If I were a delegate….

by Maria Alejandra Escalante

If I were a delegate at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, I would not be the kind of delegate I saw at the negotiations on Sustainable Consumption and Production, Water and Climate Change during Prepcom III. I would not be like them because they induce morbidity, disengagement, lethargy and utter silence. A silence that betrays the people these delegates are supposed to be representing. People who, in the miraculous chance of being here would most likely shout, claim, participate, at least collaborate (in the case this restrictive institutional venue opened wide its doors for all those at the People’s Summit). These people would be anything but silent. A prolonged silence in a negotiation that pretends to bring all nations together to talk about solutions on the world crisis is useless. 

These silences that produce anxiety within us, the observers, pressed (literally) in the non-spacious rooms of negotiations, are eventually broken. But, guess what? They are broken generally by three, maybe, with really good luck, by four delegations. Which ones? The United States of America, the European Union representative and the G77 representative. Maybe New Zealand, in case it is convenient to delete UNFCCC from the Climate Change section. Maybe Japan, in case it is better not to include too many elements regarding water management and infrastructure in the Water section. What happens with the other fifty delegates in the room? Their silence prevails, maybe because if they exposed their thoughts the whole process would be chaotic, or maybe because they have conformed to the idea that they must unite under the G77 to get closer to getting heard by the other UN members (big flaw of the system, again).  If I were a delegate I would not let three delegates have a conversation over the world’s resources. If I were a delegate I would not dominate the negotiations, but rather encourage other nations to participate. 

Having seven days left for the final discussion of the outcome of Rio+20, I would not suggest deleting two whole paragraphs (6 and 7) from the Water section of the negotiating text just because it is too dense, too heavy to deal with now. But the G77 representative believes it is a good idea to stop addressing the need for infrastructure in order to achieve sustainable water management, which is proposed in these two paragraphs. Instead, I would do anything and everything in my reach to make sure that months of preparation and huge amounts of time and financial investments are not simply bracketed and suppressed at this final stage. Especially when what is at stake is the human right to water. 

If I were a delegate I would not raise the doubt that this Conference, a platform for change in theory, cannot deal with adopting the 10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (YFP). The US delegate stated that “this conference is not delegating authority to another institution to take control over this topic”. If such a congregation of member states is not able to commit to a document already agreed and signed, then what are they doing sitting down in those chairs? Waiting for someone else to take control over problems they are expected to resolve? Extending the action on an imminent catharsis? Hanging out until the world’s resources are depleted so that the levels of consumption and production are unavoidably decreased? The chances of someone being on top of the current excessive consumption and production are low without the adoption of the 10 YFP.  If I were a delegate I would believe in the capacity and potential of the organization I work for. 

If I were a delegate, simply for the sake of coherence, I would not bring a plastic Coca-Cola bottle to the Water negotiations at Rio+20. I would know that Coca-Cola Company uses up a gigantic volume of water while paying an insignificant amount of money in proportion compared with what household residents pay. I would also know that it is polluting water sources all over the world in this massive over production. 

If I were a delegate I would use my words and actions to call for justice, equity, and for human rights. I would represent the interest of my people and the world population. I would work for the future we really want. I would not be like the delegates I have seen. 

Delegates drinking Coca-Cola at the negotiations room. Theme: Water. Great. 

¿…desarollo sostenible? ¿Qué hay del proceso?

El Futuro que Queremos será imposible si tenemos este presente.

El cuarto es gris, con alfombras, mesas una a la par de otra creando las orillas de un rectángulo. Nueve sillas adelante y detrás, dieciséis a cada lado. 50 asientos azules que recibirán a los delegados oficiales de distintos países que vienen aquí a discutir, de acuerdo a la agenda, más sobre las Metas de Desarrollo Sostenible.

Llego temprano, y hay solamente 5 delegados sentados en la mesa. A medida que pasa el tiempo se va llenando la sala. Las bocinas están reproduciendo música en inglés, canción tras canción de canciones que he escuchado en fiestas, o en la radio desde que vivo en Estados Unidos. Todas las personas vestidas formales, sacos, faldas, corbatas, camisas, zapatos altos. Los delegados usan colores que combinan con el cuarto, y al parecer también con sus actitudes: serios, ocupados.

Una mujer con un sari me hace sonreír cuando la veo, y toma su lugar en la mesa de delegados. Una de las pocas muestras de tradiciones no occidentales visibles en la habitación.

Todos los delegados oficiales tienen un cuaderno y una pantalla frente a sus ojos, escribiendo frenéticamente.

A medida que la habitación se llena se va escuchando más el murmullo mezclado de tantos países. La mayoría en inglés, pero sonidos de voces y acentos humanos que por lo general son endémicos también encontraron su camino hasta acá.

Quince minutos después de la hora a la que debía comenzar, la discusión inicia. El chair (el presidente de la asamblea) comienza por preguntarle al delegado de la Unión Europea, un señor con un acento balkano, si se decidió lo que quedaron por decidir la noche anterior. El delegado responde negativamente, y pide más tiempo. Estados Unidos se une a los corchetes que puso Canadá en el párrafo 7 del texto sobre Tecnología. Siempre que los países tienen algún desacuerdo sobre algo que está, o no está, en el texto, ponen corchetes (de ahí que nos llamemos Earth in Brackets). Y con ese ritmo, lento, letárgico, las negociaciones avanzan, poco a poco. Faruq, un representante del Grupo de los 77 (un Grupo que inicialmente fueron 77 países en desarrollo) hace notar que ese grupo político quiere convertir toda esa sección en dos líneas.

