Global Environmental Citizens Manifestoes

It is too much or too less. And I feel that bring a time reports and I will try to give you the gist of the global memo that the title is Global memo is a cry --------- World. I have only two copies here you get that easily on the Internet. You on www.gobergmemo.org. You find it them. Its mean while in 14 language and you find 10 languages them. You can download it free of cost. Please circulate it. After the picture of publicity let me just give you an introductory fashion how that document came about. As the name already indicates. It was launched in the run up to the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development. It was promoted and supported by Henrich Boll Foundation which is political foundation in Germany close to the Green Party in Germany. The barri idea was to bring together 16 politicians, intellectuals, activists, and (-----1-------) from across the World to make a contribution to the global debate leading up to the Johannesburg Summit and in fact we were about (counter nos. 7-8) people basically not of only what was lacking was far last and lest all part of the world attempting to ask, attempting to come up with the real memorandum which means its not a political platform, its also not a planning document but it is a memorandum in the time search of the work that one keeps that we should keep in mind during the Johannesburg Summit. It keeps in mind it try to note down, it try to memorise, what (13-14) ---- agenda should have been for a world summit of sustainable development. That was the mission to set ourselves and to document wasn’t any much discussed and you know a motive for a debate in preparation at the summit itself and it got a debate is preparation at the summit itself and it get some recognition as a curious attempt to spell out, what really should be the agenda. Now I would like basically to go in a there steps how the 1^st step is a retrospect on to Rio in 92 then the main part I would like to speak about four general themes and last third part I would like to give you the gist of what the governance chapter contains. Basically we ask ourselves first what is our general evaluation of ten years after Rio 92. What has happened in about shell in 10 years global environment apology? Basically our thesis is that economic globalisation has washed away gains, whatever gains has been made during this decades between 92 and 2002. So in a way basically roughly speaking there were two very general reasons, the one is globalisation what even it means is about the expansion of a historical absolute economic model. If the expansion of the economy which lives from turning the paid values of nature in to marketable commodities. That absolute model is extended with of course a foreseeable consequences from climate (39-40) rated on living resources in short the wage by which people have way down on the biosphere of another people increases. Anil this is 2^nd motive which all of you are familiar with globalisation, politically speaking means de-regularisation. De-regularisation decreases the power of national government to stand in further protection of people and further protection of rather. They are more called upon to suit further protection of comfativators. Now given that over all situation looking back in ten years, at best you find that environmental policy regulation is stuck in the mud. There might be some turn back, there are some positive examples that basically rotting drastic has changed with some exceptions. (-------2------) drastic has changed in the last 10 years, in particularly things for that reason. So sum up that first retrospect is Malakesh has become Rio. Malakesh where WTO was founded. Rio was good for regrets but Malakesh has been implemental in Ernest. So that reason that is the situation that we have today. Now let me move to my 2^nd section where I said I would like to focus on what we call the memorandum what should be the genuine the real Johannesburg agenda and basically that has got a 4 different fields, one is, the first is- shaking of development; the second is livelihood rights. (Let me check) I just said the first is shrug off copy-cat developments. The 2^nd one ensure livelihood rights, the third reduce to foot print of the rich and fourth one leads throughout (75-76) age. Let me give you again in a hut shell the message along all this four thematic axis. The first, shrug-off copy-cat development, Johannesburg was programmed not as a sustainability summit but as a development summit. That put us is front of the question, front of difficulty that development is an empty concept, it is an slippery concept. It in fact monometery emptiness because development need every thing from putting up stride steppers to put up. Behind the notion of development hide our conflict. Basically the conflict on one hand economic growth on the other hand the logistics. It is crucial to shrug-off as we say copy-cat development because it total experience shows the present type of development has brought us to power physical limits notwithstanding the fact that on the minority of -------- people enjoy the truth of economic progress. Since about 1975 human kind has entered a new phase it has entered a phase of overshoot. Since 75 about human kind utilized its 20 percent more resources than the earth can regenerate. That situation leads of course to the conclusion that it is unthinkable to repeat the some development path as the northern society has exercised and had demonstrated to the rest of the world. Therefore the first imperative shaking off, shrugging off copy-cat development. The second thematic axis is around ensuring livelihood rights. Now again, any international agenda, just as Johannesburg, has got to focus on what is usually called poverty alleviation. Therefore, also this memorandum immediately focuses on poverty alleviation, introducing, however, an important distinction, because whenever you speak about poverty alleviation, there is one crucial question. That is – poverty alleviation, yes, but by whom? And basically there are two models ------------. The one model is to go for export-oriented development, which in the long run should bring enough money so that more and more people are going to be integrated into the money and the market economy. And there’s the other model, as you are well aware, where poverty is not defined as a lack of money, but as a lack of power, as a lack of rights. And out of that perspective comes the approach to look for how to enforce and stabilize and cultivate people – sustainable livelihood. So here, sketching out a livelihood perspective, therefore it says, ensuring livelihood rights. An important point in that agenda, since we speak of an environmental agenda here, is to refute the motion that poverty all growth has come first, and environmental protection, afterwards. Instead, we go forcefully against, and put forward the notion that the relief of poverty and environmental protection has got to go hand in hand, for the simple reason that very many people of the world are dependant an natural resources, the natural treasures as their means of livelihood. Therefore, environmental protection will decrease people’s vulnerability while environmental destruction will increase vulnerability. The third thematic complex here is to reduce the footprint out of which, now then Johannesburg avoided, strategically avoided, to speak about those who have created the environmental crisis in the world in the first place. Johannesburg did not speak of, marginally only, did not speak of the rich in the world. And therefore, we already beforehand said that this is the decisive focus – there is no way to speak about poverty alleviation without speaking about wealth alleviation. And therefore, it is, as you all know, it is, the, of course, the well-to-do which utilize most of the planet’s treasures. Therefore, it is the first task of the wealthy to retreat from the excessively used environmental space in the world in order to leave more space to others. For that reason, there is this chapter, which is still slightly a little bit less developed – but not very much, for wealth, a kind of wealth which will be capable of justice, which will be capable of a lightening of, if you want, the footprint of the well to do on the planet itself. And that brings me to my fourth, theme in this preconception. The fourth imperative for a genuine Johannesburg agenda leap forward into this age, again in a much shady idea is, if it is true that the North in this evolution that promoted a historically obsolete economic model, there might be, if I may… if I say it very… make it slightly exaggerated, that there might be a blessing in underdevelopment. The evolution of the North cannot be imitated, therefore underdevelopment – what is usually called or has been called underdevelopment for half a century – comes out to acquire a different historical significance. It’s not just of significance to the backward, but is also the significance of not having, or not having that much, embarked upon a dead-end in terms of historical evolution. Therefore the invitation here in particular for 7 countries, in the end of course, in particular for those who are, if you want, at the point of, have already crossed the point of take off, to reconsider their basic options. Because thee is, for many countries, still the basic option to go for a solar age and thereby.

