The Triglav Circle met from 8 -10 July at the Domaine de la Garde in Bourg on Bresse. The meeting was hosted by Friedrich and Margarete Von Kirschbach, owners of the chateau and the association “Les Amis de la Garde.” The gathering discussed the topic: Enriching the United Nations 2030 Agenda with the Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’. Please refer …..
See: http://lesamisdelagarde.fr/le-domaine
Introduction :
SEMINAR ORGANIZED BY THE TRIGLAV CIRCLE
8th-10th July 2016
Domaine de La Garde, Bourg en Bresse, Ain, France
ENRICHING THE UNITED NATIONS 2030 AGENDA WITH THE ENCYCLICAL LETTER LAUDATO SI
EXPLANATORY NOTE AND THEMES FOR SELECTION OF QUESTIONS IN AN AGENDA[1]
I OBJECTIVES OF THIS SEMINAR
The 24thof May 2015, Pope Francis issued his Encyclical Letter, Laudato Si’, On Care for Our Common Home. Four months later, the 25thof September 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted an extensive text entitled Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. And, on 12th December, the conference on climate change held in Paris under the aegis of the United Nations adopted the Paris Agreement.[2]
The Encyclical Letter and the two documents from the United Nations have all the profound differences that can be expected between a text written and signed by the head of a religious institution and texts negotiated by representatives of the governments of sovereign States. But they are also significantly linked. Their intended audience is humanity. Their subject, though approached in a general or specific way, is the same: how to address our current problems and secure our future. And, there is strong evidence that Laudato Si’, together with other initiatives of Pope Francis directly aimed at the United Nations, had a real influence on the content and successful adoption of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement.
Such help will even be more needed in the months and years ahead as the implementation of international agreements is always much more difficult than their adoption and, without any doubt, it will be provided. The extraordinary esteem and affection universally bestowed to Pope Francis and the resonance of his words and writings will continue, with or without his physical presence, to have some degree of influence on world affairs. In addition to the Catholic Church, other religious institutions and countless numbers of individuals and groups are and will continue to use Laudato Si’ as a source of inspiration for their efforts at giving concrete meaning to the promises and commitments made by their governments in New York and Paris.
Given the all too obvious fact that in such domain every effort, however small, counts, and more is never too much, the purpose of this Seminar is to explore the contribution that the Triglav Cicle, namely a small group of persons sharing interest in global issues, could make in the coming years.
Before proposing some themes for reflection three points need to be made.
First, some basic characteristics of the two United Nations texts need to be noted. Viewed in most circles as the best possible and even “miraculous” achievement given the meager results of previous negotiations on climate change and the prevalent global political circumstances, the Paris Agreement has most of the characteristics of a treaty and it has already been signed by 177 States.[3] It will hopefully enter into force before long and it is a solid base for action to address a problem widely recognized as a threat to the future of humankind. Its implementation will require considerable efforts, notably in the countries that happen to be in a position of world leadership and are also the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. But the Agreement will benefit from the strong and growing awareness of the threat that global warming represents.
Very different is the 2030 Agenda. Contrary to the Paris Agreement, its preparation and adoption has been hardly noticed by the world media. It is not a treaty but a mere Declaration. Its scope is very large, extending from goals related to the protection of the environment and the pursuit of development –linked by the concept of sustainability, to the goal of promoting “peaceful and inclusive societies.” A number of its 17 Goals and 169 targets are very general and the choice of policies is left to governments. The monitoring of the progress of this implementation is also largely decentralized. To “crown” all these weaknesses, the 2030 Agenda is largely unknown to the general public and the pressure on governments, especially in the countries of the North, is likely to be very limited.[4]
Yet, this very imperfect and overly ambitious Agenda should be supported by all possible means. Suffice to mention two compelling reasons. First it is the only global instrument of this scope available today. It has the unique legitimacy of a text adopted by a public organization with the broadest mandate and universal membership. In a world affected by multiple problems of great magnitude and severity, it will be ill advised to neglect any potential source of improvement. International cooperation is a greater necessity than ever in the recorded history of humankind. And, despite their limitations and, for some, loftiness, the goals it contains are non-objectionable and good.
The second point is that support for the implementation of the Paris Agreement cannot be separated from support to the 2030 Agenda.[5] In fact, if one agrees with the affirmation of the Agenda that all its goals and targets are interconnected – one of the Encyclical Letter central theme is “that everything in the world is interconnected” – the most important measures that are at the core of Paris Agreement for the “mitigation” of and “adaptation” to climate change are unlikely in themselves to produce the desired results, even if they are fully implemented. Progress towards the realization of the Goals and targets of the Agenda will also be necessary.
This is most certainly the case for Goal 12, Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns and its 11 targets. At least since the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1982, changes in “patterns of production and consumption” are seen as necessary to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. And, since a few years, as the reality of global warming and the extent of its consequences became more widely acknowledged, the view that the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions and other “technical” measures have to be accompanied by even more fundamental – and difficult – changes in life-styles and therefore in the dominant model of what constitutes “development” and “progress,” has gained some recognition. The Paris Agreement only “recognizes” this point in one of the paragraphs preceding its 29 Articles.[6]
Moreover, this Goal 12, with its attached targets, is itself in glaring need of “enrichment” as are even more all the Goals related to the economy, not to mention the quasi complete silence of the Agenda on the dysfunction of the global economic system and the subordination of economy to finance. And, on all these points, and many others, the teachings of the Letter of Pope Francis are extremely rich. Thus, the example of one “transformation” of the world which is very likely to be necessary for humankind to keep within tolerable (?) limits the extent and consequences of global warming, illustrates the position taken for the preparation of this Seminar that support for the 2030 Agenda is essential and that Laudato Si’ is a precious source for the enrichment of this product of international cooperation in the United Nations.
