Understanding the Workings of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) claims that it offers the world one of the most open and participatory intergovernmental processes on sustainable issues.  It believes that the original mandate given at the ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio in the Agenda 21 text was re-affirmed at the UN Summit on Sustainability in Johannesburg in 2002. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development called for CSD to meet in seven two-year “implementation cycles.” The CSD began to focus on a cluster of themes directly associated with the issue of sustainability on a two year cycle.  The present cluster of issues involves, transport, chemicals, waste management, mining and a 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Development and Consumption Patterns (10 YFP on SCP).

Preparatory process

The first year of the current cycle was 2010. It was devoted to developing the Secretary General’s report through structured contact with governments and civil society.  It produced an 8,000 word review document which has been translated into all the UN official languages. The nine Major Groups represented at the CSD come from a broad spectrum of non-government organisations and other entities from Civil Society. These include women, youth, trade unions, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, NGOs, local authorities, science and technology, business and industry. Some of the  organisations involved in choosing representatives include, the ITUC (the International Trade Union Confederation), WEDO, Women in Development, WBCSD, (The World Business for Sustainable Development) and SIND, the  organising partner for NGOs, (The Sustainable Development Issues Network). Non-government organisations have actively lobbied their governments to support enhanced participation of civil society in the CSD process.

Whereas most delegations have welcomed the presence of civil society, a number of countries, particularly from the G-77, would prefer a stricter regime of participation for non-government groups. As often happens in such cases, a certain amount of horse-trading takes place.  In the working group, the EU, US and others countries expressed a preference for a text that allowed for the engagement of a broader input into the CSD process. Following a lengthy discussion on March 3^rd 2011, a subparagraph was approved supporting the involvement of civil society and others in implementing the decisions which are taken.  As part of the trade-off, the EU, US and Australia agreed to a request by the G-77/China to delete a paragraph listing various constituencies/stakeholders, such as disabled persons, consumer groups, educators, parliamentarians, media and the elderly.

This struggle for an effective place in the negotiations for the civil society is an on-going battle.  At a meeting of representatives of the Major Groups on May 3^rd 2011, some voice their concerns that civil society groups were being squeezed out of the negotiation process.  Some of those who spoke encouraged civil society groups to lobby their respective governments and the chair of each topic groups to ensure that the space which civil society has won is not whittled away.

 

 

 

Implementation cycles

To return to the “implementation cycles”, towards the end of the first part of the two-year CSD cycle, governments, NGOs and Civil Society take part in a two-week long review session held at the UN headquarters in New York.

In the second year policy documents are developed by various elements on the UN system based on the Review Session. This becomes the basis for negotiation and is called the “Secretary General’s” document. Each of the 9 Major Groups also prepare policy documents. These documents must not exceed 1,000 words.  The CSD deals with policy outcomes at two meetings. This is the Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting which took place here in New York from the 28^th to the 4^th of March this year. The current meeting of the UN CSD from May 2^nd to 13^th 2011 is tasked with hammering out policy directives.  This often means a line-by-line negotiation which can seems tedious, slow and often boring.

The procedure is as follows. One of the members asks for a change in the Secretary General’s in the text.  He/she reads out it the change it would like to see in the text and sometimes, but not always, give a reason for the desired change.  This phrase, sentence or paragraph is inserted in the text surrounded by  brackets. The initials of the country that suggested the change is included. On the positive side, the process is inclusive and gives a voice to countries that are seldom given any prominence in world affairs.

The following snippets on some of the themes which being negotiated gives a feel for what is at stake in the present negotiations.

On transport: “There is, therefore, a need for urgent action, ranging, inter alia, from the promotion of integrated transport policies and plans, the accelerated phase-out of leaded gasoline, the promotion of voluntary guidelines and the development of partnerships at the national level for strengthening transport infrastructure, promoting and supporting the use of non-motorised transport and developing innovative mass transit schemes.”

The Text on Transport had the above additions by 8pm on May 3^rd 2011

 

[Transportation is a central component of sustainable development and economic growth.-G77] Addressing the growing transport challenges is increasingly urgent. [Access to mobility is essential to achieve the MDGs.  But growing motorized transport can have negative impacts on environment and human health.-EU]

On mining: “Minerals are essential for modern living, and mining is still the primary method of their extraction. To date, it appears that the main constraints to sustainability in the mining sector derive from the ever-increasing demand for mined resources, the consumption of resources (mostly energy and water) needed to extract and process metals, and the increasing pollution generated by the extraction process. This holds true for both large-scale, often multinational corporate, operations as well as for small-scale or artisanal ventures…….In the 20th century, the extraction of construction minerals grew by a factor of 34, while that of ores and industrial minerals by a factor of 27. This growth significantly outpaced a quadrupling of world population and a 24-fold increase in GDP.”

At a briefing on May 4^th 2011, the contact person from the Group of Nine,  reported that the US, Australia and Canada, wanted  to delete from the text all the references to the environmental aspect of uranium mining. Another destructive call from the U.S, Canada and Australia was the demand that  the phrase, “free prior consent” be removed from the text.  According to this interpretation, in a consultative process with groups who might be affected by mining, consultation does not involve the right to say no to an individual mining project.  The G-77 and China did not have all their proposals to hand, but reserved the right to insert them at the second reading of the text.