The North, to arrive, if you want, in a leap forward fashion, at a point of a post-fossil economy – a point where the North has also got to arrive sooner or later. And now, let me state my fifth section, where we do the (short-term) – There’s a large part an local governance for foreigners, and ecology. Basically, there are three ideas. One idea is rights. The memorandum proposes a new architecture of rights in two ways. The one is, since this was a memorandum for the Johannesburg summit, it suggests an international global convention, a global convention on the protection of community resources. A convention which would assure the rights of local communities to their natural resources. I leave it there. That such a convention would then impinge upon, of course, in particular, large investments of all kinds, and would be in a way. That is some other perspective, if you want, just compel into a kind of convention binding these on nation-states just as much as far non-state actors in the world, in particular corporations. Another part of the rights part is that we propose to globalise the (Orwell) convention. The (Orwell) Convention, some years ago, instituted – it was done among European countries – instituted far-ranging rights of the environmental citizens to know about what is going on – the rights for retrieving information, the rights for transparency, the rights for, you know, right for (juridicate ------). That convention, since there is already a convection, we propose to globalise. If it will change the space of environmental policy in law in many countries in the world.

Second, of course, in the governance structure. Well, there is a notion about price structures. We addressed the well-known problem that the present price structure of the market does not tell us the environmental truth. So full cost-accounting including cost-accounting for global (columns), the use of global (columns) would be a possibility both to redirect the market and second, raise funds in particular for UN institutions.

Third point, there is a large section here on market governance, in particular on the WTO. There we focus very much on the relationship between the economic regime as embodied by the WTO and the environmental law regimes as embodied in the bio-diversity conventions and the climate conventions. And then, there is a last chapter where basically three institutional innovations are suggested. I just name them and I leave you with it. The first is here we say, --------- should be upgraded into a world environmental organisation. Second, there’s the proposal to organise a decentrally operating international renewable energy agency. And the third is to use the already existing international court of arbitration which exists in to use the international court of arbitration for being a court which is able to balance the different values ranging from economic values to social values to environmental values. I end here, thank you.

Chair: That was a very, very short really, a nutshell description of the Johannesburg memo and I think that the basic problem in what the… Well, I mentioned that I have been in both an environment and development co-operation. So, far those years, I had to deal with global poverty issues and both national and global environmental issues. And I very much… in very many situations, I met the thinking about eradicating poverty and protecting environment. Those are conflicting roles. For example, many ministers of development cooperations seem to think so. Many governments of developing countries seem to think so, that protecting environment and giving the poor people possibilities for better life – that those are conflicting roles. But personally, I don’t think so and I think it’s absolutely necessary to find us strategies that both combine both of these roles, to find so-called ‘win-win’ strategies where both – we can improve the life of poor people in the world, and at the same time, protect environment. And I think that you have found a very important point for that strategy in that Johannesburg memo. But , we continue with the presentations, and the next one is Marco ____________ who talk about Global Manifesto of Ecological Democracy by ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam(?).

Marco : I just saw that my colleague_______ has just entered, he has also been part of the process, so may be he can also add to whatever I am forgetting or not addressing adequately. So let me say a few words about this thing called ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ which has also convened this meeting today. It’s not really an organisation, it’s more of an idea which we have been sharing with friends over the years, between Finland and India, and now expanding to other parts of Europe and other parts of Asia, especially South Asia. So currently, one can describe [it] as an idea which focuses on the concept of democracy, or actually in a process from democracy to ‘swaraj’, a more comprehensive understanding of democracy. And we have divided our work into different dimensions of which ecological democracy is one. So what I am describing here today is the first draft from the Northern side as a [discussant initiate] for drafting a global manifesto on ecological democracy. So the book that is here in English and Hindi, I don’t need to go through it. If there is any body who is interested , can take a copy and study it more carefully.

The basic idea of putting both Ecology and Democracy together is that the issue of power is important, and the on environmental question should be with the people. So, its a kind of democratising of decision-making and, also relations which have to do with the environment. And secondly, to see environment very much in a social context, that environment is some thing that people depend on for some people it’s more intimate- communities of farmers, artisans, fishes folk and so on, whose livelihood is very much directly in touch with the environment, unlike those of us who live in urban, industrial lifestyles where the touch with the environment is quite a bit more distant. So the control of the people, democratic control of the people over the environment in a social context system is the background. So I will just mention a few of the initiatives let’s say ideas for a more concrete piece of work which we are proposing in this paper.