Thirdly, a few of the general characteristics that, in the context of this Seminar, might be called “weaknesses,” and the corresponding “strengths” of the Letter, are the following:
- The Agenda reflects the dominant spirit of the time; the Letter makes a vigorous critique of this dominant spirit, including of the philosophy that shapes it (see in particular Chapter Three, The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis) and includes an alternative view of Man, Society and Nature (see in particular Chapter Six, Ecological Education and Spirituality.)
- The Agenda uses a language that might be characterized as the “lingua franca” of today’s international relations and organizations (“development” “sustainable” “inclusive” “partnerships” ‘win-win” ….) The Letter criticizes the current content of a number of these words and concepts and carefully defines the concepts it uses (notably Integral Ecology, the Common Good, Human Fulfillment, Spirituality, Nature, Solidarity, Power, Freedom…)
- The Agenda presents a list of “immense challenges” and evokes a “time of immense opportunity” (see paragraphs 14 and 15); the Letter present an analysis of the “ecological crisis” of our time and links it with a “cultural, ethical and spiritual crisis” (see Letter, Chapter Three, The Human Roots of the Ecological Crisis)
- The Agenda avoids an analysis of the causes of these “immense challenges”; the Letter is very forceful on the philosophical, cultural and political origins of the “complex crisis” the world is immersed in. (throughout the Letter, including in Chapter One, What is happening to our Common Home.)
- The Agenda presents a “supremely ambitious and transformational vision” which is of a world having achieved the goals it (the Agenda) sets (paragraphs 7 to 9); the Letter rooted in the realities and problems of today’s world observes that “we still lack the culture needed to confront the crisis,” deplores the “lack of ethical horizons,” states that “we know that things can change,” asks us “to think one world with a common plan” and evokes “the excitement and drama of human history, in which freedom, growth, salvation and love can blossom, or lead towards decadence and mutual destruction.” (paragraphs 53,13,79)
- Whereas the Agenda says little on the steps that would lead to the achievement of the goals it sets, the Letter indicates with precision the “major paths of dialogue which can
- help us escape the spiral of self-destruction which currently engulfs us” (paragraph 163, introducing the five types of dialogue highlighted in Chapter Five, Lines of approach and action) and declares that “many things have to change course, but it is we human beings above all who need to change,” (…) because “a great cultural, spiritual and educational challenge stands before us, and it will demand that we set out on the long path of renewal” (paragraph 202, introducing Chapter Six, which has five parts, starting with Toward a new lifestyle, and concluding with Civic and Political Love).
II THEMES PROPOSED FOR REFLECTION
Two “groups of themes” are given below. The first group is a choice of overall issues pertaining to the nature of the two texts and their respective views of the world. In the second group, four Goals have been selected: Goal 12, for the reasons mentioned above; Goal 1 on poverty and Goal 10 on inequality because of the importance of these two problems; and Goal 17, because it concerns the implementation of the Agenda. Comments and suggestions from the recipients of this Note are solicited. Also, participants in the Seminar are invited to prepare short introductory papers on broad or specific topics. As already indicated in footnote 1, on the basis of such ‘inputs” an agenda and programme of work will be prepared immediately before the meeting in La Grange.
First group of themes: Overall Issues
1-The first question pertains to the very idea underlying this Seminar. Rather than a preliminary question, first to be addressed (it might then become the “first and the last” because of the “intensity,” “difficulty” of the debate, or the exasperation, boredom, or…defection of participants) it should perhaps be briefly introduced at the very beginning of this encounter in La Grange and taken again at the end, Sunday afternoon. After this very “precautionary” introduction, here it is:
The Agenda may be taken as a typical “political” discourse and the Letter as a typical “spiritual” discourse. How can the first be “enriched” by the second ? At what “levels” can such “essentially” different discourses meet? Are there possible “passages” between them? It has to be a continuous process, but with what points of entry for the “spiritual”? Is it that the enrichment can take place only in the minds/souls/hearts (some will call this “intelligence”) of all of us, individual persons? Then, the only valid effort will be to promote the reading and study of Laudato Si’ by as many “decision-makers” as possible.
This question (obviously not formulated) has a long history in the United Nations, though with the “spiritual” always associated with the “moral.” An example was the attempt at elaborating a “global ethic.” A more modest example was the convening in 1994 of the Seminar on Ethical and Spiritual Dimensions of Social Development, of which the Triglav Circle is an “offspring.”
2-The Agenda is “a-historical”: the problems of to-day have no identified causes, except the non-achievement of previously set objectives, and these problems are projected in the future as their resolution becomes goals to reach. The Agenda is also reflecting a linear conception of history, with no admission of regression in any domain and the use of the idea of progress inherited from pre-World War I scientism. The Letter is doing exactly the opposite. From the perspective of making “progress” in the alleviation of specific problems, at what level of action are these traits of the Agenda an impediment?
3-Within the same cultural logic, the Agenda is also “responsibility-free” and “blame-free,” and this benevolence is attributed not only to all governments but to all other “partners,” including corporations and other public and private organizations. The Letter is again doing exactly the opposite. From the same perspective, same question as above: at what level of action does this diplomatic discretion of the Agenda matters?
4-Also related: the Agenda refers to international law and international norms as deserving “respect” but never as requiring further development, neither through new laws and norms, nor through a strengthening of the existing arrangements for monitoring compliance. This stance includes international human rights law. The Letter emphasizes the necessity of “stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions” with the capacity to impose “penalties” and “sanctions.”[7] The Paris Agreement, which is definitely a very important addition to international law, has a very strong and a-priori very reliable “mechanism to facilitate implementation of and promote compliance with (its) provisions, but not to impose “penalties” or “sanctions.”[8] Even if this Paris “formula” proves to be successful this year and the following, which other goals of the Agenda might be expected to achieve a reasonable level of implementation by 2030 if global legal instruments remain as they are today?