There were a few positive changes. Switzerland wanted a phrase included in the text which would make it mandatory that the payment for a mining license which governments receive from a mining corporation would automatically be made public. The G-77 and the EU argued that there should be some formula in the text to stop transfer pricing by transnational corporation.

On hazardous waste: “Effective control of the generation, storage, treatment, recycling and reuse, transport, recovery and disposal of hazardous wastes is, according to Agenda 21, “of paramount importance for proper health, environmental protection and natural resource management, and sustainable development.”

No one person can follow all the intricacies of each negotiation, so each morning at 8.30 am the Group of Nine meet and people who have been at different negotiations share their perception of what has been happening.  They judge whether the changes to the texts are designed to improve the outcome for the sustainable living, or are they really concessions to the powerful vested interests of powerful transnational corporation who are intimately involved in mining, chemical, waste management and transport.

When it comes to “walking the walk” as well as “talking the talk,” many activities at the UN show that sustainability is not high on the priority list of those who administer the building. I noticed that all food and beverages are served in paper cups, paper plates and plastic cutlery.  It was raining heavily on the morning of May 4^th 2011. When I arrived at the building I was presented with a plastic bag and invited to put my wet umbrella into the bag. Once again, the bag was for a one-off use. As I walk each morning from 39^th Street E. to the UN Building, I see scores of black bags full of rubbish outside almost every building, especially commercial one. There appears to be very little segregation of waste which would facilitate recycling. It would appear that a culture of recycling and sustainability has not yet taken deep roots here right at the heart of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. The one major change which I see here in New York since I was a student in Washington in the early 1970s, is that the size of the average car is much smaller than it was in then.

Tuesday May 10th at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

The discussion on mining continued on Tuesday May 10^th 2011, under the leadership of Yvette Banzon Abalos.  She challenged the various delegates to be more focused on the Chair’s text, rather than introducing their own new amendments. There was a long discussion on what is called small scale or artisanal mining (ASM). An agreement was reached that this should “be in accordance with national legislation,” and “subject to national priorities.”  As someone who has had first hand experience of so-called small scale mining in both the Philippines and Peru, I know that in some places it involves one or two small tunnels, where as in Huepethue in the Amazonian region of Peru I saw  huge trucks and earth movers involved in gold mining during my visit in 2009.

Naturally, this led to a prolonged discussion on the use of mercury in the mining operation.  No agreement was reached on the text. The G77/China objected to singling out mercury pollution in mining for gold when other, equally toxic chemical were not named. The EU, US Australia and the Russian Federation insisted that the reference to mercury be retained. During my time in Mindanao, I spent many hours trying to convince small scale miners about toxic nature of mercury and its various compounds.  A high dose of mercury can be fatal. Even relatively small doses can affect the nervous system.  Mercury poisoning is also linked to cardiovascular problems and disease of the immune and endocrine systems. Mercury accumulates in the body, as we learned in the Minamat disaster in Japan in the 1960s.

A lot of discussion took place around the working conditions  for miners.  Some negotiators wanted language in the text calling for improved living and working conditions. There was also condemnation of the fact that children often work in mines. Negotiators agreed that steps must be taken to ban all forms of forced and exploitative labour, especially child labour. Reference was made to the International Labour Organisation’s Convention (ILO) 176, but many groups from the civil society sector are concerned that some of the negotiators, especially those from the G-77/China, are attempting to delete all reference to particular ILO Conventions which protect workers’ rights on a number of different fronts.

Later on in the morning, paragraphs calling for the provision of education, training health services and social protection in mining communities, especially for women and children were discussed. However, the phrases, Free, Prior and Informed Consent for indigenous people was deleted from the text. The text that was accepted called on everyone to respect the land rights of local and indigenous communities in accordance with national laws and procedures at all levels on government.  The phrase that this will “include (the drawing up of) a comprehensive land use plan.”  It was also agreed that, in granting a licence to mine, indigenous people be given full and effective participation (in the decision) in accordance with nation lands and procedures (G 77). New Zealand went on to add the rider that there should be “an enforcement of environmental regulations and environmental safeguards.” The G-77/China indicated that they would have to discuss this with different member countries of their delegation before agreeing to it.

The above gives some feel for the dynamics of the debate on this crucial issue. I have already written how non-government organisations and indigenous groups see this as rowing back on previous international commitments, including the recently signed Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya in October 2010. At a lunch-time meeting with the EU negotiators, Geoff Nettelton of Indigenous Peoples Links, challenged the EU to reintroduce this phrase into the final text. He pointed out that it was an integral part of how the EU itself views indigenous people and relates to them in its own documents. We were assured that the EU would continue to lobby for the inclusion of this phrase and that it would appear prominently in the text the EU representative would present at the High Level meeting on Wednesday.  Unfortunately, It did not appear in the Statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States which was delivered by Sandor Fazekas, Minister of Rural Development of the Republic of Hungry on May 11, 2011.

