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 ade 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 8THJULY
-19h: Dinner
– Informal get together
SATURDAY 9THJULY
-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 10THJULY
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.