5– With a similar apparent confidence in the worldview dominant in international organizations, the Agenda seeks to eliminate poverty, reduce inequality within and among countries and achieve sustainable development in the world without major changes in the current functioning of the world economy.[9] The Letter is sharply critical not only of the way the globalized economy is currently working but more generally of the modern view of the purposes of human activity and of the usage of property. Pope Francis sees the reorientation of the economy towards the common good[10] as a condition for hearing “both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.[11]” This should be seen as a “categorical imperative.” What are the paths that could lead the world in this direction?
6– A strong emphasis is given in the Agenda, and in the Paris Agreement, to science and technology and technological innovation as an essential means to bring the economies and societies of the world on a sustainable path.[12] Technological innovative development will be promoted by purposeful financing and other incentives. On this point, the Agenda does not connote a complete “laissez-faire” economic doctrine, as it generally does. Nevertheless, if the current dominant credo of a limited role of states and other public organizations, including international, in the economy continue to prevail in the coming years, will this limited concession to interventionism be sufficient to warrant a global sustainability ? In his Letter, Pope Francis celebrates in a lyrical manner the achievements and promises of a well directed (our underlining) “technoscience.” At present, however, the economy, politics and all facets of society are dominated by the “technocratic paradigm,” and “the idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable.”[13]
7– Perhaps approximately since the 1960s, for most people the “environment” is a familiar and unambiguous word. And for most of us, including those who are participating in the elaboration and adoption of texts such as the 2030 Agenda, it is equally clear that the words “nature”, the “earth”, “our planet”, not to mention “the universe” have a more comprehensive meaning. Our use of each of these words depends on the context and on our intentions. At least since the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, “the environment” is the term almost exclusively used by international organizations for their negotiated agreements, programmes and operational activities.[14] Also since the 1970s, however, there have been various but continuous efforts to introduce “nature”, and also expressions such as “Mother Earth” in the United Nations discourse. With limited results, as evidenced by the content of the 2030 Agenda.[15] What are the reasons for this reluctance in diplomatic circles to go “beyond” the words “the environment”? For the implementation of the goals and targets of the Agenda, does the marginal use of the word “nature” matter? The Letter sees the current and dominant understanding of “the environment” as one of the causes and manifestations of the complex and deep crisis humankind is confronted with.[16]
8-The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development is an essential component of the 2030 Agenda. “Partnership” is a relatively new element in the culture of the United Nations that emerged around the 1980s with a number of other terms, including “globalization” and “governance”, and was elaborated through successive resolutions of the General Assembly. The Agenda calls for “a revitalized and enhanced Global Partnership (…) bringing together Governments, civil society, the private sector, the United Nations system and other actors and mobilizing all available resources” (paragraph 60). And, consistent with the current views of the major powers of our time, the Agenda does not mention any strengthening of the United Nations Organization. The “follow-up and review processes” of the Agenda will merely “benefit from the active support (our underlining) of the United Nations system and other multilateral institutions” (paragraph 74(i). Thus, except for the Paris Agreement with its “treaty-like” provisions, the “global partnership” will have to function without a central international authority. According to the Letter “there is urgent need of a true world political authority.” (paragraph 175.) Comments are invited on this sharp contrast. Goal 17, Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, is considered below.
Second group of themes: Enriching four selected goals
The Goals ought to be seen as a “given.” Additions of new goals or changes in the formulation of the current ones by the General Assembly are excluded, unless fundamental changes in the United Nations were to occur. However, notably because of their general nature, these Goals are wide open to different interpretations by governments and by all “partners” involved. Even more so since the targets attached to them are “aspirational and global, with each Government setting its own national targets guided by the global level of ambition but taking into account national circumstances.”(paragraph 55.) Therefore, the possibilities for enriching the goals of the Agenda, at present, in the years ahead, and at all levels of their implementation, and for introducing goals which are missing in the Agenda through new targets, are unlimited.
All the Goals can be improved, all need to be made “operational” through precise policies, and all will require strong and continuous support to be at least partially achieved. However, some of the Goals are sufficiently precise to generate actions from all concerned, have received at least a beginning of implementation, and are already benefiting from a varying but large support, including in the affluent Western countries. In this “category” one might put Goal 5, on gender equality, and Goals 13, 14 and 15 which are about climate change and other well acknowledged problems of the natural environment.
The selected Goals 1, 10, 12 and 17, are in great need of enrichment and support.
For each of these Goals some of their “deficiencies” and related possibilities for enrichment suggested by the reading of Laudato Si are mentioned.
1 Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere:
Seven targets, four “by 2030” (1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5); three without date (1.3, 1.a, 1.b)
-All its forms? Apart from target 1.5, the Agenda seems to refer only to “traditional” income-related poverty.
– Everywhere? The formulation of the targets (and the text of the whole Agenda) suggest that in line with the political culture of the UN on matters of “development” only the “developing countries” and especially the “least-developed” among them where in the minds of the negotiators of the Agenda.
-Through which policies? Left to countries, with various forms of assistance from the North to the South; no mention of the related Human Rights, of redistributive measures, of changes in national and international economic policies and structures.
-No mention of the causes of poverty, except the partial achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (see paragraphs 16 and 17).
The Letter: invites us “to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry the poor” ( paragraph 49); the poor are everywhere in the world; the “excluded” is the right term, because material poverty resulting from lack of income is not the only form of poverty(paragraph 49); there is “an intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet”; vulnerability is also a form of poverty: “the deterioration of the environment and of society affects the most vulnerable people on the planet”(paragraph 48); the “infinite dignity” of each human being (paragraph 65); “Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work.” (paragraph 128) “In the present conditions of global society, where injustices abound and growing numbers of people are deprived of basic human rights and considered expendable, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest of our brothers and sisters.”(paragraph 158)
2 Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries
Ten targets: three “by 2030”(10.1, 10.2, 10.c); the other seven without date.
