All posts in Beyond the Negotiations

Posted:
June 23, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Apariencias insostenibles.

Regresé a darle otro vistazo al proceso de las Metas de Desarollo Sostenible, y esta vez la lección que me esperaba era mucho más grande de lo que esperaba. Al terminarse la ronda de negociaciones anterior, el gobierno brasileño tomó las riendas del proceso. Lo que significa esto, es que el gobierno de este país tomó en sus manos la tarea de integrar todos los comentarios hechos por las distintas delegaciones (e idealmente, tambiéb los de la sociedad civil), y crear un nuevo texto a partir de estos comentarios. Mi explicación para eso es que los ojos del mundo, de la sociedad civil y de los medios estaban puestos en este proceso, y si no había un documento final positivo, la mayor verguenza la llevaría el gobierno brasileño.  

El presidente de la asamblea aclaró que no estábamos allí para discutir oraciones. “No se permitiran más corchetes. Estoy aquí para que me den sus líneas rojas. Las Metas de Desarrollo Sostenible son una de las joyas de la corona de esta reunión. ”

Las líneas rojas, dentro del sistema de negociaciones en la ONU, son un término que se utiliza para pedirle a los delegados que expresen cuáles son las cosas que no están dispuestos a renunciar.  Tenían seis párrafos que discutir. Suena como una tarea simple ¿no?

Comenzaron con la Unión Europea. Tenían varias objeciones, varias líneas rojas que querían trazar sobre la alfombra. Una de ellas era que no estaban de acuerdo con que se mencionara la idea de Responsabilidades Comunes pero Diferenciadas (RCPD) en relacion a las metas de desarrollo sostenible. RCPD es uno de los Principios de Rio, declarados en 1992 en la versión orginial de esta cumbre. RCPD dicta que mientras que todos los países tienen que cuidar del planeta, hay países que han producido más daños al medio ambiente para industrializarse, y por ende tienen que llevar más peso de ésta responsabilidad que los demás.

La segunda línea roja de los Europeos consistía en que el texto debería contener una lista de temas para las MDS. Ellos demandaban una lista de temas, por muy preliminares que fueran, para que sobre estos temas se desarrollara el proceso de las metas posteriormente.

Su última línea roja, tenía que ver con que el proceso del desarrollo de las MDS tenía que incluir a los stakeholders, los grupos afectados por este proceso, de la sociedad civil. Es decir, la Unión Europea pedía lo siguiente: mientras se desarrollan las metas específicas que las MDS debían alcanzar, tendrían que incluirse las opiniones de los miembros de la sociedad civil que se verían afectados por la implementación de las mismas.

Luego de un comentario de aclaración del presidente de la Asamblea, Faruq del G77 pidió la palabra. Expresó que se encontraba sorprendido, y que encontraba los comentarios del delegado de la Unión Europea disturbing, una mezcla entre que le causaban molestia, y lo alteraban un poco. Esto debido a que, de acuerdo a Faruq, los comentarios de la UE, estaban haciendo a un lado todo el proceso de las últimas rondas de negociaciones.

El presidente de la asamblea aclaró que no quería entrar en un juego de ping-pong, antes de darle la palabra a la UE. El delegado europeo dijo que de acuerdo con lo que había dicho, no respondería.

Suiza tenía algunas cosas que agregar. Entre ellas estaba el hecho de que hacia falta una lista de temas para las MDS, que no estaban de acuerdo con el proceso, y que las MDS tenian que estar construidas sobre las Metas de Desarrollo del Milenio. Y así fueron sucesivamente:

Noruega: "Estamos de acuerdo con su comentario de que estas son las Joyas de la Corona. Líneas rojas: RCPD. Temas. Proceso."

Presidente de la Asamblea: "Para que estas sean las joyas de la corona de Rio+20, tienen que existir. No van a existir si no estamos conscientes del nivel de comfort de todas las delegaciones."

Estados Unidos: "RCPD es un principio que aplica sólo al pilar del Medio Ambiente, no a la Sociedad ni la Economía. Estas metas deberían ser voluntarias."

Canadá: "El proceso tiene que ser menos específico por ahora. RCPD."