One has to do with the ownership of some of the important production areas. That currently it’s very unfashionable to call for state-owned enterprises. I mean, the privatisation drive for on, whatever the state has established as a production.---------------- tends to be privatised all over. So one proposal here is that let’s give a try to state-owned industrial production in a global or internation scale regarding environment in a global or international scale regarding environmental technologies. Because certainly these global corporations have some advantages because they operate globally; and that is why these nationalised industries are nationally owned industries are one reason why they are losing out. So why not ------------and also, the environmental technologies, the advances are quite slow compared to the need. So if a number of like- minded governments put some resources together for the production of (renewable) technologies, that might bring out the defence.

Then another concrete piece of the scenario has to do with (food) issues – that is food-producing trees. That already many researches are pointing out that the food production… the green revolution results, that there is a lot of drought and a lot of problems is there, and the grain production is really down compared to the populance and so on. So the food issue is with us, and very serious for many parts of the population, and will be increasingly so with all the environmental crisis and political crisis. So one area of food cultivation which by and large has been neglected – is the ------------ that are done by trees – fruit trees and nut-producing trees and so on. So that is some tree support groups where our networks have been active and we’ll be more active in the future.

And then, finally, is the concept that Gandhiji put forward long, long ago, of ‘gram-swaraj’. Well that has many dimensions but linking it to local economies, that… well there are many reactions to globalisation, but most of them tend to circle around the idea of reforming globalisation and the background idea that it is inevitable, that more and more international will be there, and we just have to see how we could have some form of governance and so on. But hue the scenario is a bit different, and we also want to explore the idea of ‘localisation’ that in stead of submitting to this determinism, or even fatalism, that there is no way to reduce the speed and scope of globalisation. We want to explore the idea of seriously going for more localized structures. But of course the economy is very important. So, it can’t be ‘gram-Swaraj’, and that is village self-rule. This part was also, if I’m not ‘all to be misunderstanding, this part was also very important. Gandhi’s emphasis on (locally produced cloth) and (locally produced and consumed agriculture is something that can provide us deeper alternative) scenario to globalisation and deeper alternative response to globalisation than many of the global governors that the (things) include. So I’d just like to be brief because there are so many people who are (thinking) studying this sort of… we have more time for discussion.

Chair: Thank you very much. And 3^rd paper – the global green charter – The English version looks like this and the French version is much nicer – it looks like this… But anyway, there are copies of this Green Charter here on this table and copies of this paper at least, there on the corner of this room. But (Catherine), please…

Catherine: OK, I am going to try and speak from here. I am not sure how well you can hear me, if you don’t hear me well enough you just have to make signs so that I know. Should I speak louder? … I don’t like standing up, do you mind if I sit?… OK just make a sign if it is not loud enough.

Well before going into details of the charter and how it was written, which (---------------), and for that purpose which I’ll try and explain, I’m just would like us to reflect collectively on the road that we have walled on so little time. All of you here, remember (30) years ago when the 1^st ecologists, people interested in environment, (--------) issue (started) to denounce the huge gap between the (North) and (South) and started to denounce that as the resources of the Earth were limited, and then there was the 1^st anti-nuclear demonstration. Remember how the world, the political world was laughing at us? If I wanted to say before we start, and my colleagues here have spoken before me, especially on the evaluation of Rio + 10, have shown you how (facts) can be stranger than words.

So the charter that we are going to tall about is in fact the document that emerged out of the I Global Green Congress that was held in 2001 in Canberra. The two themes are linked and are very close together, because they hold the same aim. The questions that we had to answer in that I Green Congress – as 70 countries were represented, 70 green parties, and 700 delegates were present – the questions we had to answer was, were we in capacity to develop a common strategy to give a stance to world issues that we are facing. Were we in capacity to try and build a common structure at world level? And were we in capacity to produce documents that would unite all the political green parties and (movements) express their key values, their principles and priorities, and develop those in a common action plan? So it is because we felt the urgency to have a common political document of orientation, and with that awareness about our political responsibility in front of the world issues that we took on the task to write this charter. So this is to give you the context. I also would like you to remember that when… that the political context at the time we wrote this document, which is between 4 years ago and I mean, 5 years ago and 3 years ago, it was characterized by two things. The growing threat to environment, which has been described quite well, like in the memo of (------------) especially climate change that you are all aware of, and, the nuclear threat, and of course globalisation in all its aspects. This is not only a big word, it means increase of social inequity. Concretely, that is a growing privatisation of profits, but a growing share of costs – this between the North and the South, but also within each country, be it in the North or in the South. And because these issues are not local, regional or national, but because they are global, we felt that we have to give it a response at world level. And this work was made possible only because of the growing political maturity of green parties and movements everywhere in the world. My aim, let it be clear, is not only to make an evaluation or to denounce, but it is to define collectively strategies to reinforce our action. This is our aim.

So in this context, the document that came out – the charter is a document that gives us necessary political orientation and which enables young green parties with old to share values all over the world. I want to be honest with you, I mean, we have not been writing a holy book. We did not want to blue our differences. We are very different all through the world. Our differences are cultural, they are historical and even of political nature. For instance, I mean you know, and this has been said yesterday in the Indian – European workshop about the charter. You know that not all ecologist movements have the same vision of the relation between human being and nature. We are not unanimous our visions. The debates exists between us, but also within all our movements and all our parties. But you see, the point is that we share a political orientation and we want to illustrate it by a common plan of action. A charter that is a reference to all the parties.

