Let’s go out and do it? Not so much.

The “Call for Action“ at the WRF

The so-called “call for action” is more a “we’ve discussed a framework for future actions” document than a collection of activities you, your neighbour, government and business world can do right now.

 
8 points are mentioned on the one-page document. Below, I am mentioning the points as they were on the draft version, slightly shortened (one sentence per point):

1. Achieve absolute decoupling between economic development and resource use.
2. Introduce policy measures to enhance resource productivity and curb demand.
3. Put a halt to destruction of the most urgent resource areas: Fresh water, marine resources and tropical forest.
4. Focus research and development on the goal of increasing resource productivity
5. Find consensus on ecological and economic measures in tune with the laws of nature and beyond GDP by 2012.
6. Reshape the framework conditions for the economy to account for the scarcity of natural resources.
7. Have redesigned business models where revenues are derived from quality of services rather than by selling stuff.
8. Rethink global lifestyles and have traditional knowledge as guiding principles.
9. Rethink the education system in such a way as to explain the crucial importance of a healthy climate and ecosystem.

After this summary on the final paper, the floor was opened to questions. And people truly jumped upon this opportunity.
I won’t give the entire list of questions that were posted here, but rather give the range of topics and mention some that stuck out: The topics discussed ranged from changing a single word (“inspiring” instead of “guiding” in No. 8) to the role of recycling which as such does not appear in the document. Some participants suggested that entirely new paragraphs be taken in. Others made a small suggestion with a big effect, like Prof. Fischer-Kowalski who suggested not to be talking about global lifestyle, but rather just about lifestyle (there is not the one lifestyle). While Barbara Haller is concerned about how the actions can be implemented (“why just decision makers, why not everyone?”), Cesar Cevallos worries about the papers’ bias towards the so-called developed world.

The papers’ authors attempt to include suggestions when fitting and not endangering the outline of the entire paper. In some cases they let the majority decide.

 
Call for Actions...really?
So, does the paper “Call for Action” stand for a success of World Resource Forum? Does it live up to its name?

I am not sure, but have a feeling that this is not the case.
The summary is well done, giving an overview over the most pressing issues where the environment is concerned. But it serves rather as a framework for measures than an actual “Call for Action”. When reading it I expected, well, an actual call for actions: What needs to be done, and more important, how to do it.