Australia: "Lo mismo que los demás. Deberíamos mencionar los principios de Río al inicio del documento, así no tenemos que repetirlos después."

Japón: "RCPD. ¿Cuál es la relación entre los ODMs y los ODS?"

Nueva Zelanda: "RCPD. Proceso tiene que incluir a la sociedad civil. Temas."

G77: "Pensé que íbamos a continuar construyendo sobre el trabajo que ya se había hecho. Ya hemos explicado las razones detrás de nuestras demandas anteriormente, pero lo podemos volver a hacer. RCPD es un principio cuya aplicación es relevante para específicas MDS. No creemos que debería haber intervención por parte de los stakeholders, pero podemos llegar a un híbrido donde moderamos lo que ellos y ellas proveen al proceso. 

Déjenme ser claro con ustedes, ésto no es una línea roja, es una pared roja. El proceso del desarrollo de los ODS será solamente intergubernamental. "

***

Luego de escuchar la declaración de Faruq, me quedé atónito e indignado al mismo tiempo. Esperé un poco más, pero ya había pasado una hora y media de las tres que teníamos para esta sesión, donde se suponía íbamos a cerrar el texto. La mayor parte de ese tiempo transcurrió en escuchar a todos estos países decir que tenían las mismas objeciones al texto, uno por uno. Nuevamente, tomé mis cosas y salí. 

***

Unas horas después, me enteré que tres de las cuatro sesiones de negociaciones de esa mañana se habían suspendido después de sólo dos horas, lo que significaba que sólo me había perdido de media hora de negociaciones. La razón para esta pausa: el G77 tenía que reunirse para discutir su posición ante el proceso de negociación.

Yo estaba formando parte de una demostración con miembros del Grupo Mayor de Juventud y Niñez, afuera de la sala donde el G77 se estaba reuniendo, cuando me encontre con Laurence, un delegado juvenil de Kenia. Había pasado ya varios días intentando encontrar a la delegación guatemalteca, y Laurence me dijo que me podía llevar al edificio donde todas las delegaciones tenían sus oficinas, para que probara suerte. En el camino me contó que las cosas estaban muy controversiales dentro del G77, pero que habían algunas posiciones claras. Le pregunté sobre el comentario de Faruq en las negociaciones de esa mañana, y fue aquí donde la lección de la que hablaba al principio llegó a mis oidos. 

Laurence me dijo que la razón por la que el G77 quería que el proceso de desarrollo de las MDS fuera solamente con los gobiernos de cada país, sin expertos científicos, "expertos de la ONU" ni miembros de la sociedad civil, tenía que ver con el origen de estos científicos y expertos. Los países que estaban presentando sus objeciones uno por uno en esa negociacion por la mañana, (Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Noruega, Japón) tienden a ser los países con las universidades más reconocidas y por ende "los expertos más expertos", como dijo Laurence. Entonces, al poner ellos los expertos en distintos temas que informarían el proceso del desarrollo de las MDS, estarían indirectamente perpetuando los intereses de esos países dentro de la información que proveerían. Como también me dijo una delegada de Algeria después, ésto fue lo que sucedió con las Metas de Desarrollo del Milenio, hace mas de 12 años, y no quieren que se vuelva a repetir. 

Entonces me di cuenta de varias cosas. Una, en la política las cosas no son lo que parecen, y todos parecen querer hacer lo que es mejor, pero no significa que sea lo mejor para todos. Dos, el tener a la sociedad civil involucrada en este proceso de desarrollo de las MDS podría tener consecuencias positivas o negativas, pero la contraparte, el que sea un proceso orquestado solamente por los gobiernos, también. Entonces, cual es la salida correcta? Tres, los políticos que están trabajando en desarrollar estas metas no son necesariamente los mejor informados en lo que es mejor, pero es lo que tenemos. 

No hace falta aclara que todo esto me dejó con qué pensar sobre el proceso de la ONU. Pero esta vez, decidí no volver a la sala de negociaciones, y echar otro vistazo a lo que estaba pasando afuera, lejos, en el Parque de los Flamengos, para encontrar un poco más de inspiración. Allá me esperaban otras voces, con opiniones más fuertes, y al parecer con más ganas de lograr hacer un cambio real. 