-Reduction of inequality delinked from reduction (“ending”) of poverty.
-No suggestion of why reduction of inequality “within” and inequality “among” are in the same goal.
-Inequality within: targets 10.1 to 10.4:
Inequality in income is the only type of inequality specifically mentioned and “targeted”; see the merits of target 10.1
The general character of targets 10.2 and 10.3 (“inclusion”, equal opportunity, non-discrimination…) opens possibilities for enrichment, including for the overall issue of the protection of human rights which is absent from the Goals and targets of the Agenda, with the exception of target 16.10 and its reference to the “protection of fundamental freedoms”.
Target 10.4 is also vague but since it includes one of the two references[17] to fiscal policies in the list of Goals and targets, it offers openings.
-Inequality among: targets 10.6, 10.a, 10.b. and also 10.5
Apart from 10.5, these targets are limited to three traditional issues: representation of developing countries in global international economic and financial institutions,[18] application of a WTO principle, and financing of development through Official Development Assistance (ODA) and other sources.
Target 10.5, the only reference to “global financial markets and institutions” in the Agenda is “interesting” in at least two respects: its placing under Goal 10 shows that the countries interested in that issue could only obtain from their (powerful) opponents its mention as a source of inequality between countries; but, it also provides a perfect opening, as targets 10.2 and 10.3 for human rights.
-Targets 10.7 and 10.c are also interesting, and important, for comparable reasons. Their placement under Goal 10 is not totally unjustified but remains a weak alternative to other possible ways of integrating in the Agenda the question of movements of people across and within borders and the related human rights and humanitarian issues, notably: a separate Goal, a treatment under a goal of human rights and humanitarian assistance (like the protection of human rights, humanitarian issues are largely absent from the Agenda), or under a goal on population trends and related issues (another “lacunae” of the Agenda).
In the Letter:
-“We should be particularly indignant at the enormous inequalities in our midst, whereby we continue to tolerate some considering themselves more worthy than others.” (paragraph 90)
-“The vision of “might is right” has engendered immense inequality, injustice and acts of violence against the majority of humanity, since resources end up in the hands of the first comer or the most powerful: the winner takes all. Completely at odds with this model are the ideals of harmony, justice, fraternity and peace as proposed by Jesus( …) Whoever would be great among you must be your servant.” (paragraph82)
-“The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of property.” (paragraph 93)
-“We know how unsustainable is the behavior of those who constantly consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. This is why the time has come to accept decrease growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth.”(paragraph193)
-“The mindset which leaves no room for sincere concern for the environment is the same mindset which lacks concern for the inclusion of the most vulnerable members of society. For the current model with its emphasis on success and self-reliance, does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented to find opportunities in life.”(paragraph 196)
3 Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Eleven targets: four “by 2030” (12.2, 12.3, 12.5, 12.8); one “by 2020” (12.4); seven without date.
-Apart from the implementation of the existing Framework mentioned in 12.1 (which is managed by UNEP and, subject to verification, essentially providing assistance to developing countries for their implementation of sustainable consumption and production patterns) the domains covered by the targets are: natural resources (12.2); waste and losses (12.3,12.4, 12.5); a general “encouragement” to transnational companies to behave sustainably(12.6); the promotion of sustainable “public procurement practices”(12.7); the provision of “information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.”(12.8); the support to developing countries to “strengthen their scientific and technological capacity (…)”(12.a); sustainable tourism (12.b); and a much qualified, prudent and tentative effort to “rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies (…)”(12.c).
– All these targets, with the exception of 12.8, are within the “territory” of existing international negotiated agreements.
– 12.8 is new, limited as it mentions only the “information and awareness” of “people”, but it provides the only opening to the two critical and related issues of lifestyles and “nature” as a concept “enveloping” “the environment.”
– 12.6, one of the few (only?) targets mentioning explicitly “large and transnational companies” is remarkable by its vagueness (“to adopt sustainable practices”), by the minor import (true?) of the only precision it offers(“integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle”, and by its deferent tone (“encourage”). But, it gives a most important opening.
The Letter: The reading of Chapters Four Five and Six is imperative.
4 Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implemention and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development
Five sections and 19 targets: five in Finance; three in Technology; one in Capacity-building; three in Trade; and seven in Systemic issues, which has three sub-sections: Policy and institutional coherence, three targets; Multi-stakeholder partnerships, two targets; Data, monitoring and accountability, two targets. Of the 19 targets: one “by 2030”(17.19); one “by 2020”(17.18); the other 17 without date.
This Goal is a hybrid: in four (Finance, Technology, Capacity-building, Trade) , of its five sections and all their related 12 targets, it summarizes, and sometimes expand targets which are already mentioned in previous Goals and these 12 targets are all about the various forms of support and assistance to be provided by developed to developing countries.
In the remaining section, Systemic issues, the seven targets are “new”, in the sense of not being repeats (except 17.15, “respect for the policy space…”), summaries or expansion of previously mentioned targets and only part of one (17.19, on the development of measurements of progress that complement GDP) can be of interest to both developed and developing countries. As to the six other targets of this section: under the promising title of the first sub-section, Policy and institutional coherence, one target, the enhancement of “global macro-economic stability” has been on the agenda of the IMF for many years, and the two others, “policy coherence for sustainable development” and respect for “each country’s policy space and leadership to implement policies …” are vague enough and of little relevance to developed countries; of the remaining three targets, two relates to the Global Partnership and are in the North-South logic, and one is on supporting the production of reliable and disaggregated statistics in developing countries.