Any discussion of mining at a global level always brings up the question of redress and compensation for those communities which have suffered from mining activities.  This is considered to be a thorny issue for both the US and the G-77/China and South Africa, because it opens up possibilities for people to sue mining companies for negligence. The US requested that the words “where appropriate” be included, where as China, which has a questionable safety record in relation to coal mining, wanted the paragraph scrapped. Likewise, the G-77/China was opposed to adding the paragraph focused on strengthening, legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks in relation to all mining. The EU and Canada called for separate paragraphs devoted to the environmental, social and economic impact of mining.  The G-77/China was opposed to expanding comments on the environmental, social and economic impact of mining beyond a single paragraph.

At the mid-day meeting with the EU negotiators, representatives from the seven Major Groups shared some of their concerns with the negotiators.  One recurring theme was the complaint that the space which is available to non-government groups in the aftermath of the Rio Conference have been whittled away. Some recalled the importance which Agenda 21 gave to groups from civil society.  A number of people, with expertise in particular areas, pointed out that some claims in the Chairman’s text and some of the additions which the negotiators were suggesting were factually incorrect. Yet, there was no space for representatives from the Major Groups or other organisations from civil society, to intervene and clarify things. This is a major waste of what should be very valuable resource.

Another organisational matter was also discussed. If, for example a secretariat is set up to manage some of the concrete programme and initiatives which might emerge from the 19^th Session  of the Commission for Sustainability, what role will civil society play? How would the Major Groups be involved in implementing programmes, or would it all be left to UN organisation such as United Nation Environment Programme (UNE9)? Any talk of a new agency or secretariat brings up the hoary old chestnut of governance. On the one side there is the complaint that UN text, singles out the record of multinational corporations when it speaks of social and environmental responsibility. On the other hand, ‘developing’ countries feel that when ‘developed’ countries, especially the US, bring up governance issues it is normally perceived as a critical comment, unless, of course, the country involved is seen to have  strategic importance for the US. Many people would recall the US’s minimal criticism of the 30 years reign of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and, in the past, US support for the corrupt Marcos regime in the Philippines.

Other issues to surface at the meeting include:

1. The right to know issues around the labelling of food and medicine.
2.   Policies on bio-fuel and food security.
3. When discussing technology, it is important to move beyond talking about transferring technology and to include also programmes which will foster technological innovations.

Working Group 2 resumed its discussion of Waste Management.  The negotiators discussed proposals from the EU to reduce the movement of hazardous waste across country boundaries. This text called for specific managing strategies for e-waste, industrial waste and radioactive wastes. It also recognised how mismanaging waste is related to poverty and other social issues. Since my own focus has been on the mining negotiations, I am dependent on NGO member who are tracking other negotiations to get a sense of what is happening.  I have had access to the changes texts but the changes are coming so quickly that one is loath to quote a text because it might be changed by the time you  read this report.  With the arrival of government ministers the pace of negotiations will increase. It will need to if a deal is to be sealed by Friday May 13^th 2011.

Religion and Sustainable Development Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

 

In the past, the ascetic tradition of various religions sometimes seemed to be motivated by a denial of the value of the world.  Often salvation was presented as removing humans from the natural world, as if somehow matter itself was tainted, and could not in any way be associated with the world of the spirit. Manichaeism depicted the world as radically deficient and that even the human body is somehow evil.  While many of the Fathers of the Church, including St. Augustine opposed Manichaeism, they were not always enthusiastic about the natural world or even the human body.

Some of the dominant strains for medieval Catholicism saw monasticism as a flight from the world (fuga mundi). In some places this spirituality descended into contempt for the world (contemptus mundi). This negative attitude towards the world received a new lease of life in the Catholic Church with the rise of Jansenism in the 17^th century. Bishop Jansen (1585- 1638), was Dutch Catholic theologian and a professor of theology at Louvain.  In his posthumously published book, Augustine, he amplified Augustine’s negative attitude towards the world.  Jansenism coloured and soured Catholic attitudes toward the world for 200 years.  Such negativity was not confined to Catholicism. Despite his own deep appreciation of nature, the split between the realm of the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘material’ world was also found in many forms of Protestantism.

 

Very often in the past religions, particularly Christianity, were seen to be  indifferent to the deteriorating plight of local ecosystems or the biosphere as a whole.  Religions and Churches upheld human rights and promoted social justice, often at great cost to individuals and  Churches, but their voice was seldom heard when it came to challenging the plundering of planet earth. Anthropocentric ethics promotes consumerism because it sees the rest of creation, not as closely linked to humanity, but as a resource which can be exploited for the benefit of humans.

The new ecological cosmological awareness which I wrote about yesterday must be brought into our liturgies and worship in order to integrate our work for justice and sustainability with our Christian faith. The sacraments offer an extraordinary opportunity to link respect for water, food, light and healing with the depths of the Christian tradition. Many religious prayer traditions have an ecological and cosmic dimension which can help the individual and community, move away from an almost narcissistic obsession with the human to become more aware of the deep bonding which is at the heart of all creation. In this way spirituality, rather than creating and confirming dualisms, can be an integrating force bringing together all aspects of our existence.

Today, the ascetical dimension of the various religions must be based on our understanding of the finite nature of the earth. It is also clear that the present consumerist way of living cannot be sustained and is only made possible by massive injustice towards the poor of the world and by robbing future generations of their fair share of the resources of the planet. This is an area where religions must begin to highlight the moral dimension of how we relate to and treat the natural world.  The Churches have much to learn from traditional cultures, and religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Even forms of Christianity such as Celtic Christianity have much to teach us about the intrinsic value of all creation.