 

 

Posted:
June 23, 2012
Author:
COA Students

What happened at Rio+20

A few important proposals, and what happened to them

By Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler

Most of us from the [earth] team spent yesterday recovering from a six hour-long action at the RioCentro that included a People’s Plenary and walkout. There is a lot to be said about that process of protest, catharsis, and democracy in its rawest form, but I’ll leave it to someone else. For some reason I’m still itching to talk policy.

We ripped up the final document yesterday. With any kind of long-term vision, it’s obvious the outcome falls far short of the change we need. But initially even delegates and their governments were expecting Rio+20 to be a failure. So it came as a surprise to everyone when negotiators were able to make some tough compromises and come out with a trickle of progress. People put a lot of praise on the Brazilian presidency and their chairing of the negotiations. Here’s a breakdown of what was on the table and how it turned out, the successes and the complete failures:

Sustainable Consumption and Production. At the 19th Commission on Sustainable Development last year in New York, the world’s delegations finished negotiating a 10-Year Framework on SCP, but because the conference was unable to come to agreement on the other issues, which included waste, chemicals, and others, the Framework couldn’t be officially adopted. At Rio the U.S. played the elephant in the room for a while and refused to accept any outright inclusion of SCP in the text, but they eventually caved. The Framework was accepted. The American way of life is officially up for debate.

Rights. As someone on the inside told us, some of the text turned out to be Rio-1, Rio+1 or Rio+2, but some of it is, in fact, Rio+20. His example was the recognition of rights to food and water, as well as those of indigenous people, all in one document. Some of the hottest anger during the conference boiled when these rights were in danger, and some of it is still simmering at the absence of any reference to reproductive rights in the section on women.

UNEP. There was a recognition coming in that in order to give all three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic, environmental) an equal say in the international system, the status and power of the United Nations Environmental Program would have to be elevated. Many expected it would be made a specialized agency, which would mean putting it on the same level as the WTO and ILO, and that a name change to United Nations Environmental Organization was in order. The final document doesn’t go that far, but UNEP will get universal membership in its governing body, greater financing, and a strengthened hand in coordination within the UN system.

High Commissioner for Future Generations. Originally in the text was a proposition for a High Commissioner or Ombudsperson within the UN system who would be responsible for assessing the long-term impacts of current policies and advocating on behalf of future generations. There’s no reference to such a person in the final document, but the Secretary General is invited to make a report on “the need for promoting intergenerational solidarity for the achievement of sustainable development, taking into account the needs of future generations.”

The Future of the CSD. One of the major outcomes of the original Rio summit in 1992 was the creation of the Commission on Sustainable Development, which has met every year since. The Rio+20 document brings that era to a close. It will be replaced by an as yet unnamed high level political forum which will have the same mission as the CSD but be more action-oriented, have a larger role in bringing UN and other international multi-stakeholder groups to the table and ensuring coordination and cooperation between them, and produce a sustainable development report.

Fossil fuel subsidies. There was hope Rio+20 would herald a call to all nations to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and start using that money to promote renewable energy. No such luck. The language on the reduction of fossil fuel subsidies is really weak.

Means of Implementation. The G-77 got pissed about the pace of MOI negotiations. At one point the bloc refused to show up to Green Economy talks because there was no progress on MOI. They said did not see the point of discussing the what when there was no attention give to the how. The end result still isn’t very good, and it may actually backtrack from the original Rio summit on the issue of technology transfer to developing countries.

Rio Principles. It was downright sad to see developed countries removing left and right references to the Rio Principles, which come from the 1992 summit and lay out in clear, concise language the principles on which sustainable development should be based. The most contentious debate was on common but differentiated responsibility (CBRD). The United States never liked the principle and now sees it as a way for emerging countries like China to point their finger at the developed world while shirking the burden their own economies are placing on the environment. Developing nations, however, are adamant that the countries putting the most pressure on the global environment should bear the biggest responsibility for changing their behavior and contributing to efforts to fix the problem.

