GLOBAL COOPERATION NEWSLETTER
November 2012
In this issue:
 Featured article: Limits to growth—and limits to inequality
 The climate summit in Doha, Qatar
 ICSW and its partners establish the Global Agenda Observatory
 Useful resources and links
Featured article: Limits to growth - and limits to inequality

Ronald Wiman, Development Manager/Global Social Policy, National
Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland

Forty years ago the Club of Rome rang a wake-up call: continuing with “business as usual” will leadthe world to a tipping point around the middle of the twenty-first century – actually, forty years
from now. Some recent evidence based on research shows that we have been on exactly that
trajectory since 1972.
The Club was not the first to talk about the limits to growth – in terms of either population or
consumption. Since the times of Plato and his “magic number”-based calculations of the optimal
population size of the city-state (population, of course, meant the ”free men” of the times), there
has been much thinking about the limits to growth along two dimensions: the possibilities for
economic growth and the optimal distribution. Concerning growth, two schools of thought havedeveloped: the technology optimists and the technology pessimists. The optimists believe either inlimitless resources or in technology’s capacity for development at a sufficiently rapid rate toovercome any resource squeeze. And at the other end of the axis, there are the technology
pessimists, who are concerned with the limits set by non-renewable natural resources on material
production and the tendency to get the diminishing returns. On the other axis, the distributional
axis, the dialogue goes on between the egalitarians, who see equal distribution as either ethicallyfair or societally functional, and those who believe that inequality is necessary for economic growthand/or each individual is entitled to get what he or she deserves.
On the extreme side of thespectrum of the latter group, Social Darwinism seems to be on the rise again, particularly amongsome richer youth.
The neoliberals are typical technology optimists with their simple logic that free competition may
create inequality but is beneficial for economic growth and technological innovation. Wealth will
eventually trickle down and the “rich have the duty to be rich”. The contemporary world is very
Page 1 of 5

much the result of such an ideology, which has dominated world economic thinking since Ronald
Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. The “Taxed Enough Already” or TEA-party is another example ofsuch an attitude.
The dogmatic socialists believed that an egalitarian “socialist paradise” would “turn deserts intoorchards”, as Friedrich Engels famously put it once. We now know that the exact opposite has
resulted when one forcefully promotes the equality of outcomes, rather than the equality ofopportunities.
Those who do not believe in limitless material resources and consumption have also had twosources of inspiration on both sides of the spectrum. Thomas Malthus said that “the poor do nothave right to enjoy the abundant table of nature unless charity keeps them alive”. When population(read consumption) grows faster than resources, the solution — not equitable at all -- is that therich maintain their consumption levels and the poor pay the price and lose disproportionately.
Indeed, a not very uncommon policy option during recessions.
The “Green” movement tends to come up with a more egalitarian solution: scarcity itself must be
distributed fairly. There is, however, a scent of optimism in that thinking: “more from less” is acommon phrase today, repeated by many, even some who do not belong to “green” parties.
None of the above four world views is well based in evidence. Being ideologies, each of them has
shaped and continues to shape politics and social policy-making. From some time down in history
thinkers started to base their policy prescriptions on social sciences such as economics, ascribing to
it some truths believed to be self-evident. Consider the consequences of world-wide ageing andthe options for the care of the growing aged population. Policy choices might be already “under theline”; as numbers grow but resources are not growing at the same rate, the policy choices are tied
to finding ways to get more from less or to letting inequality grow. The result is obvious: only those
who can pay get enough care.
Back to the scenario put forward by the Club of Rome, at the 40th anniversary one of the original
writers of the 1972 Report, Jorgen Randers, published a new Framework for Action called “2052 – A
Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years” (http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=2118). The 1972 study,
he claims, was not a doomsday prophecy, neither is this one. It is again a wake-up call: the courseof spaceship Earth must be changed towards “a sustainable, equitable and happier world”. Climatechange is seen as one of the key features shaping our future. The landing might not be soft
anymore, given the prevalent trends, but a crash landing can and should be avoided.
Six anchors for the new course are presented: (1) Sustainability and equity must be reflected in all
economic decisions; (2) Economic decisions must reflect the value of natural and social capital; (3)A more equitable distribution of income both within and between countries is necessary; (4) Accessto decent work is most important; (5) The limits and value of ecological systems should berecognized; (6) Stronger governance at all levels is vital.
The Report makes four key recommendations:
1. Reduce population growth even further in the rich world, where the ecological footprint perperson is many times bigger than that in poorer countries;
2. Reduce the ecological footprint of the rich world (better technology and more sustainableproduction/consumption patterns);
3. The rich world must invest in and pay for low-carbon technologies in the poor world;
4. Global governance must be strengthened in order to manage development from a longterm perspective.