The Christian Churches have much to offer also. A spirit of sacrifice and concern for others is at the heart of the Christian faith. Christians believe that, in his life, death and resurrection, Jesus gave himself, freely and unreservedly to others.  Christians are encouraged to follow this pathway of self-less love in their response to people who are living at the margins of human society through poverty, disease or conflict. That love and service today must go beyond the human and embrace the suffering planet as well. In many ways this is a new call to show generosity for others, especially species facing extinction or habitats which have been ravaged.

Religions can also offer a space for discerning and celebrating hope, even when the situation seems bleak. One of the most effective ways for the Catholic Church to give leadership in the area of protecting the planet would be for Pope Benedict XVI to call a Synod for Creation.  Each local Church could begin to reflect on creation in its own area and see how Christians could give leadership in moving towards a more sane and sustainable world.  In preparing for such a Synod, everyone in the Church, young, old, farmers, industrial workers, bankers, scientists, fishermen, theologians, contemplatives, religious, teachers, doctors, liturgists, artists, poets and writers would be able to share their insights and wisdom.  This would give a great impetus to the tasks of caring for the earth that cares for every creature. I believe it would also give new life and focus to the Catholic faith in our contemporary society.

 

Sea ice is melting at an extraordinary pace in the Arctic Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

 

This summer Arctic sea ice has melted at a rate not recorded since  satellite observations began in 1972. Floating sea ice melts in summer and early autumn and refreezes again each winter.  The problem for scientists and all of us is that the melting is happening twice as fast as it did when data collection began in 1972 and the consequences will be dire. Furthermore, scientists who have been studying this phenomenon for the past three decades claim that such an extensive melting has not happened for at least 8,000 years[1] The last time that the Arctic Ocean was free of summer ice was 120,000 years ago.

Physicists at Bremen university in Germany released data on  September 8^th 2011 showing that floating ice in the Arctic covered only 4.24 million square kilometres. The previous record low happened on September 17^th 200 when the sea ice covered 4.27 kilometres. The German researchers were adamant that the reason for this enormous change is global warming caused by climate change. Georg Heygster who is head of the Institute of Environmental Physics at Bremen said that the record melt was undoubtedly caused by human-induced global warming. The sea ice retreat cannot be explained by saying it is caused by  the natural variability we find in weather patterns. [2]

Reducing the area covered in ice and snow on the planet speeds-up global warming and climate change. The reason for this is simple. Ice and snow reflect solar radiation, whereas dark sea-water absorbs and retains the sun’s heat. This is called the albedo effect   As a result temperature changes in both the Arctic and Antarctic are about twice as high as they are in other parts of the world.

It is no wonder that Scientists at the Polar Science Centre of the University of Washington, Seattle are finding that, not only has the extent of the melt-ice increased dramatically, the ice is also thinning. One of the researchers, Axel Schweiger says that the “the ice volume is now plunging faster than it did at the same time last year when the record was set.”[3]  In 2010 the volume of sea ice was 2,135 cubic miles. This is only half the average and it is 62 percent below the maximum coverage in the Arctic recorded in 1972.

Arctic scientists predict that, if the current warming continues, the Arctic ocean will be ice-free during the summer within 30 years.  This new projection of summer-free ice in the Arctic ocean is 40 years ahead of the time-scale predicted in the 2007 Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In response to this new data Shaye Worf, the Director of the Centre for Biological Diversity in San Francisco, told journalists that “This stunning loss of Arctic sea ice is yet another wake-up call that, climate change is here now and is having devastating effects.”[4] The reason for this is that the Arctic ocean plays a crucial role in regulating and moderating the global climate.

Glaciers on land are also shrinking at an extraordinary pace. In May 2011,the Pontifical Academy of Scientists published a report entitled, Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene.  The scientists involved in researching this report came from a variety of scientific disciplines – glaciologists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, and climate scientists. The report states that carbon dioxide which is released by human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuel, was the main driver of climate change.

The Welsh glaciologist, Alan Hubbard, who works at Aberystwyth University, has come to a similar conclusion. He has been studying the Petermann glaciers in northern Greenland.  This glacier, which covers 6 percent of the icecap, is 300 kilometre long and up to 3.1 kilometre in height.  In August 2010, a 260 square kilometre block of ice calved from the Petermann glacier. Satellite data has shown that by July 2011 all the ice had melted and disappeared.  He said that “I was gobsmacked. It [was] like looking into the Grand Canyon full of ice and coming back two years later to find it full of water.”[5]

According to the report of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, “failure to mitigate climate change will violate our duty to the vulnerable [people] of the earth, including those dependent on the water supply from mountain glaciers, and those facing rising sea levels and stronger storm surges.” The document goes on to call for a worldwide reduction of carbon dioxide emission without delay.

 

 

 

---

[1]  John Vidal, “Arctic sea ice melts at fastest pace for 40 years,” The Guardian, September 12^th 2011, page 13

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] ibid

[5]  John Vidal, op.cit

New Translation of the Missal Unacceptable says the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP).

