  20 Jun 2012 @ 21:53
Desperate again. Why did we sum up some Rio'92 intentions? in 94 after careful considerations. Why did we look into common frames of references?
Why did the UIA and UNU looked into Intersectoral Strategic Dilemma in the years before Rio '92? See the GLOBAL STRATEGIES PROJECT:
Commentaries from Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential
5.6 Strategic ecosystem: configuring strategic dilemmas in intersectoral dialogue
Why do we prepare in Geneva the Global Youth Conferences? and make recommendations! See also this blog entry below and video clip
Or why does IHTEC and CGI and the Global Issues Project, etc. do simmilar recommendations for years: CGI or the recommendsations on Climate Change and Energy or these on dFood and Water:
Many recommendations have been delivered through the UN systems to the people in Charge. Please check the EarthFocus Foundation recommendations. This is the last one right before Rio+20:
and many other recommendations over the years, see for example: Earthfocus-COP16 or the EarthFocus Foundation website and the EarthFocus Magazine See also the videos below.
I wonder, why we contributed to the UN-AMR 2008 and what was done with the recommendations? See: Heiner Benking: UN -AMR eDiscussion: Achieving Sustainable ... and why efforts like Teach MDGs are not getting more attention.
Why did the Civil Society prepare documents, side-events, alternative summits when the content can not contribute to the progress.
Instead I see simplicity, overclaims and oversimplifications like always. Final statements ask for single issue, single sector measures, when there was work for 43 years to look into the interdependence of issues and problems. Maybe this a good start to check what I mean: ABOUT ESSENTIALS OF DIALOG & DELIBERATION REQUIREMENTS & POTENTIALS:
I also recommend "Panoramic Thinking" and the Cognitive Panorama More >
 
|