Now, I will explain to you about the (----------) because you might wonder how you write such a document – so many people all over the world. The idea came up really, to be honest, none of them is these, but I have to give them their due – from the Australian greens. And that was too, Australia’s before the world congress. The very 1^st draft which was totally different to what you have now was written on the basis of existing documents and now we’ll have them – the world values the documents key of principles of Canada, Taiwan, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, New Zealand, United States, the European Federation of Green parties, the ----------- of the party of New Zealand, and the United Tasmania group and their charter. So all these documents were the base of reflection to start on the charter. Before writing to the world congress, we had about 6 successive drafts that were discussed each time for further progress. The text you have in the end is a brochure, a 25-page brochure, and without going into all the details, I will just briefly explain how it works. There is a Preamble, that develops … key values. And then the document is in two parts. The 1^st one listing the principles of our programmes around the world. I will name them rapidly, we can go back to them if you want to in the debate. Ecologicalism, which defines relationship between human beings and nature on a planet with limited resources, Social Justice, participatory Democracy, Non-Violence, Sustainable Development and Respect of Diversity – diversity I mean cultural, religious, ethnic, sexual etc.

And the 2^nd part which is the longest and perhaps the more difficult to write, because it’s more concrete. It’s what we commit ourselves to do in each of those domains, and it’s in fact a plan of action. I am glad to say that at the point … as I am listening to my neighbour here, who made some proposals at the end of the -------------- manifesto memo; we have come up with basically very very similar proposals – we will see that later on. /so the actual writing of the text was very very difficult. I have to admit it. It was difficult because we have different approaches. The Asians have a more, perhaps, “spiritual approach” towards ecology; whereas the Europeans, and this is now a surprise to you, are more pragmatic! So we have to combine those two approaches, those two different cultures to finalise something in which we commit ourselves. The way we did it, there was a reference group of 12 persons, 3 per continent each elected or nominated by their federations. We worked on the 1^st draft that was circulated all through the world, we got responses, we got amendments, put them in, each time circulated a new draft. That took us 2 years to do this job. We integrated as many amendments as we could. In the end, we came up to the congress with the points that we thought really needed debate. The field that we thought there was no real agreement between us, and we needed a big debate. And those fields, was of course the economic field, with the question of the institutions – the WTO, IMF, WB. And here there was a different approach between us. Some people were saying we should abolish these institutions and some people were saying we should just reform them. The same debate is taking place within our own parties or movements. This was a big debate that we had at world level. On security issue too, we had a very contrasted approach. It was a time of (Cosovo) remember? Part of us were very much on a very pacifist attitude, and some were in favour of interventions. But these debates, here again I say, we have within our own movements too.

And the 3^rd point, the 3^rd debate which was perhaps the more difficult because it was not a political debate was the question of society issue. And on this issue, there is no vital contradiction, but as I said before, we have different approaches according to our backgrounds, according to our history. If you take the question of abortion, if you take the issue of homosexual rights, obviously people are not going to stand for them or speak in the same way if they come from Africa or if they come form Germany or France. So after all these debates, compromises were found and…. for instance, as regards WTO, we didn’t choose to express whether we were for end we expressed, and we committed ourselves to be for radical reforms. So, which in the end enabled an unanimous vote of 70 green parties and movement of this document, despite the cultural differences. When the final text came out we expressed our values and priorities and political orientation, and also with people of very different approaches at the beginning. As I said before some more spiritual, some more pragmatic. But the fact that we managed top come out with this political orientation document was a success in itself. So with all its defects, and it has many, and may be if you have read it, you can have pointed them, with all its blanks, because of course, things need to be added and things need to be updated and some things need to be discussed further. But with this, this document when it came out, has proved the birth of a new political trend at world level, and that is the Green Movement. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you… And now we have some prepared comments and 1^st is from Shekhar Singh…

Shekhar Singh: I actually read through 2 of the 3 documents that were presented today. I didn’t have the opportunity to look through the Johannesburg memo, so I won’t comment on that. On the other two, some preliminary comments. Let me preface it by taking the point that you just made, that there are differences between Europe and India or Finland and India. Therefore, the efforts should not be to gloss over these differences. Nevertheless there are two things that we need to keep in mind. 1, is of course that if we are working towards a global charter as this claims to be, then we have got to start taking on more diverse viewpoints and cultures and see how we can integrate them into some sort of a comprehensive whole. Secondly, those of who believe in cultural diversity, and I certainly believe in that – I think the way I understand cultural diversity does not mean that one has to have a hotchpotch of all cultures. One of the most exciting things of being born into this era is that one now has the option of picking and choosing from each culture what one likes and taking it on to oneself. So for example, I half jokingly say that I prefer to be an Indian son, because sons in Indian treat their parents much better…