The ACP understands that the Irish Conference of Bishops has decided that the new translation of the Missal will be introduced in Ireland on the First Sunday of Advent 2011. While a new and improved version of the current missal would be welcome, this new translation is not what is needed. The ACP urgently calls on the bishops to defer its introduction for five years. During that period the bishops, together with the people and priests, can properly examine the suitability of these texts for the Irish Church.

 

The celebration of the Mass is central to our work as priests and, more importantly, to the lives of the people we serve.  In the words of the central document of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium  (The Light of the People), the Mass is “ the source and summit of the Christian life.” (LG11). Our concerns flow from our experience as pastors who attempt each Sunday to celebrate the liturgy with our people in a meaningful, dignified and prayerful way.  Many bishops, priests, lay people, theologians and liturgists across the English speaking world share our concerns

 

Opposition on the grounds of  Language

 

• A word-for-word translation from Latin into a vernacular language, mandated by the document Liturgiam Authenticam (March 2001), demonstrates a lack of awareness of the insights gained from linguistics and anthropology during the past 100 years. Translators in other international bodies follow the ‘dynamic equivalent’ norm which means translating according to the sense of the original text, rather than literally.

 

• The ACP is gravely concerned that this literal translation from Latin has produced texts that are archaic, elitist and obscure and not in keeping with the natural rhythm, cadence and syntax of the English language.  In fact, from the few available samples of the new texts, it is clear that the style of English used throughout the Mass will be so convoluted that it will be difficult to read the prayers in public. In the words of Bishop Donald Trautman, former chair of the United States Bishops’ Liturgical Committee, this is a translation where “the vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic…  how can someone read the text in public when some of the sentences contain 70 or 80 words.”

 

It is particularly ironic that this Latinised, stilted English is being imposed on Irish people who are so blessed with world-renowned poets, playwrights, and novelists.

 

• Catholics should be allowed to pray publically in their own language.  Jesus used the language of the people when he was speaking with them. The New Testament is written in the language of the ordinary people, not classical Greek.

 

• The ACP is aware of the history of this translation. It regrets that the expertise of scholars in many disciplines was spurned. Many of these scholars gave their time and talents freely to help the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), produce acceptable texts.  In 1998 the ICEL translation was accepted and approved by every conferences of bishops in the English speaking world.

 

• The translation is also in conflict with the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy which has a whole section on norms for adapting the Liturgy to the temperament and traditions of people. This allows for legitimate variations and adaptations. (No. 38).

 

• This translation runs contrary to one of the main goals of our Association, namely: That liturgical celebrations use rituals and language that are easily understood, inclusive and accessible to all.

 

 

A Theological Problem

A central teaching of the Christian Churches is that Jesus died for all people.  This meaning is conveyed in the current translation of the Latin words of consecration over the chalice, pro vobis et pro multis. The phrase is translated for you and for all in the current missal. The new text opts for the more literal translation, for you and for many. In English, the word “many” contrasts with the word “few,” so people may be led to ask, are there some for whom Jesus did not die?

 

Furthermore, in a country where ecumenism should be an important pastoral priority, it is worth noting that the new text is less ecumenical than the current one.

 

Ignoring Lay People

In Ireland, hundreds of thousands of lay people attend Mass each Sunday. This is the principal expression of their faith, the most important prayer they can offer to God and the focal point of their togetherness as a Christian and parish community.  Together we are the people of God, yet we were ignored during the period when the texts were being translated.

 

Ignoring Women

Many women will be rightly enraged by the continued deliberate use of non-inclusive language.   The ACP strongly opposes the introduction and use of any texts which will insult and offend women who are at the heart of every Christian community in Ireland.

Ignoring Priests

Priests, who work hard with their parishioners to celebrate the Eucharist in a prayerful, dignified manner, were ignored by those who translated these texts. They have a better knowledge of the prayer-life and liturgical needs of Irish Catholics than anyone in a curial office in Rome. The ACP believes that the Irish bishops should have consulted widely with their priests and people before agreeing to impose these texts on Irish Catholics,

 

Confusion and Division

The ACP believes that the imposition of the new texts could lead to chaos and confusion. The new translation may be fully implemented in some churches and rejected in others. Some priests will adopt a ‘pick-and-mix’ approach using some texts from the current Missal and others from the new translation. There may be frustration and even anger among laity, religious and priests alike. As a result, the celebration of the Eucharist, instead of being a symbol of unity, could become a focus of disagreement and division. The Irish church does not need this confusion and disharmony, especially at this time.

 

Conclusion

• The ACP calls on the members of the Irish Episcopal Conference to postpone the launch of these new translations.

 

• We ask the bishops to engage with Irish Catholics with a view to developing a new set of texts that will adequately reflect the literary genius and spiritual needs of our Church community in these modern times.

 

• We suggest that the Irish bishops take a lead from the German bishops, who have objected to “good German texts” being replaced with “unfamiliar new interpretations” and to assert the right of the Irish Conference of Bishops to make its own decisions in regard to the celebration of the Liturgy in Ireland. (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 36 § 4)

Bishops are the chief pastors of their dioceses. They should give priority to the liturgical needs of the priests and people above everything else.