Green Economy. The green economy has meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some felt Europe was pushing a type of green neo-colonialism on the developing world in order to stimulate the economies of its member states. However, because of its inability to hold a strong common position or put money on the table, the EU failed to radically change the way the world economy will be structured. The end result encourages all countries to find their own ways to a green economy through a few a basic principles like poverty eradication, and encourages international partnerships and funding.

SDGs. Many have hoped for bold sustainable development goals that will replace the MDGs when they finish in 2015. These would apply to both developed and developing countries, focusing on sustainability and not just development. The outcome document, while failing to identify thematic areas for the goals, sets up a process for their creation.

Was Rio+20 a success or a failure? Civil society judged it the latter two days ago. As far as the historians go, a lot will depend of their narratives of the conference will depend what happens next. Now that the summit is over, how hard will governments push for new visions of development? What changes get implemented, which get swept aside, and what new ones are dreamed up? And how long will it be before humankind’s impacts on the planet become too obvious to ignore and the inequality within it becomes too much to bear?

Here’s to world that doesn’t need a Rio+40. Cheers.

Posted:
June 23, 2012
Author:
COA Students

United by Frustration

By Nimisha Bastedo

Throughout the entire Rio process, it seemed as though divisions within and between the different sectors of civil society were too wide to bridge. Attempts to create a major group common statement continued to fail. The most radical youth clashed with those who pushed for smaller ‘victories’ within the same old framework. Sofia Garcia, organizing partner (OP) for the NGO major group, complained that a similar tension reigned in her domain.

Everyone seemed to be insisting so admittedly on upholding their own agenda, that reaching any form of consensus amongst civil society on how to move forward seemed a laughable dream. Deciding on a few overarching principles to put on our ‘Red Line’ banner took hours of debate even though we were only trying to juggle the opinions of a handful of youth. You can imagine how hard it would be to try and do the same with the 18,000 other members of civil society that roamed the halls of Rio Centro.

And yet, as this train-wreck of a conference came to a close, there was a growing platform for unity: frustration. In all of the Major Groups, there is disappointment in the outcome document. There is general disgust in the empty language and watered down commitments, and a sinking feeling that we have only moved backwards since 1992.

Youth are outraged because there is no mention of future generations. Indigenous groups fear the green economy promotes programs like REDD+, that lead to corporate capture of their traditional lands. The science and technology folks complain that their role isn’t embraced strongly enough in the text. Women are outraged that it doesn’t acknowledge reproductive rights. Yesterday, I overheard overheard someone saying that even the business and industry people are not happy (although I can’t imaging what they can complain about when they have governments basically eating out of the palm of their hands).

Discontent brought the people together. It united us to the extent that there was actually consensus on a speech that was meant to be given on behalf of all of the Major Groups at the closing session of Rio+20. Unfortunately, the governments had a more pressing agenda to follow. Two minutes was far too much time to waste listening to the voice of civil society, so the speech was not allowed.

Although the speech went unspoken, it still represented unprecedented cohesion amongst civil society. According to Kiara Worth, OP for the Major Group of Children and Youth, “never before have all the Major Groups rallied behind a statement with such vigour.”

The speech’s basic message was this: Rio+20 has failed to include the voice of the people. It has failed to place our children’s future above national and corporate self-interest. We reject the outcome, and in the face of government’s lack of ambition, we vow instead to move forward as People. (See full statement 2 posts down)

It is a shame that it takes a looming failure to find any sort of common ground on which civil society can stand. But when governments fail to listen to the 7 billion voices they supposedly represent, perhaps this unity in the People is the only place we can find hope.

Posted:
June 22, 2012
Author:
Nathan Thanki

Rio plus zero

by nathan thanki

For a "once in a generation" event, Rio+20 felt an awful lot like déjà-vu all over again. For those of us [dumb][nerdy][naïve][brave] enough to enter the lion's den of global multilateralism at the UN, the fact that governments could have ended last week’s “third Preparatory Committee to the Conference on Sustainable Development” (the pre-game to the big show) without ever having technically started it is not a shock. In international environmental diplomacy, the bar isn't just set low; we've buried it.

Negotiations took place round the clock in an attempt to have a final outcome document—a face saving political win—ready for world leaders to sign and congratulate themselves on.