Strong continuing sense of the rights of other species which is prevalent in our culture, and one would certainly like to see it reflected and share. Let me tell you as a passing comment – I was in Brazil talking about animal rights and after that we went for lunch and I couldn’t find a single vegetarian dish to eat. So there are these cultural problems. Secondly, both the papers but specially the paper on global ecological problems and ecological democracy tends to focus, to my mind, too much on ecological solutions. These seems to be an underlying assumption that if we can bring in innovative technologies, many of our problems will get solved. And there is a listing of that in this particular paper. For every problem, there is a technology. Now I don’t disagree with the fact that technology is important. But in my view, the fact that a particular technology develops or is adopted is because of the political, social and economic milieu in which we are living. So unless you change that political, social and economic milieu, you can’t bring in of develop appropriate technologies. I don’t think it’s the other way round – that if you develop and apply appropriate technology, then the political and social problems will get solved. I think you have to first solve the social and political problems before you have half a chance of bringing in technology which is innovative and serves the sorts of values that we all agree and which are a part of these two documents. Following up on this, I think that the debate on the politics of environment, especially in the paper on global ecological democracy is somewhat weak. I think there are many levels at which the politics of environment works. We are all very find of talking about it at a global level. In fact, in the WSF, it’s often talked about, that the rich countries are us-coping the resources of the world while the poor countries are not getting their share. The same thing happens within countries, the same thing happens within societies. And there’s a whole fabric of politics which needs to be brought on board. We can’t solve the problems of the world by making the USA go away because the USA – values that exist in our society will still be there. So it’s the values that USA represents, if one might put it bluntly, rather than the USA itself; and those values are found amongst all of us. So I think it has to be a much more sophisticated political debate. Then there is another problem, and which is not a problem specific to this set of documents on this debate, and is a problem which all of us are facing today. That on the one hand, and this is particularly true of the European greens or the global greens. We are talking about frugal lifestyles, sustainable lifestyles. But on the other hand, we also believe in democracy. Now if you go around, at least in a country like India, a large majority of people don’t want frugal lifestyles, don’t want to live simple. It’s only those of us who have already have the option to live non-frugally who want to live frugally. Now, on the one hand, you can say it’s false consciousness, but then what are we going to do about that? How are we going to have democracy, especially a growing middle-class in India, which people argue is 200 million people, who are demonstratively ascribing for the lifestyles of USA or Europe, and on the other hand, talk about frugality and democracy together? I think this is a central issue of the debate which to my mind doesn’t get adequate attention. I also think that we have to think of innovative political ways of describing those social and economic mechanisms which are leading to the destruction of the world’s resources and the world’s socio-economic fabric. I just mention 2 in passing – why don’t we talk the language of reparation. We talk about reparation in terms of warfare, where Germany had to pay reparation to the rest of Europe after the II World War, or Japan had to pay reparation, or now poor Iraq and Afghanistan are paying reparation. What about paying reparation of countries which have waged ecological war, which have destroyed something more fundamental than just political structures? Let them pay ecological reparations. I think if we start talking the language of reparations, then the way the politics around environment is organized would perhaps change. Similarly, while I was reading the documents it struck me, because nowadays there is a disparate look out for weapons of mass destruction. I thought the WSF could declare all global, industrial conglomerates which are destroying nature as weapons mass destruction, because they are far more weapons of mass destruction than an atom bomb. I think they do much more damage, much more sustained damage to things which are more fundamental. So I fell that we need to get some innovative political language. I am not saying that these two ideas are necessarily the good one but there has to be a lot of innovative political language in this in order to inspire a forward thinking. I also think that there is a lot of romanticism which sometimes takes us away from really addressing hard decisions. There’s a talk about village-level production, decentralization, but in the same paper, there is also talk about the great advantage of having centralized production, economies of scale. For example, they talk of solar energy and they say how solar energy devices must then be made through economies of scale so they become cheap enough for people to use in a mass way. So you have economies of scale one hand, but then village level production. Or may be these are issues which can be sorted out. May be there are principles which apply to one and not to the other, but they don’t seem to be obvious in the paper. And therefore, there’s a lot of such things, and I suggest that this is a problem with the structure both of the paper and to my mind, to the global green charter. When you start discussing issues sector-wise, then it is very easy to give a progressive statement in one sector, which on the face of it would contradict a progressive statement in another sector; but the 2 never match. We talked about bio-diversity conservation in one sector with great gusts, but then we talked about having forest-systems which are productive and produce food and bio-mass for the people. Now on the face of it, this is contradictory because you want to convert rain forests, as has been talked about, into more productive, socially relevant places. Then how does one resolve the contradiction between bio-diversity conservation and this? I am not suggesting there aren’t ways of resolving contradictions. But as long as these are put in 2 different sections, each section sounds progressive, but you can’t put it together. And this seems to be a problem which runs through both these documents. Then, one or two other points I’d like to make… It’s not very clear why certain issues have been picked up and discussed in detail in this paper on ecological democracy. For example, one of the major problems in India is the problem of how does one ensure livelihood and justice to the poorest of the poor specially those living in forest, living in national parks and sanctuaries, and also maintain biodiversity. Now, Professor Roy Burman mentioned in yesterday’s session that in the North-East for example, forests, which are being managed by the people are better than the forests which are being managed by the government. I will not dispute that. But unfortunately this is not necessarily the pattern across the country or across the world. There are placed may be not because may be fault of tribals or poor people, but there are places where the amount of resources left, available to them are too small both to survive and use them substainably. Now, these are some of major battles which are being fought across the world in many countries does not seem to have in this paper taken adequate discussion of some of fundamental issues in one of the paper. Finally, and this refers to the charter. Many points have been raised but some of the important values, which to us are important, like for example the value of self-reliance, is not only missing from the global green chapter, but actually points to the contrary are stressed. There seems to be an assumption if the aid goes up things will become better. But there is a strong counter point that the aid actually undermines most often the capacity of the countries to develop in their own fashion. So it’s a debate sometime there may be sudden disasters, far which you might need immediate aid. But there is underlined here time to time that the aid must go up. There should be more money flowing from the Northern countries to the Southern countries and I can understand the sentiments behind it. But it does not take on far a very strong political arguments that have gone on in our countries that what are the natural consequences of such aid flows. And finally I would like to end by saying that I personally feel this is a very very good beginning I just feel some kind of process was done. I think the process has to be opened up very much more. I think we want to bring about a global charter get it translated into all the languages that you can, at least major 15-20 languages in India. Give it to activist groups let them take it down to village level, let them discuss it. So you can get the feedback, what the people if grassroot level think of you point of view and vice-verse and that’s the process that will give you real good issues and to think what to do with this one.