 

We encourage priests, laypeople and religious to read these proposed new texts. If you share the perspective of the ACP as outlined above, we urge you to make your concerns known to the bishop of your diocese. The U.S. version of some of these texts can be found in www.usccb.org/romanmissal.

 

Since Rome is intent on imposing this new text on the Irish Catholic Church without proper consultation you might wish to share your views on this and other matters with the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, H. E. Card. Antonio CAÑIZARES LLOVERA.  cultdiv@ccdds.va

 

www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie

 

Tony Flannery (087) 6814699),  Brendan Hoban  (086) 6065055),  Sean McDonagh (087)2367612),  Gerard Alwill (087) 2305557,  PJ Madden (087) 2208882

 

 

 

The IMF are in Ireland: What can we Expect? Fr. Seán McDonagh, SSC

After weeks of denial and bluster from a variety of government ministers, the Irish Taoiseach,  Brian Cowen, announced  on Sunday November 21^st 2010, that the his government had formally applied for a multibillion euro rescue package from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The announcement marked one of the bleakest days in Irish politics almost since the foundation of the State in 1921.

Most Irish people have a good idea of the role that the European Union (EU) has  played in Irish public life for the past 40 years. Some of the EU initiatives such as the Structural Funds benefitted Ireland.  Though most people would agree that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) benefitted Irish agriculture, it has its critics.  Some of the European Commission’s decisions such as the one to close the sugar factory in Carlow was based on out-of-date data, and the impact on beet farmers and the workers at the factory was devastating.

In contrast, Irish people would know little about the IMF, unless they have worked as missionaries or development workers in countries which are economically poor in Asia, Africa or Central and South America.  From the early 1980s onwards the neo-liberal policies of the IMF which included, promoting free trade, untrammelled entry of foreign investment, and integration of the local economy into the global economy have often increased poverty, widened the gap between the rich and the poor and caused irreversible ecological damage.

What is the IMF?  The IMF was one of the institutions which emerged from a meeting of economists and policy makers which took place in July of 1944, at the town of  Bretton Woods in New Hampshire, in the US.  It was obvious at this point that the Allies, (Britain, France and the US) were going to defeat Germany and Japan.  A number of financial institutions emerged from Bretton Woods. The first was the Bank of Reconstruction and Development.  Its task was to fund the reconstruction of Europe and Japan in the wake of the appalling damage caused by World War II.  This institution is now known as the World Bank. The IMF was the second institution to emerge from Bretton Woods.  Many of the negotiators at Bretton Woods believed that monetary chaos of the late 1920s led directly to the Great Depression, the rise of Fascist Parties in Germany, Spain and Italy and ultimately to World War II.  The dominant monetary problems at the time had to do with the difficulty of converting money from one currency to another, and the fact that countries were devaluing their own currencies in order to boost exports.

The IMF was designed to maintain the smooth functioning of the global economy, through regulating the volume of international liquidity and ensuring the stability of the exchange rates.  The monetary architecture was based on the bedrock of the US dollar which was linked to gold.  One ounce of gold cost $35 dollars. Other major currencies were then linked to the dollar.  This arrangement lasted until 1973, when President Nixon took the US off the gold standard and allowed the dollar to float.  Effectively, this devalued the dollar and sent a wave of inflation right around the world, since most countries kept the bulk of foreign reserves in dollars.  This was one of the factors that triggered the massive hike in oil prices in the same year.

In 1944, the US population was 6 per cent of the world population.  However, the US economy amounted to 50 percent of global gross domestic product.  Because of their massive economy, the US negotiators dominated the Bretton Woods conference.  The most famous English negotiator was the Cambridge economist, John Maynard Keynes, whose economic theories had been adopted by President Roosevelt in shaping the ‘New Deal’ which lifted the US out of the Great Depression.  Keynes suggested that IMF should enshrine policies not just for debtors but for lenders as well.  This suggestion was brushed aside by the US negotiator,  Harry Dexter White. Little did he expect that in 2010, the US would be the largest borrower on the planet and that, at the recent G20 meeting in Seoul Korea, the US President would plead with both China and Germany to import more in order to stabilise the global economy.

As envisaged by Bretton Woods each  member country paid a certain amount of  money in its own currency into the Fund. This entitled the country to apply for a  short-term loan when it ran into a short-term  balance-of-payments problems.  If a country wished to borrow more than its allotted quota, it had to submit itself to series of strict regime of monetary and fiscal policies drawn up principally by the IMF.

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, the IMF’s attention was almost exclusively directed to industrialised countries.   All that changed in August 1982, when Mexico ignited the Third World Debt crisis by threatening to default on its loans. Fearful that this might sink the international financial system, the IMF stepped in and organised new commercial loans to head off the threatened default. In return the IMF insisted on deep cuts in public spending which affected the health, education and welfare these countries. These policies called Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) caused severe hardship for scores of countries and tens of millions of people in economically poor countries around the world.   In the 1980s, I and  many missionaries, and development workers and economists, challenged SAPs. We supported and helped fund the work of the Freedom From Debt Coalition in the Philippines and similar groups in other debtor countries. When I returned to Ireland in the early 1990s, I helped set up the Debt and Development Coalition. The Columban Justice and Peace office in Washington, D.C. played a pivotal role in the 50 Years is Enough campaign in 1995 which challenged the destructive polices of both the World Bank and the IMF.