Initially there were some bumps. Indeed, the road to Rio itself was downright perilous, with every preparatory meeting running into road blocks. Even last week, an awkward situation/potential media frenzy around the way in which observer states (i.e. Palestine) would participate held up the adaptation of the agenda for three full days. By the time the preparatory session closed 12.15am last Saturday morning, only 37% of the text— the quite ironically and insultingly labelled "The Future We Want"—had been agreed. They were aiming for 60%, minimum.

The official Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) ran 20-22 June, and even though (or maybe because) Obama, Merkel and Cameron did not bother to grace us with their presence, the UN considered this an important event; an opportunity to restore faith in multilateralism and renew commitment to sustainable development and its three pillars—social, economic, and environmental. So it’s quite worrying for there to have been agreement on only 31% of the outcome so close to the start of the higher level plenary. 

But as I said, it is not surprising. It's frankly nothing short of miraculous that there is agreement enough to meet in the first place. With such a spotlight on Rio though, a collapse in talks wouldn't do for the UN or the Brazilian government. Thus more “leadership” from…well…world “leaders” was needed. Brazil took on the role of circus master in order to bring together a “consolidated text” which was then discussed on the understanding that there would be no pernickety editing (no bracketing) allowed.

Although nobody came to Rio expecting much, and the atmosphere for most of the conference was undeniably flat, there is much to be indignant about. From the perspective of most of civil society (excluding, presumably, business and industry)—Rio+20 is an utter failure in ambition. As the much exalted heads of state worked through their tedious speeches, the frustration of the people came to the fore as hundreds of us gathered to symbolically reject the outcome. Putting faith in each other instead of our morally bankrupt leaders, we held a plenary in the face of UN security threats, and decided to stage a “walk out” of the conference to show that without civil society, there is no legitimacy to the process. The WTO or G20 would be even worse venues for these discussions, but at least there we would know that we are not going to be listened to or fully included. The entirety of civil society was not even granted a meagre 2 minute speaking slot on the final day of the conference.

Rio+20 was supposed to outline a common vision for the future. But that vision is a hollow lie. That vision is not based on our interests, or the interests of this planet that we all share. It is based on narrow self-interest of government and their corporate bedfellows. It is based on maintaining power and profit at all cost. The youth—whose only vested interest is our future, whose actions are not yet worn down by the diplomatic language and robotic interactions—know this.  And we’re furious. It is the same fury you can see in Quebec, in Spain, in Egypt, in Chile, in Mexico.  It says: the people who are supposed to represent us have failed. The old way isn’t working. We have a vision for a better world in which equity, empathy, inclusion, justice, love, dignity, and the rights of humans and nature prevail.

Over the past two weeks we saw clearly the most appalling betrayal of our future. And we have seen the most appalling betrayal of the past. All the promises and commitments made 20 years ago in this same city; what became of them? The developed world, rich as a result of years of exploiting their own and other’s natural resources in a predatory way, promised to acknowledge their responsibility and help the developing world with finance and technology. Those commitments have been reneged on, even as the brain drain of the South continues. New commitments are not forthcoming. The argument of the developed world—the EU, Canada, USA et al—is that they are broke (from bailing out their banks) and can’t afford to help. But they can afford $1 trillion for fossil fuel subsidies.

Sustainable development as a concept was defined and refined 20 years ago in Rio. Principles were established. Now, in 2012, all we have is a weak face-saving nod in their direction. Rather than calling this process Rio plus 20, we should call is what it is: Rio plus Zero. How could we not be furious?

UN liaisons constantly tell us to respect the process, to respect the system. But it is not a process that respects us. We are told that out voices are heard, for example in the tellingly uncreatively named “Sustainable Development dialogues,” a giant distraction from the heavy implication-laden discussions and political jostling that went on in the quiet chaos of the hyper-militarized, ultra-green washed and completely disconnected Rio Centro convention centre. But the voices of the people, many of which could be heard 2 hours away at the Cúpula dos Povos (People’s Summit), rarely make their way into the stuffy halls of the powerful.

For this disgusting lack of consideration and cooperation, and for the pathetic lack of ambition, “The Future We Want” is nothing like the future we really want.
 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →