionals group in Sydney ishoping to expand to every State. Theyalso have UN Parliamentarians and anAcademic Group — something we wouldlike to establish in New Zealand.

The programme and a fuller reportare available on request.

President: Mary McGivenCANTERBURY BRANCHThe Branch is holding a Model UnitedNations General Assembly on 25 Octoberand we have eight schools alreadyinterested in taking part.We would also like to have a John Grocottlecture in November.The city has had over 12500 after shockswhich has left the city with many spacesand shaken many homes.

Sophie Goulter, P3 delegate at the Roundtable.Photo: Graham Hassall


It's an exciting time to be involved in UNYouth! Despite having only been in thisrole for two months, I and the rest ofthe new officeholders have gotten stuckin and laid the groundwork for thegrowth of the UN Youth branch. Thereare new events popping up all over thecountry and we are looking to be bold inorder to develop even further thenational and international opportunitieswe offer young New Zealanders.Thequestion for us is always, ‘what we cando to provide bigger and better chancesfor young Kiwis to grow?’Our volunteers are constantly looking totake initiative and to ensure that asmany young people as possible canlearn about the UN and internationalaffairs. Not only are they willing totravel all over the country to runconferences but they are also constantlyinnovating. Model European Unions,Model Pacific Forums, ModelInternational Courts of Justice and NGOCase Challenges are just some of theexamples of how we are pushingourselves and pushing young Kiwis toconsider the complex global contextthey find ourselves in nowadays.New Zealand Model UN 2012 wasrecently held in Wellington where UNYouth hosted almost 300 high schooland university students from around thecountry to focus on the theme of‘Inequality’. Our Pacific Projectdelegation recently returned from adevelopment week in Vanuatu and aweek participating in the veryprestigious UN Youth Australia NationalConference in Melbourne. And we haverecently expanded our delegation to The

Hague International Model UN (THIMUN)to 22 high schools students with variouslocal newspapers and websites runningstories about the students who werelucky enough to be selected and what isin store for them in January.Moreover, we are working ondiversifying our approach to education inthe community. Our youth events havebegun to regularly incorporate workshopand outreach components that allowstudents to challenge their beliefs andunderstanding of issues like poverty,disability, conflict and human rights. Wewant to find new and exciting ways toengage with university students,including by supporting the internationalAsiaPacific Model UN Conference(AMUNC) being hosted in Wellingtonnext year as well as making contact withconferences such as Harvard NationalModel UN. UN Youth will even beinvestigating the development of anonline Model UN competition that wouldextend our reach and allow studentswho for whatever reason cannotparticipate in the events we produce tolearn about global citizenship and theUN in an enjoyable and innovative way.The UN Youth branch is so grateful forthe support and mentorship of thevolunteers of UNANZ nationwide. Everyday we witness the results of theabsolutely crucial services we provide,together. All the hard work and planningis justified when we see our peers beinggiven the tools they need to go out andaccomplish the changes they want tosee in their community, whether it betheir local community or their globalcommunity. Long may it continue.

ANTON SmithNational President,UN Youth New [email protected]



UNANZ PEOPLENational CouncilNational PresidentGraham HassallNational Vice PresidentsMary DaviesColley, Lachlan MackayUN Youth PresidentAnton SmithTreasurerRobin HallidayNational CouncilRepresentativeIzolda KazemzadehSpecial Officers

Helena McMullin Peace andSecurityLachlan Mackay Human RightsGray Southon UN RenewalScott Bickerton SO Model UNGray Southon WFUNA LiaisonOrdinary MembersIzolda Kazemzedah, John MorganJoy Dunsheath, Lucas DaviesAffiliate Representatives

Bradley McDonald (Esperanto)Izolda Kazemzadeh (Baha'i)Joycelyn Foo (Soka Gakki)

UNANZ Membership

Name: ______________________________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Phone: ___________________Email :______________________________

Region of choice: Membership Fee:

Canterbury Tauranga Individual/Family - $30

Well ington Waikato Student/Unwaged - $20

Whanganui Northern Affi l iated Oganisation - $50

Send to: PO Box 24494, Well ington 61 42 Donation: $___________

Note: Your personal information will only be used by the UNANZ

Branch Presidents

Northern Region: Michael Shroff andGary RussellWaikato: Mano ManoharanTauranga: Gray SouthonWanganui: Kate SmithWellington: Robin HallidayCanterbury: Mary McGivenHonorary Life Members

Margaret Knight, Robin Halliday,Dame Laurie Salas, Lady RhylJansen, Grace Hollander,Ivan Densem, Carrick Lewis,Diana Unwin, Clinton Johnson,Gita Brooke, Mary Gray,Colin McGregor, Kate Dewes,Alyn WareAffilate Members

AFS Intercultural Programmes, Assnof Rationalists & Humanists,Humanist Society, Australia NewZealand Cultural Centre, Baha’iCommunity, InternationalPhysicians for the Prevention ofNuclear War (IPPNW), NationalCouncil of Women NZ, NZ Council ofTrade Unions, NZ EducationalInstitute (NZEI), NZ EsperantoAssociation Inc, New ZealandFederation of Women's Institutes,Operation Peace Through Unity,Oxfam (NZ), Post Primary TeachersAssociation (PPTA), SoroptimistInternational SW Pacific, The AsiaNetwork, UN Women, UNICEF NewZealand, Women’s InternationalLeague for Peace and Freedom(WILPF)

ABOUT THEUNANZ NEWSUNANZ News is the quarterlypublication of the UnitedNations Association of NewZealandUNANZ News welcomesarticles, short letters, andimages from outside sources.If you would like to submit anitem for consideration, pleasesend it to the newsletter editorPete [email protected] Box 24494Wellington CentralWellington 6142New Zealand(04) 496 [email protected] Excellency, Lt GeneralThe Right HonourableSir Jerry Mateparae, GNZM,QSO, GovenorGeneral of NZRt Hon Helen Clark Administrator, UNDPWE THE PEOPLESFOUNDATIONTrustees: Pamela Jeffries,John Hayes, Russell Marshall

To make a donation orbequest to the We The PeoplesFoundation for the benefit ofUNANZ please [email protected] Commission NumberCC38918Incorporated Society Number215914

unanz news - september 2012

Documents

olympic movement

theolympic truce

united nations flag

period of theolympic

international olympiccommittee

sport ingeneral

united nationsday

theolympic family