Despite good critical analysis, based on first hand experience of the impact of these policies on the poor and energetic lobbying by missionaries and other organisations in the North and South, SAPs  were rigorously imposed on many poor countries. The one-size-fits all mentality caused pain, suffering and even death. Compassion, equity and solidarity were in short supply.  Irish people can expect that the IMF will attempt to slash similar budgets in Ireland.  If, as suggested, that the loans is in region of €90 billion, it will take a long time for Ireland to pay off these loans.  The Celtic Tiger is certainly dead and buried.

Fleeing Vesuvius: Overcoming the risks of economic and environmental collapse. Feasta, 2010

Before the Second Vatican Council (1962-1966) when priests were asked to deliver sermons, they would normally start with a well known quotation and then unpack the meaning of the quotation during the course of the sermon. Having read Fleeing Vesuvius two quotations come to mind. The first is from that eminent soccer pundit, Mr. Eamon Dunphy.  Eamon dispenses pearls of wisdom on RTE 1, before and after a game of soccer. One of his favourite phrases is, “this is not just a good team, this is a great team.”  I’d like to paraphrase that by saying, “Fleeing Vesuvius is not just a good book, it’s a great book.”  The second quotation is from the Good Book itself. In the Book of Proverbs 29. 18 we read, “Where there is no vision, the people die.”  This author of this proverb is not a starry-eyed idealist, proclaiming some a new and easy to achieve vision. He is a realist and knows that good analysis, a knowledge of where we need to go, and appropriate actions are all part of that Vision.

I believe that the author of the proverb would agree that Fleeing Vesuvius does hold out a viable vision. It first of all presents the reader with an accurate analysis of where both humanity and the planet are at this moment in time.  Part 1, does this very effectively.  Because it takes the well-being of the earth as well as the well-being of humanity seriously, this analysis differs significantly with the dominant narrative which is almost exclusively economic.  Even some of the more progressive analysis of the current global and national crisis, such as the one enshrined in Claiming the Future, is almost exclusively homocentric or human-centred.

Let me give you another example of the myopia of our current debate about the global and local economy. Last month the UN Conference on Biodiversity was held in Nagoya, Japan.  I monitored, as best I could, the media for the two weeks. I didn’t see a single item about the conference in the Irish media.  We were totally obsessed with our fiscal deficit which can be solved, whereas we were totally unconcerned at our ecological deficit which cannot be solved, if one third of the species on the planet are pushed over the precipice of extinction during the next 30 years.  I was amazed that John Gormley, the minister for the environment and leader of the Green Party, did not consider it a priority to attend the Nagoya meeting.

So, let us be very clear, very few institutions, economists or politicians share the analysis of our current difficulties which is found in each article in this book.  A central plank of any analysis is discovering where we went wrong in the past. Richard Douthwaite and David Korowizc in their respective chapter give us a good insight into mess we are in on multiple fronts – energy, food, water, critical infrastructures and financial collapse. David writes,  “As I write fears are being expressed that a Greek sovereign default may be inevitable and that, as a result, the markets might refuse to lend to Ireland, Portugal and Spain, causing them to default was well.”  He goes on to paint a picture that is all too common, “In Ireland as in other countries deflation is continuing as the money supply contracts and people retrench their spending because of fears of future unemployment.” Chris Vernon also focuses on our current energy demands which are the Achilles’ of our industrial society. He tells us that it is critical that we “move society away from its current reliance on declining, finite energy stocks and back to an energy system based on flows.” (47)

Main stream economists or politicians do not share the view Herman Daly’s view that, “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment not the reverse.”  Herman, who is a pioneer in environmental economics, wrote those words over 30 years ago.  He even worked at the World Bank, and yet, the wisdom of those two lines is lost on most economists and planners.

If Fleeing Vesuvius, ended with just a competent analysis, we would all end up in depression or even despair.  John Sharry’s chapter “Cultivating hope and managing despair,” is very helpful in this regard.  The VISION celebrated in the Book of Proverbs has a practical dimension.   It calls on us to flesh out a variety of practical ways which will, not alone get us out of the mess, but create  a more satisfying way of life in the future. From Part 1 on to Part 8 there are multiple examples of what can be done in practical ways to address the current crisis and move to safer ground. Some of the suggestions such as Richard’s argument to allow inflation to correct the debt-income imbalance, goes directly against the prevailing wisdom of neoliberal economic policies.  (74). According to Chris Cook in “Equity partnerships – a better, fairer approach to developing land,” are examples of new types of arrangement that can be made when people think of property in terms of rights and obligations rather than ownership.” (Page 89). The following chapters apply this concept to building projects and land.

I was delighted to see Oscar Kjellberg’s paper on the Mordragon bank. The Mondragon Cooperative was started in 1954 by a Jesuit priest named Don Jose

Maria Arizmendiarreta and five young men. After ordination he was sent to the Mondragon region to minister to the people. When he arrived in 1941, he found great unemployment, poor education and no positive vision of the future. In 1955, he began to take action to change the future of Mondragon. He invited five young men who had been in his business classes to go with him to raise money, in order to buy a business and bring it to Mondragon.  In setting up the  Mondragon Cooperative Complex Don Jose drew heavily on Catholic Social Teaching.  By the way, this is the best kept secret of the Catholic Church. Everyone knows what the Catholic Church teaches on sex – contraception, abortion, divorce etc. Very few people, even active Catholic, have a clue about Catholic Social Teaching. Today Mondragon is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country. At the end of 2009 it was providing employment for 85,066 people working in 256 companies in four areas of activity: Finance, Industry, Retail and Knowledge. .