Page 2 of 5

We can conclude that it is quite clear that a world based on overconsumption and gross inequalities
within and between nations cannot be considered a sustainable world. We find unfounded bothneoliberal over-optimism and the fundamentalist belief in the natural benevolence of the “invisible
hand” of the market that is supposed to drop enough crumbs of wealth from the tables of the richto the poor when scarcities set in.
The total net flows of capital in the world go the wrong way now, i.e. from the poor to the richworld. Redistribution on a global scale is a necessity through transforming the way in which theworld works. The social values of human dignity, equity, solidarity, inclusion and security must be
elevated above the current misguided fundamentalism. A well-known Finnish social activist, Dr.
Ilkka Taipale, once said that policy makers have two basic options, “social policy or chaos”. On the
global level there is a need for implementing systemic global social policy to replace the marginal
development aid.
Sustainable development dialogues often invoke distant “future generations”. Today’s children are
the first existing “future generation” that has rights as specified by the Convention on the Rights of
the Child. The right to development should be interpreted as a right to sustainable development as
well. Today’s children will be at the peak of their life cycles in 2052. Whether they are healthy andwealthy or poor and ill then depends on decisions made by adults now.
The opinions expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the
ICSW Management Committee.

The climate summit in Doha, Qatar
The annual climate negotiations, with the involvement of world leaders at the 18 th session of theConference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), got under way on 26 November in Doha, Qatar. The two-week meeting will chart thenext phases of the international response to climate change, with participants attempting to deliver
on a number of specific outcomes.
Among the immediate challenges are ensuring theimplementation of the second Kyoto Protocol commitment by January 1, 2013 and the elaborationof the specific modalities of the Green Climate Fund, which has been negotiated already and will besituated in South Korea, even though some questions remain regarding its modus operandi and its
financing. Another important objective on the participants’ plate is setting out a work plan towards
a new international agreement that will replace the Kyoto Protocol by 2015.
Climate change is a complex phenomenon that, although environmental in nature, hasconsequences for all spheres of existence on our planet. It either impacts on — or is impacted by —such global issues as poverty, economic development, population dynamics, sustainable
development and resource management. It is not surprising, then, that solutions come from all
disciplines and fields of research and development. At the very heart of the response to climatechange, however, lies the need to reduce emissions. In 2010, governments agreed that emissions
need to be reduced, so that global temperature increases can be limited to less than 2 degrees
Celsius.
By and large the participants will cover national and international efforts underway in the areas ofadaptation, mitigation, development and the transfer of technologies, and climate finance. The
proposed solutions envision substantial flexibility in approaches. The adaptation process, forexample, refers not only to changes in processes, practices, and structures aimed at moderating
potential damage, but is also geared to studying benefits that may arise as a result of some newopportunities brought on by climate change.
For more details please go to : http://unfccc.int/focus/technology/items/7000.php