Chair: Thank you Shekhar for a very, very thought provoking comment which made me feel as a European politician, my limitations and also the limitations on the political discussions. Many of the points that you mentioned are more or less non existent in the debate in my country, possibly in (-------------) countries. Well, now some other comments - (Archana Prasad)

Archana Prasad: I am Archana Prasad from All India People’s (Science) Network. Let me just say that I didn’t read these papers because I didn’t even know that his workshop existed, and these documents existed. But I just want to make preliminary comments of some kind. There’s a lot of what Shekhar has said that I agree with, but there is also a lot of what Shekhar says that I don’t agree with, probably going back to some old days. But the one point that I’d really like to state is what you stated at the end. You know, the political of the economy and economic aid and economic reforms, and the discourse on environmental protection or environmental tights can’t be disassociate the defence of forest rights if that in the global charter, but I don’t place on board, the issue about forest sector reform, the road towards privatisation of forests or degradation or...... or.. of degraded forest [-------] industries, which is not only true of our country but also of many other III World countries, then the charter would obviously hold some of our concerns, but it would not be .... as a Science activist and person working in this field I can just say that it would probably not be fully acceptable to me. The 2^nd thing I want to say is talking about innovative vocabularies, I mean the terms like ‘community’ or ‘gram-swaraj’ or issues like that I think, you have been hearing for a long time. But discussing points of differences, the religion and caste equations play a major role in the III World, as well as the economic differentiation. How do we take those differentiations on board when we talk about the community? I think that’s one of the major issues that requires a dialogue even within the country, not only with the North. Because, as you will see from, Marco’s paper, there would be severe disagreement on notions of self- sufficiency, gram-swaraj, so I am just Roping that this would be a beginning point for a dialogue within the country you are taking about localisation as an alternative to globalisation, I mean I understand the spirit of the argument but my question would be what sort of localisation? If you want to centre this localisation around a village, like here it’s not possible, and maybe it was never possible like that. The issue of Gandhian swaraj is very much an open, debated and very volatile issue. And if we are to project an alternative, which I feel that we must, because we know, what is the problem, then a dialogue on what’s the forms of development, on ....... because everybody wants an egalitarian society, everybody believes that this sort of industrialisation will not do, but what type of science will do and what kind of industrialisation will do? Those are the kind of issues that have hardly been taken on board even within the Indian environment debate, forget the global environmental debate. So what I can share is some of the experience that we do have when we are trying to work art alternatives. When we work out forms of co-operation and think of new of production systems, not just new types of property rights, or new types of governance regimes, but new types of production systems which sort of creates mechanisms fo co-operation between the disadvantaged sections of the society; and in the process, some amount of dialogue between indigenous knowledge and skills and modern knowledge and skills takes place to produce a different type of science and a different type of development, which in fact the people’s science movement itself believes in. So I am taking this opportunity to hope that some of these questions will be raised within the countries through this mechanism. And that ecological democracy, and economic imperialism which has so far not been taken on board on the ecological question.

Chair: Ok. Now there’s to be a open and free discussion, so the floor is far all of you.