 

Dan Sullivan writes about another success story, “Why Pittsburgh real estate never crashes: the tax reform that stabilized a city’s economy.”

 

The articles in Part 4 deal with one of the biggest and most pressing challenges in the contemporary world – climate change.

 

Possible ways forward are addressed by Davie Philip “Transition thinking –The Good Life 2.0,  I personally found Nate Hagens’ article “The psychological roots of resource overconsumption” fascinating. – in our evolutionary journey – status and the need for novelty, through the addiction of dopamine highs – have gotten us into the mess we are in.  I have been involved with environmental issues since 1979, when I first visited the T’boli hills in South Eastern Mindanao. Therefore, I can empathize with the My Eyes Glaze Over (MEGO) response which  Mark Rutledge encounters when talking to family or colleagues about environmental issues. It is important that we understand the reasons individual and collective inertia if we are to change things.  I like the “second glass” effect in  John Sharry’s “cultivating hope an d managing despair.”  Kaethe Weingarten statement that, “Hope is something you create together,” is very important. Anne Ryan’s article on “Enough: a worldview for positive futures,” is hopeful and challenging for us as individuals and societies.  It is also a core value for every genuine religious tradition.  One of the finest expression of enoughness is that of the American farmer poet, Wendel Berry. In his book, The Gift of Good Land he writes:

“To live we must daily break the body and shed the blood of creation. When we do it knowingly, lovingly, skillfully and reverently, it is a sacrament. When we do it ignorantly, greedily, clumsily and destructively it is a desecration. In such a desecration we condemn ourselves to spiritual and more loneliness and others to want.”

Finally, I wonder is it a coincides that Fleeing Vesuvius is being launched on week after the collapse of the Schola Armaturarum (roughly translated as those who use arms or Gladiators)  in Pompieii. Among the reasons given are torrential rain due to unseasonal weather, management incompetence and sheer neglect.[1] Rather than ending on a negative note – I prefer to see all the writers in this book as gladiators. They are not, like the gladiators of old, wielding their swords to injure and kill other humans for the titillation of a ruling class. Rather their sword is their written word.. Each of you has spent long hours in training and in putting your thoughts together for this book which is aimed at giving us energy and direction for a new sustainable vision for humankind and every other species on earth. I congratulate each one of you for the hard work you have put into your writing.  And to the rest of us, can I encourage you to put a copy of Fleeing Vesuvius in ever stocking you are filling this Christmas..

---

[1] Esther Addley, “The Second fall of Pompeii,” The Guardian, November 12^th 2010, page 12 and 13.

Invitation to Book Launch

You are warmly invited to the launch of Feasta’s new book, Fleeing Vesuvius: Overcoming the Risks of economic and environnmental collapse, at 3pm on Saturday, 20th November. The event is being held in European Union House, 18 Dawson Street, Dublin 2

The book is to be launched by Fr. Sean McDonagh, a Feasta member and a prolific author, his most recent books being Dying for Water (2003), The Death of Life : The Horror of Extinction (2004) and Climate Change: The Challenge to Us All (2006). In recent times he has been the central coordinator for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation for the Columban missionaries and the chairperson of Greenpeace in Ireland. He then became a founding board member of Voice, the successor organisation to Greenpeace when the latter left Ireland.

Father Sean McDonagh

At 440 pages, Fleeing Vesuvius is Feasta’s most ambitious publishing project to date. It brings together many of the ideas which Feasta members and others in its network have been developing over the past few years and attempts to assemble them into a coherent approach which would enable humanity to avoid a catastrophic financial, environmental and social collapse. A North American edition will be published by New Society Publishers after Christmas. You can find out more about the book at http://www.feasta.org/documents/vesuvius/index.php.

As space in Dawson Street is limited to 100 people and, in any case, we need to ensure that the wine does not run out, please let us know if you will be coming by sending an e-mail to vesuvius@feasta.org. By all means bring a friend, but let us know about them, too. It would also be a help if those who want to buy several copies of the book would mention that in the e-mail as our stock is in Cloughjordan and we’ll have to bring lots of boxes up for the day. The book makes an ideal Christmas present and a discount will be available to Feasta members and to those placing quantity orders.

If you are in Ireland and can’t get to the launch but would like to buy a copy of the book, you can do so either by placing your order online at http://www.feasta.org/documents/vesuvius/index.php or by going to Books Upstairs, right opposite the entrance to Trinity College on College Green. This is the only bookshop which will have any copies until our Irish book trade distribution arrangements come into effect. The bookshop price is €20. Sales outside Ireland are being handled by Green Books and, in North America, by New Society Publishers.

—————————-

If you do not wish to receive any further emails about Fleeing Vesuvius please opt-out by clicking on the following URL:

http://www.feasta.org/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/u/test_list/