RIO+20: Entrevista a Roberto Troya de WWF Latinoamérica y el Caribe
All posts by COA Students
No more brackets, at least for now
By Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
So the night before last the Brazilian government came up with a new negotiating text, and from now on they will be chairing the negotiations. Being the host country has its perks. The consensus seems to be that the new version isn’t terrible but it leaves out a lot of important stuff, like an Ombudperson for Future Generations.
The interesting part is that the negotiations will no longer be done by going line by line through the text. Comments will be about concepts instead of changing language like “should” to “will” and “technology transfer” to “research into technology, innovation and science.” This means no more brackets. It will be up to the chair to decide what the important points of consensus or disagreement are, and to incorporate those into a new text.
A couple people in the briefing were pretty outspoken that this was the right move. One man said that “forgetfulness” has always played an important part in negotiations. If a suggestion was not echoed or built upon by other delegations, it did not get written down by the chair, and thus did not make it into the new document. But with laptops and projectors, every new suggestion gets typed in and projected for all to see. If countries can’t agree on some language it gets put in brackets, and before long the text is chock full of square parentheses. Going back to the way negotiations were done ten or fifteen years ago delegates to the chair the power of crafting something that will be mutually agreeable. Negotiators register major objections instead of bickering about individual sentences. And in this way the process moves faster.
What are your thoughts about negotiations, the role of the chair, and brackets?
Selling Indigenous at the People’s Summit
by Lara Shirley
I went to the People’s Summit yesterday. It was its first day, and was inaugurated by an impressively large gathering of indigenous people. It was very powerful: they were dressed in their traditional clothes and dancing. I stopped by a few hours later as well and noticed that, while there were still some events going on, many of the indigenous people had set up around the tents and started selling pieces of jewelry and trinkets. There were feathered headbands, peacock earrings, golden straw hats and wooden beaded bracelets.
This really disturbed me. My first thought was concerning how genuine the objects were: some of them looked like souvenirs that I’ve seen in places all over the world. If these products are indeed ‘genuine’ (a strange concept in itself), then how does their value – not economic, but social and cultural – change when they become souvenirs put out for sale instead of being made, earned or given?
This also occurred to me while they were dancing – there was a tremendous media flurry – but I would like to note that I don’t think that is my place to judge. I am not saying that it is bad, necessarily: I am saying that it is interesting, and merits further thought.
In all honesty, I found it fairly depressing that these people who passionately demand change and justice are still participating in the current economic system that is one of the main causes of the injustices and pain they are suffering from. Capitalism and consumerism are wreaking havoc on all parts of the world, and especially on the areas and people that are most vulnerable. But, again, I am not imposing my morals on their choices. I find it disheartening that current conditions are such that this is the choice they want to make, these people who are so strongly affected by this culture of excess and materialism.
Do not misunderstand me: I am not suggesting that everyone stop doing everything that has a bad effect because that would be incredibly naive, and also very hypocritical. At this point in time – and at almost any point in time, really – to live without negative impacts is impossible. But we should always be conscious of the implications of our actions, because they are always there. Every action has good effects and bad effects. Question everything. Just because it seems ‘good’ – because it’s sold by indigenous people, because a big NGO says so, because it has some certification sticker on it – doesn’t mean it is. The only opinion you can trust completely is your own.
Rio+20 anda en pantuflas
Rio+20 anda en pantuflas
por Anyuri Betegón
Amaneció el tercer día de las negociaciones y las promesas quedaron por cumplir. La ceremonia de inauguración del PrepCom III (Comité Preparatorio encargado de establecer el programa, concluir la redacción de la declaración de principios, plan de acción y decidir las modalidades de participación de otros interesados en la Cumbre), debía adoptar una agenda, la cual no fue aceptada. Ésta tenía como objetivo tres puntos: el logro de un acuerdo conjunto, la finalización del documento “The Future we Want” (El Futuro que queremos) y decidir el status de la participación de Palestina en esta conferencia.
Al no aceptar la agenda, se rechazó el inicio del PrepCom III, haciendo así de estas negociaciones un conjunto de conversaciones informales. Para sorpresa de todos el día de ayer durante la ceremonia de clausura se adopta la agenda (lo que significa que inician la reunión oficialmente), pero luego de una hora clausuraron con broche de oro estas negociaciones oficialmente informales, que dieron como resultado el consenso en 119 párrafos y más de 199 párrafos con corchetes. Estos párrafos que no han sido acordados serán pulidos por el gobierno de Brasil.
Ahora que el gobierno de Brasil ha tomado la responsabilidad de moderar las negociaciones y moldear el documento final, nos preguntamos si el resultado no acabará por desilusionar a las masas que no han sido escuchadas. La preocupación nace debido a que la conferencia en general ha dejado un sabor de caos, desorganización, y de poca ambición hasta el momento.
Las negociaciones siguen avanzando para atrás como los cangrejos. Y Rio+20 anda en pantuflas sin darse cuenta de que la posibilidad de un futuro sostenible un futuro en donde la vida de muchos está en juego y que no se puede seguir durmiendo.
Traducción al inglés:
Rio+20 walks in slippers
by Anyuri Betegón
The third day of negotiations landed on the Rio+20 Conference with promises still unmet. The opening ceremony of the PrepCom III (Preparatory Committee responsible to establish the program, complete the draft declaration of principles, action plan and decide the modalities of participation of other stakeholders of the Summit) should have adopted their agenda, but didn’t. This agenda consisted on three points: achieving a joint agreement, completing of the final document, and deciding Palestine level of participation in this conference.
By not accepting the agenda, the PrepCom III was rejected, thus making the negotiations a number of informal conversations. To everyone's surprise, yesterday during the closing ceremony the agenda was adopted (which means that the meeting officially started), but after a short time it was closed with a whim. These officially informal negotiations resulted in the agreement of 119 paragraphs but more than 199 paragraphs were left in brackets. These paragraphs that were not agreed upon have been edited by the Brazilian government.
Now that the Brazilian government has taken over the responsibility for moderating the negotiations and reshaping the final draft of the future we want document, one may ask whether or not the result will ultimately disappoint the masses who haven’t been heard. The conference in general has left a taste of disorganization and chaos, and no ambition so far
Negotiations are moving backwards like a crab. The Rio +20 conference walks in slippers without realizing that the possibility of a sustainable future is at stake and that we cannot stay asleep.