B.K. Roy Burman: It was only yesterday...... Ok, I am B.K. Roy Burman, I am an anthropologist. Well, I had the privilege to go through this document - the Charter of global greens, and I had been to Canberra two years ago. When I went through it, I felt that this specimen should be covered, and these should be intensively discussed. I congratulate those who prepared this document, though I don’t agree with everything .... The first thing, I think it’s a very, very important document, and the other document of course which I have seen in the draft scene large way, now I have seen it again. Now, these are complimentary [to ]. I feel that this document, the Canberra declaration, it requires to be discussed very thoroughly, and not in one session. Every aspect should be discussed in different sessions. Now that we are meeting at least one session on this only. I feel that this document , I am sorry, but i came a little late, so initial comments I did not hear, but I understand from friends that one point was made; that the situation is very is very radically different between Finland and India’ I think there are also radical similarities. Well, I had been 2 years back, not in Finland, but Sweden in the [ ] region. I obtained from one of the topmost paints of that area, a pointing about the cosmology. Then when I looked at it, I felt it is almost similar to a pointing by the pointing which I seen from [ ] and I showed to some friends. I did not tell them where it was from. Then they said, who know Indian painting, that it seems to be worli painting. So, why I mention this at the basic level in the structure of the human mind, there is a similarity. At a basic level there is a similarity, and that should be the starting point. What is the nature - human nature - that should be the starting point of anything any other formulation. Now there are two perspectives about nature of humans which is very important for our purpose. One purpose is ‘homo sociologicus’ - humans by nature are social beings. ‘Homo sociologies’ ...... the other point of view which gained ground, particularly in the Medieval Ages in Europe was the formulation that be nature, humans are in a state of war - all against all. One value when we think of nature of human nature is homo sociologicus humans are basically social beings. That value leads to what you call the [ ] value of orientation. I want to [ ] with you, I want to harmonise with you, I want to harmonise with you consider that human beings are all at war with all, there is a power - orientation. A power - orientation .... you see, most of Social science today and even our discussion about green and non-green, is basically a point informed by this power orientation, not the [ ] theory of orientation. So I feel that the basic difference should nature. We should go into great detail of it .... and from that, what emerges out of it. That is a very important point. But them .. [ ] is the specify formulations of both sides. I think .... well, say ... for us in India, or most of the disadvantaged countries ... which I don’t agree - I world, II world, III world. There are some countries that are advantaged due to some historical reason, there are some countries that are disadvantaged due to some historical reason. The disadvantaged countries today, if there is some ethnocentrism, I think that is to be understood. Because a tiger - resort is important, but before that ... if the tiger - resort will display the area which is taken over and to be given to lives of humans. So there is a question of prioritisation. Certainly there is animal right, certainly there is ecological democracy will help you consider this. But at the same time, some day the historical prioritisation also has to be dealt - you can’t forget about this thing. We can’t forget also certain threats, defects which Marco had mentioned. Now, globally and in India, what do we find? We find today that there is a long - term trend of our food security. We find that food grain production in India in the 705 was 55% and now except for Punjab, it has come down to about 30-32%. This has come down, and what about the food grain? The food grains which are more required for the poorer sections, these food grains are being displaced by food grains which are more elite - oriented, middle - class oriented. My friend [ ] has shown very much concern for the middle class, and it’s good to be concerned for all. But also it is necessary to be concerned for those who are in the state of starvation. So when you look at that, and then we analyse critically our facts and figures, then we see that what should be our priority concern or not. So on this particular issue. I am omitting out this thing, because when you speak of green, not all green is green. I some green may led to red also. You see, only a fortnight back, I am only 82 years old, I walked in 5½ days, 130 Kilometres, through indigenous tribal areas. I found one area which I knew long a back. Area is an open land, which was grazing found for goats and sheep, and from then ... Sorry, I think as I told you earlier that this requires a long debate and also a whole issue and it will require time. So, I think the Chairperson is indicating to me that time is short. So I won’t take your time now. I’ll just make one point, and then I’ll leave. The point here, you see, the indigenous peoples in India, is 8% of the population, but geographically, about 20% of the geographical area is their habitat. And there was some assessment in the 70s, that more than 50%, in some cases more than 80% of our mineral resources, our [ ] resources, and also sources of our hydro - power are concentrated in these areas. Global situation being .... I was trying to get, that globally, the indigenous people are about 4% of the global population. There is a rough estimate that major resources of the world are also concentrated in what is normally called their ancestral domain. In India, we have got very clear evidence that in the process of this type of globalisation that is taking place, the resources of these people, where all our [ ] are concentrated, are being gradually passing on to other peoples, and in a very systematic manner. Even our law has been also adjusted to accommodate these monopolistic interests. And I am sure, I have got some idea, in Sweden, I criticised a judgement, I gave a statement and it was published there, a judgement of the supreme court of India, and similar judgement in Sweden. I found these are almost a similar ... there’s a same language. if there’s pollution of the judiciary, I think judiciary also. And now, I feel that on this global green, our concern, it will require very careful estimation of the situation on the ground of which we are require some very [ idea ]. I think I’ll mention the old story and my friends I thin the point here that I am speaking that there is a aerial survey data that s giving the type of information that we require. Actually, for some reasons, the data is accurate data for the North-East of India. It’s official data, and I was the chairman of the 1^st committee of government of India. And our data shows that the areas which are under community-control, almost cent-percent of that age is dense forest, and the areas where these are state controlled, 50% - 60% of the area, in some regions much less, is dense forest. This is official data I am stating. My friends, well, for the solution for which we should like to look into our Indian situation much more closely. And i think that it requires to be done, and which will help us. Thank you.

Chair : Thank you. Dear friends, I ...I state to be heard in this .... there’s some music background in the background. I think that although we know spoken in the meeting with presenting these 3 papers but in our comment on these papers, we should not limit our discussion to these opportunity that brings greens from so many countries is to continue our discussion of the political .. of the policy our political meeting and political goals of the greens here. Well the next part of this meeting which will be chaired by Catherine will be concentrated on the green action in the world. But in this part we discussed about the political thinking and the political goals of the greens. So, please don’t feel that you have to limit your comments and what you say to those 3 papers, which were presented. So, Catherine ...

Catherine: I just wanted to answer before you take the [ ] the gentleman who spoke before. I really liked his intervention because it showed very concretely what difficulty we had. I will start by the last remark you made about having it translated into 25 languages and circulated everywhere OK, you have to be aware that we have no financial means. To give you an example, which will make you smile, when we circulated there 6 drafts one after the other even between the French greens, now well very much people could read them because they do speak English. So you see all the work that remains to be done, in order to communicate better and to manage to do it in a better way. But now you know that it exist. I said it’s not a holy paper, a fixed paper. We will discuss in the 2^nd part of the meeting the next step. And on this stage, other papers will be written. So I do hope you know that people from Asia, and from Indian particularly at that time came into the process, more than they did. Now … to go on the point that you remarked, that the question of aid and I am very much [ ] because there’s now so much Europeans that have the debate between themselves. To… to….. show the difference of culture and of …. Because of historical differences that people have.

You from an Indian perspective, or perhaps Asian, I don’t know. [ ] self – reliance. Now when you discuss, mostly with African delegates, the question of aid the question of consolation is a question that is put foremost. So you see how, how interesting this debate is, ad all the more you point out all the difficulties, all the more I realise what a success it is to have been able to do this 20 far. OK, you also spoke about crime against environment, am I correct? Well, we did try to get some very concrete proposals for that [ ] I mean, you know, we did say that, we want to establish and we will work for that wherever we are elected, or where ever we can make some pressure. An International Court of Justice, specific for environment destruction, so we are aiming to do that OK? I’ll stop here, I have a lot more to say but because other people are wanted on the floor … But please tell your name.