Page 3 of 5

ICSW and its partners establish Global Agenda Observatory.
The three partner organizations -- International Association of Schools of Social Work, International
Council on Social Welfare, and International Federation of Social Workers, came together in a
meeting in Paris in mid-November 2012 to consider specific actions in the context of theimplementation of the tripartite Global Agenda adopted earlier this year. For more details, see:
http://www.globalsocialagenda.org
The two days of negotiations resulted in the affirmation of the vision of the Global Agenda, whichmakes explicit the contribution of social work and social development practice in building a ‘society
for all’, in which every individual has an active role to play within a fair and just world. In order togather evidence about the activities of social workers, educators and social development
practitioners who support the implementation of the Global Agenda and in order to give visibility
and credibility to their contributions and promote further action, it was decided to establish the
Global Agenda Observatory.
This new entity is structured around the four themes of The Global Agenda, starting with promotingsocial and economic equalities. The themes to be covered in subsequent years include: promoting
the dignity and worth of peoples, working toward environmental sustainability and strengthening
recognition of the importance of human relationships. A focus on ensuring an appropriate
environment for practice and education will be maintained throughout. The Global Agenda
Observatory is conceived as a mechanism for monitoring and reporting on the implementation of
the Agenda Commitments.
The Observatory will consist of networks or consortia composed of institutions of higher educationand professional/practice-based organizations that jointly research, analyze, synthesize and reporton Agenda activities. It involves a process that will evolve over time. It aspires to establish astrong, credible monitoring mechanism within ten years. The Global Agenda Observatory will beestablished at the local, national, regional and international levels, working through the existing
structures and workplans, and taking into consideration the existing priorities of each organization.
In the case of the ICSW, one of the objectives of ICSW-affiliated organizations is to monitor
implementation of the Social Protection Floor Initiative at the national and regional levels, as that isclosely linked to the fight against existing social and economic inequalities — the first of the fourcommitments of the Global Agenda.
In the light of the preparations for the 2014 joint world conference in Melbourne, Australia, andstarting in November 2012, regional partnership bodies have been invited to create regional
networks or consortiums to implement the call for national observatory arrangements. The timeline
is ambitious: each national network or consortium will complete a draft national report by July
2013. The Global Agenda Coordinating Group will complete the global analysis and finalize theglobal report by March 2014, just in time for the joint world conference in Melbourne in July 2014,
where that report will be launched.
Useful resources and links.
Thanks to the determined efforts of governments and civil society, success in the fight against
HIV/AIDS is in sight. The UNAIDS World AIDS Day Report for 2012 reveals significant progressin preventing and treating HIV/AIDS over the past two years. The number of people accessing lifesaving treatment has risen by 60 per cent, and new infections have fallen by half in 25 countries –13 of them in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS-related deaths have dropped by a quarter since 2005.

Page 4 of 5

For further information :http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/multimediacentre/photos/unaidsphotogalleries/2012/2012112
0wadreportlaunch
The role of parliaments in conflict prevention, reconciliation and peace building will be the main
focus of this year’s Annual Parliamentary Hearing at UN Headquarters in New York. The event,which brings together parliamentarians, high-level UN officials, experts and member States, willtake place on 6-7 December, as the 67th session of the General Assembly continues. Participants
will identify ways in which parliaments can strengthen UN field missions, its Peace building
Commission and the Human Rights Council, in addition to examining the role of legislators inconflict mediation, transitional justice, and truth and reconciliation. The conclusions are aimed atmaking international decision-making more transparent and effective.
For further information: http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/unga12.htm

The content of this Global Newsletter may be freely reproduced or cited provided the source isacknowledged. Views do not necessarily represent policies of ICSW.
Newsletter Editor: Sergei Zelenev, Executive Director
Address: ICSW, P.O. Box 28957, ICSW, Plot 4, Berkeley Lane, Off Lugard Avenue,
Entebbe, Uganda
Phone + +1 718 796 7417, +256414321150
E-mail: szelenev@icsw.org, icsw@icsw.org
Website www.icsw.org;
If you wish to cease receiving this newsletter, please click 'here' providing your name and email
address

Page 5 of 5