Próximos corchetes: El chair le pregunta México y Suiza si quieren/pueden remover sus corchetes de la siguiente oración en el texto:

Reafirmamos que el comercio internacional es un motor para el crecimiento y [promover el] desarollo [sostenible – Suiza, México]

México responde negativamente, y Suiza aclara que esto le parece de vital importancia. Otra de las delegadas aclara que el Acuerdo de Accra tiene contenido similar a lo que Suiza y México quieren incluir (para apoyarlos) G77 responde que esta frase está en miles de otros documentos, y que apoyaría su uso en este caso, pero que sabe que no va a hacer ninguna diferencia.

Estas son personas que han estudiado esto por años y años. ¿Es que de veras quieren apegarse a una frase que simplemente reflejaría algo que ya todos sabemos? ¿Es que las delegaciones de la Unión Europea, Estados Unidos, y demás países en realidad no pueden ponerse de acuerdo? ¿Será que crean esta clase de entretenimiento sólo para evitar que lleguemos a otras partes del texto más controversiales?

Volteo, y una de las delegadas sentada justo frente a mí, está en Skype. El de la par está leyendo una revista que le acaban de dar sobre algún tema de los que trata la ONU.

Entiendo que éste sea el futuro del mundo, pero éstas son personas que no se conocen, que al parecer no confían unos en los otros, y que no están dispuestos a ceder. Encima de eso, queda sólo un día más de la última ronda de negociaciones antes de Rio+20, donde se deberá llegar a un acuerdo sobre El Futuro que Queremos. Un proceso lento, frustrante, y que no parece tener ningún resultado positivo.

Ha pasado sólo una hora de las tres que se supone que va a tardar esta ronda de negociaciones. Guardo mi cámara en la mochila, me levanto, y camino hacia la puerta, que ahora se encuentra atascada de gente. Pido permiso en español y portugués y salgo. Detrás de mí quedan los acentos, las computadoras, los cuadernos, la discusion que va en espiral, y mi actitud optimista hacia los procesos de negocios multilaterales. 

Urgency and Emergency

A conversation with a delegate

By Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler

The shuttle to the UN conference center only stops in front of the major hotels, where the important country delegates are staying.  Hot air rises to upper-income accommodation.  After the walk or taxi ride to the nearest hotel, it’s another hour by bus to get to the convention center.  Most days I think that time will probably be occupied by sleep, but today I happened to sit next to a country delegate from a small island nation.

After a little exchange he asked with what the youth perspective was on the conference.  I said unfortunately it wasn’t going to be like the transformative outcome we had from the original summit in 1992.  A lot of civil society expected the negotiation to be a complete failure so if there was some sort of major agreement it would bring a lot of excitement. In turn he explained the context was different this time around.  In 1992, the Soviet Union had just fallen, the economy was okay, and there was bounty of goodwill between nations and shared hope for a more united, progressive future.  This time it’s different: the EU is on the rocks, the US is eking out a recovery, and developing countries are more than willing to assert their power on the world stage.  There is always urgency at environmental negotiations, but if there is an emergency as most youth at the conference believe – is up for debate between nation-states.    

Nobody is going to say no to the green economy, he pointed out, even if no one is really sure exactly what a “green economy” is, or what it would mean.  For the poor countries, it means development, and for the developed countries it’s a way to kickstart growth in their struggling economies.  His country is prepared to agree on a vague concept with the knowledge that it will be fleshed out by the UN later on.

The two of us began to move beyond the text.  He said, people would be surprised when you talk to a delegate one-on-one, like we were doing on the bus, how open they are about what needs to be done to reach international cooperation on a better future for all.  But when they’re representing their country on the floor they push the process in every way they can to exploit the peculiar agenda of their country.  That is the way international negotiations work.

To flesh out his point a little more he spoke about his time a diplomat as his country’s mission in New York.   When he was in that city he was amazed at how a person gets ripped off at every corner, nickel-and-dimed.  When he visited Washington D.C. once, they told him the museums were free, and he made them repeat this four times to be sure he understood.   Because in New York he had to pay for everything.  It was also in New York he saw a battery powered car that was built in 1914 when he was invited to visit the Rockefeller’s mansion.  The technology was never pursued further because oil was so cheap and corporations like the Rockefellers were making a lot of money from its sale and distribution on a massive scale.  But this is how negotiations between countries work, pushing hard for each and every one of your negotiating points and get every concession you can from your fellow countries.   And often the power and money is concentrated in the hands of a few and they guard it fiercely. 

The nickel-and-diming and the hoarding, the costs and the calculations, the history and the hope.  It may be worth staying awake on that bus ride.  

 

Earth in Brackets’ address to the Co-Chairs on behalf of MGCY

We reiterate our concerns about the slow pace of the negotiations, and about the lack of urgency from Member States to express real commitment in the outcome text. We want to call attention to the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production, which could be a cornerstone achievement of Rio + 20. Member states have to be held accountable for this agreement by delivering a text that includes the CSD-19 agreement on the 10YFP on SCP as an addendum to The Future We Want. A further concern relates to the text on water issues. Member states are backtracking from existing international agreements that recognize the importance of international cooperation for water resources. 

We want to remind the Chairs that as we speak paragraphs on education and employment are being discussed. Regarding education, we would like to stress the importance of reopening the negotiations to include informal and non-formal education in the text. In addition, regarding the jobs sections, we call for green jobs to be included as an indispensable component of a sustainable economic system. 

Finally, we call for more urgency in the IFSD negotiations. There cannot be sustainable development if the right structures for governance are not in place. Participation is key for sustainable development therefore we would need to continue to commit to protect civil society participation in all proposals stemming from Rio+20.

Thank You