Goal 17 therefore confirms the rather obvious fact that the Agenda was constructed and adopted in the logic of the notion of “development” as seen traditionally by the United Nations: “development” is to be promoted in the “developing countries” – and more and more in the “least-developed” countries as the “emergent economies” joined the “club” of the developed countries, notably through the “Group of 18”; the “environment” is a global issue of concern to all countries, particularly since “climate change” became evident, but with a particular “responsibility” of the countries at the origin of the industrial revolution. And, “sustainable” is a bridge between that remains “one-way”: are there developed countries with programmes for their “sustainable development”?
It follows, again logically, that the “means of action” of Goal 17 are almost exclusively addressed to the developing/least developed countries. For the problems of the “environment”, of which the developed countries, particularly those belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are obviously very aware, these affluent countries used their own policies and the legal and quasi-legal instruments agreed upon in regional and international fora, including the United Nations. The Paris Agreement is the most recent and probably the most important of these instruments.
In short, on world issues that are not directly related to peace and security (in the present understanding of these terms which is larger than what the Charter envisaged), the affluent or simply militarily and economically powerful countries “need” the United Nations only to bring the poorer and weaker countries “In line” with their own objectives. These can be, and are sometimes predominantly in the interest of the poor countries and of the world. They can also be, and unfortunately are often, self-interested.
The “conclusion” is that for everything in the Agenda that the developed countries see relevant for their current perception of the environmental problems of the world (Goals 13, 14, 15 and perhaps some targets of other Goals), these countries will be “on board.” For the rest of the Agenda, they will be involved only to the extent that they care to meet the commitments they made in the context of the “North-South” cooperation, which is conducted through and outside the United Nations.
The last point to be made (with apologies for the length of this “commentary”) is that this is the present situation. For those of us seeing the world as “our common home”, there is strong evidence of “progressive” forces everywhere. Not only in the most affluent countries. And there is also all too strong evidence of “regressive” forces, everywhere. In the short, medium and long terms the political configuration of the world may or rather is likely to change dramatically. The victory of the progressive or regressive forces will not be the result of some sort of “historical determinism”.
At this Seminar, perhaps the question of how to make “the common good” (defined in the Letter in paragraph 156 and elaborated in this section IV of Chapter 4) the common pursuit of the various partners in the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development could be touched upon.
The Letter, as part of the plea for the pursuit of the common good, insists on the acute and scandalous living conditions of all the “excluded” in the world; denounces strongly the situation of the poor countries and blames the policies and behavior of the powerful, be they countries, corporations, or the dominant elites in both rich and poor countries, or in fact all of us when we think and behave egoistically. It sees the world as is, without any complacency, and that includes the Catholic Church. But it does not see a better future, even a future, in “sustainable economic growth” and “sustainable development”. The “Lines of Approach and Action” it outlines are most concrete and most practical. And they are also very demanding of all of us individuals, of States, of International organizations, and of all private and public institutions. Pope Francis is inviting us to share with him the results of his “lengthy reflection which has been both joyful and troubling.” These results do not include a casual dismissal of instruments for the betterment of the human condition, as is the 2030 Agenda produced by the United Nations. Neglecting this instrument would contribute to “the globalization of indifference”.
Annex 1 below first lists the 17 Goals and indicates the number of targets and also of indicators attached to each. In its paragraphs 48, 75 and 83, the Agenda mentions the need for a “global indicator framework” to be used for the monitoring at the global level (the United Nations) of the Goals and targets. Such a framework was elaborated by the Statistical Commission of the United Nations and endorsed by the Economic and Social Council during its spring session of 2016. It can be found in document E/2014/24. The indicators listed in this framework “are not necessarily applicable to all national contexts. Indicators for regional, national and subnational levels of monitoring will be developed at the regional and nationals levels.” Also, they “are subject to future refinement.” Thus, “openings” for enrichment are also with these indicators.
The second part of Annex 1 is a complete Goal 12, with its targets and indicators.
Annex 2 gives the “Contents” of the Encyclical Letter to facilitate the search for the paragraphs quoted in this Note and also because the reading of this Contents is in itself source of “enrichment”.
ANNEX 1 GOALS OF THE 2030 AGENDA ( with target and indicators for Goals 12)
Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere (7 targets and 9 indicators)
Goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture (8 targets and 15 indicators)
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages (14 targets and 25 indicators)
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality of education and improve lifelong learning opportunities for all (10 targets and 11 indicators)
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls (9 targets and 14 indicators)
Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all (8 targets and 10 indicators)
Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all (5 targets and 10 indicators)
Goal 8. Promote sustained inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all (12 targets and 14 indicators
Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation (8 targets and 12 indicators)
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries (10 targets and 12 indicators)
Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (10 targets and 13 indicators)
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production pattern (11 targets and 12 indicators)
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact (5 targets and 5 indicators)
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development (10 targets and 10 indicators)
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainable manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss (12 targets and 15 indicators)
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels (12 targets and 21 indicators)
Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development (19 targets in 5 sections and 24 indicators)
Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
12.1 Implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries
12.1.1 Number of countries with sustainable consumption and production (SCP) national action plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority or target into national policies
!2.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
12.2.1 Material footprint and material footprint per capita