S1: I come from Finland too like some of other participants. But … I feel that many discussion…. Many points in the discussion here, and also have experienced in the North. So I mean that … the discussion held in … green field before the discussion is taken into more spheres … Not hiring a concrete connection in … in the green life-styles groups on country-sides. I think that this is a reality that … that the activists which is not much that much concentrated in the [ ] it has just become like the outside of the green flied and the question is now how to meet that, and how to get the gain. And while we are talking now about the administrative initiatives.. [ ]. I think that we can’t reach many points, and … was. … yesterday, they … they came up with the question that. How can the Northern or European green tell Indians who are living with self –sufficiency, and the companies coming and [ ] them so can these programmes and [these ] help them practically? So … of course, it’s difficult and difficult answer, when the answer is … when you are working in … in a international political field which is given in such way that there is no connection to the grass-root anymore. So the question is how can these politician …. Green politicians reach this grass-root level and show it up in this … in this field of politics, in public, and also in the media, that we have thought of it so that would be important. I … as I think as I was discussing yesterday that in Southern pats for example, and she was telling us, and also this paper here …. Writing about a very special case in politicians field because she used to fight … fight. So I was just wondering what’s that … what’s the use … of course you do not like that, but you show that people you are leading another life, not just this high, fast elite life in Northern countries. These people might be a bit different in their won life, but of course, question is also how to reach this…. This. … field of people leading rational lives and living with all knowledge, and how this knowledge can be understood. It’s not the question is of… of knowledge being introduced …. It’s…. it’s a question of your respect for traditional knowledge which …. Which is at human [collective ] not just knowledge that you have and …. [ ] and create programmes through that [ ]. So it’s a cultural question, and I third that greens have come to this cultural question much, much more than the [other ] the question which language we talk to get the picture of … to understand something else.

Chair: OK…. Please ……. Stand up.

[ ]: I am [ ] I am an advisor to the [ ] and before I [worked through NGOs / read through any of this] ….. and [ ] …. I heard about that …. and because I think that … you mentioned that ….. as India is [mentioned] the [potential] [ ] has to be considered because of the [priority ] and that brings me to the point you made about that aid undermines development, and I think that the problem is not with taking money, but with the conditionalities that just come …. All the … I mean, if you take for example, a country like … like [Uganda], or [Mozambique] where 90% of the government [ ] loan, and you can imagine how …. Under what pressure that government is … because …. If you are [then trying to [ ] and [it’s the donars that are ….that are saying what] And I think the way we look at the financial issue … we will have to go back and look at things. [-------------------]

Chair: OK, Thank you,

S. Kothari: Ok, I am [S ] Kothari from [ ] in Delhi, also associated with [ ]. I [actually lost] what Shekhar and Archana had said. I want to take back the debate into a slightly different direction. Just to go through, we discussed some very critical issues. One is a question that I keep asking myself, and [ ] for the last 2 years. [ ] to have to continue to accept implementing changes in the World. The kind of sensibility and sentiment that’s been in the documents, that’s been in the …. That underscores the points that colleagues have made, friends have made, point very much to an agenda and a politics that is for more radical and seeks for more fundamental structural changes than… than the current political processes around the world are willing to accommodate, the dominant political processes. And at most, when we come up in those ….. in dominant political systems … when we come up with solutions, most of those solutions are what is [generally] accommodating a small, marginal incremental change, without fundamentally addressing the structural questions at land. You can see in fact in so many of the … of the people who are gathered here in the WSF today. Which the celebrations but also the immense frustrations between the policies that have been made and the practice on the ground. On a 30 years for instance, the forest areas across the countries, the forest departments… and they are, I mean, in a sense, not all of them, but …. And not all of issues …. But, have been working physically with the police to physically bulldoze people who are living in these villages… an a massive scale. When I mean, if one looks at therefore… and that’s just one small example of the immense and multiple level of victimisation. And not just human victimisation but victimisation of all forms of lives on the planet, that are occurring on a daily basis. What, therefore, I’ll be proposing in more concrete terms …to first understand this reality collectively… to understand collectively therefore also what are the … the antagonistic political institutions and processes, because I think we understand them, but when it comes to really fundamentally addressing them as political parties and political activists, we somehow shy away and only get… try to get satisfied at some levels with [incremental] solutions a [incremental responsibilities]. We live.. I mean, I don’t know many of you will agree with me on this, but we live under an imperial project, globally. A re-colonisation process on a massive scale has been underway for [ ] years. And yet, I don’t think, …. The kind of victimisation I gave as an example, I don’t think that we are as sharply or as collectively. Let us say the solution of agrarian unit to an world environmental organisation. It’s an important thing. The unit has opened up some important political spaces, has gathered scientific expertise, and has opened spaces for people’s voices to be expressed. But in the grossly inequations political order that we have at the moment, upgrading it to a world environmental organisation is not going to change anything. I would contend, because it is just going to multiply the bureaucracies that legitimise the present system and only

occasionally accommodate and implement change. Second issue related to this is our schooling and university system. We have seen this in India, but this is true of everywhere in the world,. I don’t think that the pace and scale at which our curricula needed to be transformed and need to be transformed, that enough energy and emphasis and focus has children to this world, and training them and schooling them, bringing them to our universities, where a majority of them, and a majority of their parents have sensibilities which are antagonistic to the kind of values and principles and ethics that our charters and that our… that we are striving towards. I think we need to address that again for more fundamentally – why are we privileging the technocratic, managerial orientations much more comprehensive and collections, and equally, I think, we should in fact spend a little time talking about that, and equally most of comprehensive collective understand of what are the enabling processes.

For Hindi click here

Courtesy: Sienepuu foundation http://www.siemenpuu.org and Coalition for Environment and Development

Copyleft. Any part of the content on this site can be used, reproduced, or distributed freely by anyone, anywhere and by any means. Acknowledgement is appreciated.

Designed and maintained by CAPITAL Creations, New Delhi. Phone 91-11-26194291