Nuevos amigos: el trabajador social y la coordinadora del Comedor

In this section, I address the key discourses and trends underpinning the UN’s education agenda. I discuss the educational implications of the UN in the EfS section of this chapter.

The UN has a number of objectives, including accessing environmental conditions and trends; developing environmental instruments; and giving support to governments and non- government bodies for the sustainable management of the environment at the global, national and regional levels. The UN’s efficacy to realise real and effective change is compromised by resistance arising from: a lack of participation and commitment; a hierarchy of power existing among the participating nations; and competing interests arising from different agendas and priorities. Even so, the UN’s influence cannot be readily dismissed (Ma, 2012; Prior, 2010). For example, it has been responsible for bringing environmental problems to the forefront of the international arena by facilitating substantive action through the unanimous support of the Montreal Protocol in order to address ozone depletion triggered by the use of

chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) (Sunstein, 2007). The unanimous support of the Montreal Protocol shows humanity has the capacity to collaborate and to take positive action to change

27 The model of sustainable development within the UN has been constantly evolving since its inception. Capitalising on the wave of environmentalism during the 1960s, the first intergovernmental conference, aimed at reconciling socio-economic development with the environment, was the Biosphere Conference of 1968. This conference was the forerunner to the first UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, 1972. As a result, the UN formed the environmental agency United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UNEP’s early focus was to improve food, air, water and soil quality to improve human health and wellbeing. Next, the Stockholm Conference set the agenda for future conferences calling for a long-term commitment, at an international level, to collaborate and devise solutions to improve the global environment. Another outcome arising from the conference was

Recommendation 96 (Johnson & UNEP, 2013; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2005; 2007; UNEP, n.d.). This recommendation

acknowledged the positive contribution education has on the environment.

In 1987, the UN released the Our Common Future, a report from the World

Commission on Environment and Development, commonly known as the Brundtland Report. The Commission identified pressing environmental issues affecting the planet and put forward suggestions for sustainable development, defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 43). This comprehensive report recognised that unprecedented

industrial and economic practices during the 20th century had put an enormous and unsustainable strain on the Earth’s resources. It highlighted the important role education plays in establishing a sustainable future (Brundtland, 1987). Further, the chair of the World Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Norwegian Prime Minister at the time, was able to use her position to her advantage to promote the Commission’s conclusions within the highest echelons of international politics. The Brundtland Report gained the support of over 50 national leaders, including Thatcher, Gorbachev, Mitterrand and Gandhi (Johnson & UNEP, 2013). Brundtland’s actions demonstrate that even world leaders require passionate and committed leadership to inspire them work together towards the common good, for example, to address environmental degradation including climate change.

Climate change is touted regularly as being one of the greatest threats to humanity in contemporary times. Accordingly, the UN has long recognised that international co-operation is essential for industrialised nations to accept the responsibility of rising levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere, and to actively commit to reducing those levels. At the 1988 UN Toronto Conference, the principle recommendation was to cut global CO2 to 20% of 1988

28 levels by 2005. This was the same year the World Meteorological Organization and UNEP established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In 1990, IPCC findings showed that if GHG emissions were to be stabilised at 1990 levels, there needed to be a significant reduction of GHG in the atmosphere over time. The IPCC made a number of recommendations to take measures to limit the impact or adapt to climate change. An increased international commitment to mitigate climate change led to the Kyoto Protocol (Gupta, 2012; IPCC, 1990).

At the time, the Kyoto Protocol was the only international framework to combat climate change; signed in 1997, it came into force in 2005. It aimed to reduce global GHG emissions by 5.2% of 1990 levels; to encourage collaboration and transfer of green

technologies among nations; and to establish arrangements for emissions trading for the main GHG contributing to climate change (Flannery, 2005; Napoli, 2012; United Nations, 2014). Australia refused to ratify the protocol until 2007. I draw attention to some possible reasons for Australia’s conduct later in this chapter; however, during the first commitment period (2008–2012), only Australia and Iceland outstripped their projected quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment. Australia’s levels increased to 108%. In 2012, the Doah Amendment extended the Kyoto Protocol to 2020. During this second commitment period, Australia’s quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment is expected to go down to 98% with the option to move towards a target of 5%–15% or 25% below 2000 levels, albeit subject to conditions (United Nations, 2014).

Overall, the Kyoto Protocol has not lived up to expectations in fulfilling its original goals. Further, the “Kyoto Protocol may be the most bitterly contested international treaty ever to be realised” (Flannery, 2005, p. 222) and its legacy is complex and well beyond the scope of this research. The most likely reasons for the lack of consensus between nations were due to national and regional differences in economic and/or ideological principles. The provisions set out in the protocol were vague and ambiguous, thus providing opportunities to take advantages of loopholes and hinder its implementation (Ma, 2012). For example, there were inconsistent targets and benchmarks, and unrealistic targets were set too low to mitigate climate change. Short-term economic growth was favoured at the expense of the

environment. There was overall cynicism and suspicion of other nations’ lack of commitment in both developing and industrialised nations, and climate change denial refused to link human activity with increased GHG emissions (Flannery, 2005; Goodman, 2012; C. Hamilton, 2007; Gupta, 2012; Ma, 2012; Motaal, 2010; Napoli, 2012; Prior, 2010). Unlike the success of the

29 Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol demonstrates how nations are able to undermine positive long-term initiatives for short-term gains.

However, the shortfall of promised targets did not necessarily imply failure of the system. Although the group of countries committed to the Kyoto Protocol may have increased their GHG emissions by 3.4%, it was lower than the group of non-committed countries who in total increased their emissions by 27%. Germany and Belgium were success stories, reporting decreases of GHG emissions of 26.7% and 16% respectively (Aichele & Felbermayr, 2013). The counterargument highlighted discrepancies in the data, showing decreased GHG emissions from countries including Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania and Latvia from 1990–2010. When data were reanalysed to take into account emissions from 2000–2010, inconsistencies showed many of the countries with decreased emissions were former Soviet Union and satellite countries (Napoli, 2012). A likely reason for the decrease was a reduction of output due to the economic crashes that occurred during the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics (USSR), rather than a resolute commitment to reduce emissions (Napoli, 2012). Even the restructuring efforts resulting from the German Reunification could explain, to some degree, Germany’s success (United Nations, 2014).

As a final point, in spite of the apparent lack of commitment by nations to support the Kyoto Protocol, as shown in the literature, the UN has a multidimensional approach to the environment, including climate change. It remains committed to mitigating climate change and other environmental problems. One approach is through education initiatives. The IPCC have reinforced the UN’s position to undertake an international program of public education and information (Gupta, 2012; IPCC, 1990). I address the UN’s educational response to mitigate climate later in this chapter.