12.3 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
12.3.1 Global food loss index
!2.4 By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their li cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment
12.4.1 Number of parties to international multilateral environment agreements on hazardous and other chemicals and waste that meet their commitments and obligations as required by each relevant
12.4.2 Treatment of waste, generation of hazardous waste, hazardous waste management by type of treatment
!2.5 By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
12.6 Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
12.6.1 Number of companies publishing sustainable reports
12.7 Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities
12.7.1 Number of countries implementing sustainable procurement policies and action plans
12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and life styles in harmony with nature
12.8.1 Percentage of educational institutions with formal and informal education curricula on sustainable development and life styles topics
12.a Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production
12.a.1 Number of green patent applications over total
12.b Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promote local culture and products
12.b.1 Residual flows generated as a result of tourism; direct GDP
12.c Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by remeoving market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fuly into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities
!2.c.1 Amount of fossil fuel subsidies per unit of GDP (production and consumption) as a proportion of total national expenditure on fossil fuels
Annex II CONTENTS OF LAUDATO SI’
Laudato SI’,mi’ Signore (1-2)
Nothing in this world is indifferent to us (3-6)
United by the same concern (7-9)
Saint Francis of Assisi (10-12)
My Appeal (13-16)
CHAPTER ONE: WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COMMON HOME (17-61)
I POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE (20-26)
Pollution, waste and the throwaway culture (20-22)
Climate as a common good (23-26)
II THE ISSUE OF WATER (27-31)
III LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY (32-42)
IV DECLINE IN THE QUALITY OF HUMAN LIFE AND THE BREAKDOWN OF SOCIETY (43-47)
V GLOBAL INEQUALITY (48-52)
VI WEAK RESPONSES (53-59)
VII A VARIETY OF OPINIONS (60-61)
CHAPTER TWO: THE GOSPEL OF CREATION (62-100)
I THE LIGHT OFFERED BY FAITH (63-64)
II THE WISDOM OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS (65-75)
III THE MYSTERY OF THE UNIVERSE (76-83)
IV THE MESSAGE OF EACH CREATURE IN THE HARMONY OF CREATION (84-88)
V A UNIVERSAL COMMUNION (89-92)
VI THE COMMON DESTINATION OF GOODS (93-95)
VII THE GAZE OF JESUS (96-100)
CHAPTER THREE: THE HUMAN ROOTS OF THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS (101-136)
I TECHNOLOGY, CREATIVITY AND POWER (102-105)
II THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM (106-114)
III THE CRISIS AND EFFECTS OF MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRISM (115-136)
Practical relativism (122-123)
The need to protect employment (124-129)
New biological technologies (130-136)
CHAPTER FOUR: INTEGRAL ECOLOGY (137-162)
I ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ECOLOGY (138-142)
II CUTURAL ECOLOGY (143-146)
III ECOLOGY OF DAILY LIFE (147-155)
IV THE PRIMCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD (156-158)
V JUSTICE BETWEEN THE GENERATIONS (159-162)
CHAPTER FIVE: LINES OF APPROACH AND ACTION (163-201)
I DIALOGUE ON THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY (164-175)
II DIALOGUE FOR NEW NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICIES (176-181)
III DIALOGUE AND TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION-MAKING (182-188)
IV POLITICS AND ECONOMY IN DIALOGUE FOR HUMAN FULFILLMENT (189-198)
V RELIGIONS IN DIALOGUE WITH SCIENCE (199-201)
CHAPTER SIX: ECOLOGICAL EDUCATION AND SPIRITUALITY (202-246)
I TOWARD A NEW LIFESTYLE
II EDUCATING FOR THE COVENANT BETWEEN HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT (209-215)
III ECOLOGICAL CONVERSION (216-221)
IV JOY AND PEACE (222-227)
V CIVIL AND POLITICAL LOVE (228-232)
VI SACRAMENTAL SIGNS AND THE CELEBRATION OF REST (233-237)
VII THE TRINITY AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREATURES (238-240)
VIII QUENN OF ALL CREATION (241- 242)
IX BEYOND THE SUN (243-246)
A prayer for our earth
A Christian prayer in union with creation
STUDY GUIDE
[1] The agenda and programme of work for this Seminar will be prepared shortly before the 8th of July on the basis of comments and suggestions that participants and other interested persons are invited to make.
[2] The texts used here are: For the Letter, The Word Among Us Press, Frederick, Maryland, USA. For the Agenda: United Nations, General Assembly, Document A/RES/70/1, 21 October 2015. For the Paris Agreement: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of the Parties, Adoption of the Paris Agreement; document FCCC/CP/2015/L.9, 12 December 2015.
[3] At the ceremony held in New York for the opening of signatures on 22 April 2016, 174 States and the European Union signed and 15 of them deposited their instruments of ratification. As of May 23, 177 States have signed and 17 have deposited their instruments of ratification. Most of these 17 States are small island countries.
[4] Question to all: is this judgment biased by the physical location of the author of this note in North-America ?
[5] The General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda before the convening of the Paris Conference, and Goal 13, Take Urgent Action to combat climate change and its impact, is explicitly put in the perspective of the negotiations on climate change which were conducted in the context of the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The implementation of the Paris Agreement will remain under the aegis of the UNFCCC.
[6] The last paragraph of the “preamble” before the 29 Articles reads as follows: “Also recognizing that sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns of consumption and production, with developed country Parties taking the lead, play an important role in addressing climate change,”
[7] See in particular paragraphs 175 and 214. In this paragraph 214 Pope Francis declares that “there is urgent need of a true world political authority.”
[8] Paris Agreement, Article 15, paragraph1. Paragraph 2: « The mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall consist of a committee that shall be expert-based and facilitative in nature and function in a manner that is transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive. The committee shall pay particular attention to the respective national capabilities and circumstances of Parties.”
[9] Attached to Goal 10, Reduce inequality within and among countries, are two targets: Target 10.5: Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulations; and Target 10.6: Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions.
[10] On the “principle of the common good” see paragraphs 156 to 158 and on “the common destination of goods” paragraphs 93 to 95.
[11] See in particular the following paragraphs: 30,51,52,53,56,78,93,106 to 114,141,210.
[12] See in particular in the Agenda, Goal 17 and its section on Technology with three targets, and paragraph 70; for the Paris Agreement, Articles 10, 16 to 19).
[13] See section II of Chapter Three.
[14] A notable exception was the adoption by the General Assembly of the Charter for Nature, but it had no follow-up and is today largely forgotten. Another exception is the relatively well-known and in many respects remarkable Earth Charter, but it was prepared and launched outside the UN and the General Assembly never endorsed it.
[15] “Harmony with nature” is used in the Preamble (see Prosperity), in paragraph 9, and in target 12.8 of Goal 12. For “Mother Earth see paragraph 59.
[16] See “in particular” Chapter One, Chapter Two, section III of Chapter III, Chapter IV.
[17] The other mention is in target 17.1 which concerns mainly the support to developing countries: “Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection.”
[18] It should be noted that target 16.8 expand 10.6; it reads: “Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance.” This presumably include the United Nations and its specialized agencies and, if so, they are seen in this Agenda as “institutions of global governance” and no longer (?) as international organizations.
Agenda :
3 July 2016
SEMINAR ORGANIZED BY THE TRIGLAV CIRCLE
Domaine de La Garde, Bourg en Bresse, Ain, France, 8-11 July 2016
Enriching the United Nations 2030 Agenda with the Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’
AGENDA AND PROGRAMME OF WORK
This agenda is derived from the Explanatory Note circulated at the beginning of May and from the comments so far received.[1] It is still provisional and certainly not rigid. This will be an informal seminar.
Throughout this seminar and across the points/issues for debate proposed below, participants are invited to keep in mind, reflect upon and express their views on three “running themes”:
-The first is the idea of “interconnectedness.” Laudato Si’ is based on “the conviction that everything in the world is connected”(paragraph 16) and this conviction is illustrated and demonstrated throughout the text, from the analysis of “what is happening to our common home” (Chapter One) to the design of an “integral ecology” (Chapter Four) and the plea for “a new lifestyle” and for “civil and political love” (section I and V of Chapter Six, Ecological Education and Spirituality). The 2030 Agenda intends to reflect an “integrated approach” and “deep interconnections” and “cross-cutting elements” across its Goals and targets (see for instance paragraph 17). But the only “glue” holding the text together is the omnipresent and ill-defined notion of “sustainability”.
-The second and related running theme is the relation (the “interconnectedness”) between the “material” and “the spiritual”. Free of all forms of dualism, the Letter presents spirituality as an intrinsic “dimension” (for lack of a better word) of humanity and as a joyful quest for wisdom and harmony with the self, with others and with the world. The “spiritual” is not separated from the “real” and respect for “reality” is one of the leitmotivs of Laudato Si’. (see paragraphs 10 to 12 for Saint Francis of Assisi; paragraph 15 for the whole “demarche” of Pope Francis and the “ethical and spiritual itinerary” which is part of this Encyclical Letter; and section IV, Joy and Peace, of Chapter VI). Contrasting with this unity, is the prevalent culture –at least in the Western world and in the international organizations – of separation of the political and spiritual realms. The very attempt at putting bridges between the United Nations Agenda and Laudato Si’ is, from this perspective, questionable, even futile. (for an introduction to this issue, see the Explanatory Note, page 5, point 1 of First Group of Themes). Another facet of this same issue is the relation between development and religion.
-The third theme that should be ever present in the course of this Seminar is that the enrichment of the 2030 Agenda is to be made through its implementation. As emphasized in the Explanatory Note this Agenda is a very imperfect but malleable and flexible instrument. New targets and new indicators can be added by the Member States of the United Nations and even the 17 Goals can be interpreted and “twisted” to accommodate truly “transformative” policies. Using Laudato Si’ as a source of inspiration, it is the duty of each organization and person of good will to seize the 2030 Agenda, with its unique scope and legitimacy, and to make it a useful tool for humanity.
Four items are proposed:
Item 1: The world according to the 2030 Agenda and according to Laudato Si’
Some of the differences between the two texts are listed on page 4 of the Explanatory Note. And some of the questions that these differences raise are indicated under the First group of themes, on pages 5 to 8. Among the topics/questions that participants may wish to address:
–Are we in a world with problems to be addressed (the Agenda) or in a world suffering from an ecological, cultural and spiritual crisis (the Letter)?
-The Agenda is in the continuity of previous international agreements, notably the Millennium Development Goals (though with marked improvements). The Letter advocates a change of course. Should this be seen only as reflecting the traditional “division of roles” between the politician/decision-maker and the public intellectual/spiritual leader?
– The Letter says that “the establishment of a legal framework which can (…) ensure the protection of ecosystems has become indispensable (paragraph 53); it also calls for “institutions empowered to impose penalties for damage inflicted to the environment (paragraph 214), for “stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions” and for “a true world political authority” (paragraph 175). The Agenda emphasizes the role of national governments and of their “partners”. It does not ask for the development of international law. And it gives to the United Nations a “supporting” function.
– The Agenda reflects a North-South vision of the world, the “unifying” force being essentially the globalized capitalist economy; the Letter, while recognizing fully the plight of the under-developed countries (see for example paragraph 51 and the “ecological debt” and paragraph 52 and the “structurally perverse system of commercial relations and ownership”) insists on “our common home”, on the “one single human family”, and is more concerned about the use and abuse of power, the distribution and concentration of wealth and income, and the many forms of corruption in both “rich” and “poor” societies, than in the ranking of countries according to their gross national product.
Item 2: Environment, Nature, Creation, Integral Ecology
The 2030 Agenda, as all negotiated documents produced by the United Nations since the Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, uses the word “environment” to depict everything that surrounds Man and its activities. The physical world and the other living species are external to Man. Nature is not part of the international language. (see Explanatory Note, page 7, point 7 of First group of themes).
For Pope Francis, this conception of the “environment” reflects a “rupture” of Man with the creation and nature: “The Harmony between the Creator, humanity and the creation as a whole was disrupted by our presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations. This in turn distorted our mandate to “have dominion” over the earth (cf Gen 1:28), to “till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). As a result, the originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual. It is significant that the harmony which Saint Francis of Assisi experienced with all creatures was seen as a healing of that rupture (paragraph 66). Chapter Two, The Gospel of Creation, has to be read in its entirety. And, when we speak of the “environment,” what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it” (paragraph 139). Chapter Four, Integral Ecology, has also to be read in its entirety.
Among the questions that might be addressed:
– The “environment,” rather than “nature,” is the word used by negotiators in international fora. Why this preference?
-Will the current dominant view of the “environment” be an obstacle to the realization of Goals 14 and 15 of the Agenda?
-Given the same assumption of an ideological “stability” in the world regarding the relations between Man and Nature, what are the prospects for a “reasonable” level of implementation of the Paris Agreement?
-For all its goals and targets, notably for those pertaining to the health of our planet, the Agenda places great hopes in scientific and technological innovations. The Letter notes that other sources and forms of knowledge should not be ignored. And it deplores a “fragmentation” of knowledge that it attributes to the domination of the “technocratic paradigm” (see in particular paragraph 110). Is there merits in this assertion?
– What could be the ways to give concrete meaning to target 12.8? (see Annex 1 of the Explanatory Note, page 17)
– Are there theoretical and/or practical objections to the “integral ecology” advocated in the Letter?
Item 3: The common good
To repeat a central point of the Explanatory Note, the 2030 Agenda is an instrument that has to be promoted, enriched and used. The world cannot afford to treat it with contempt or indifference. Its goals are “unobjectionable and good”. But it has serious shortcomings, including a lack of analysis of the causes of the problems that presently affect the world and a lack of precision on at least the contours of the policies that should be implemented to progress towards the goals it sets. This means a de facto acceptance of current policies, notably with regard to the functioning of the world economy, and of the dominant political culture of our time.
In the Encyclical Letter, these current policies and the spirit of the time underlying them are strongly condemned, a number of alternative ideas and “lines of approach and action” (title of Chapter Five) are given, and the thread linking these is the notion of “common good,” which is defined as follows: “Human ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics.” The common good is “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment” (paragraph156). An elaboration of this definition is provided in the following paragraphs, 157 to 162. (See also pages 13 and 14 of the Explanatory Note).
Participants may wish to comment on this notion of common good and on its application to any of the goals of the agenda, with perhaps a preference for goals 1, 10, 12 and 17 which were “selected” in the Explanatory Note. Among the issues/questions that might be addressed:
–The need for a “global solidarity” is mentioned in both the Agenda and the Letter: how could this notion be made operational?
– The Letter refers to “the poor” and also, more extensively, to “the excluded;” the Agenda is essentially addressing traditional material and income related poverty in developing (mostly least-developed ) countries. Should “the excluded” become part of the language of national and international public authorities?
– Goal 12 of the Agenda, Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, is both critical and in need of enrichment (see the Explanatory Note, pages 11-12, and Annex 1, pages 16-17). The Letter states that humanity need “new convictions, attitudes and forms of life,” that “a great cultural, spiritual and educational challenge stands before us,” that “it will demand that we set out on the long path of renewal,” and, on this path is the adoption of “a new lifestyle.” Simplicity, authentic freedom, altruism, social responsibility, human fulfillment, joy and happiness, are some of the features of this new style (see in particular Chapter Six). What are the reasons for not sharing this “new ethical horizon” and for not contributing to its propagation?
-The Letter strongly denounces the current “subordination” of economics to finance, of politics to both economics and finance, and of the whole dominant culture to the “new paradigms and forms of power derived from technology”. It calls for a reorientation of the economy towards the common good. What would be the steps towards such re-orientation? Do we have comments on the principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods? (paragraph 93 of the Letter)
– The Agenda, as already noted above, places heavy reliance on technology and technological innovation to progress towards the realization of its goals and targets. The Letter, while praising “science and technology as the wonderful products of a God given human creativity,” states that “technoscience” has to be “well-directed” to be a contribution to the common good of humanity (paragraphs 102 and 103). In particular, neither profit nor technological innovation should be detrimental to employment (see The need to protect employment, paragraphs 124 to 129). Are there examples of efforts in this direction?
– The Agenda also relies heavily on “partnership”, at the global, regional, national and local levels, for the implementation of its goals and targets.” Partners” include governments, corporations and organizations of the civil society. Under which conditions could the common good, as defined in the Letter, be the “glue” that would make these “partners” work together effectively? Are there examples of such cooperation?
Item 4: The follow-up of this Seminar
In the Explanatory Note, the present Seminar was conceived as the beginning of a process through which this open group of “persons sharing an interest in global issues” could use the teachings of Laudato Si’ to make a contribution to the enrichment and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the related Paris Agreement. Two days of exchanges should help clarifying the merits of this ambition and the practical ways of implementing it.
PROGRAMME OF WORK [2]
FRIDAY 8TH JULY
-19h: Dinner
– Informal get together
SATURDAY 9TH JULY
-9h: Opening of first session: Introductions
-9.30- 12h: Item 1: The world according to the 2030 Agenda and according to Laudato Si’
-13h: Lunch
-15-18h: Second session: Item 2: Environment, Nature, Creation, Integral Ecology
-19h: Dinner
SUNDAY 10TH JULY
9-12h: Third session: Item 3: The common good
13h: Lunch
14-16h: Item 4: Follow-up to this Seminar
16h: Closing of the Seminar
PROVISIONAL LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Amelie Baudot
Jacques Baudot
Birgit Balslev-Olesen
Christian Balslev-Olesen
Jean-Michel Collette
Adama Diarra
Edward Dommen
Steve Gorman
Branislav Gosovic (only Saturday 9th)
Friedrich von Kirchbach
Marguerita von Kirchbach
Margo Picken
Elise Queguiner-Baudot
Elizabeth Raiser
Konrad Raiser
Barbara Sundberg-Baudot
Michael Zammit-Cutajar (only Saturday 9th)
[1] The comments received will be made available at the beginning of the seminar.
[2] Each of the four sessions of this seminar, corresponding to the four proposed items, will be moderated by a different person.