All posts tagged Negotiations

Posted:
June 17, 2012
Author:
COA Students

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.

Posted:
June 15, 2012
Author:
COA Students

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. 

Posted:
March 20, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The Curious Case of the New Zealand Delegation

By Lara Shirley

The New Zealand delegation started the informal-informal negotiations off with a bang on Monday morning, agreeing with the G77 on a variety of issues.

They first did this regarding the title – Japan proposed changing the title of the document to “Rio Commitment towards Green Economy”, the G77 stated that they would prefer “The Future We Want” and New Zealand promptly backed them up, earnestly explaining that Japan’s title would not be suitable because it insinuates that sustainable development is a green economy, which New Zealand firmly insisted was not the case. The US suggested merging the two suggestions. Later, New Zealand supported the G77’s language on poverty, both on the point that it was urgent and that it was a priority necessary for sustainable development.

The New Zealand delegation was refreshingly honest and egregious: they noted that it was important to keep Section 1 paragraphs as short as possible, “since this is the only part that people might actually read.” The delegation also made their points concise and focused. Although this may seem superfluous, I think that this is a great strategy: it makes the delegation seem less hostile and thus the other delegations are less defensive and more receptive to comments and collaboration. The negotiations become more enjoyable and less tense.

However, there was a notable shift in New Zealand’s position in the afternoon session that continued on to the evening session and today. New Zealand almost completely stopped siding with the G77 and instead were much more vocal in their opposition, aligning more with the agendas of the US, EU, Canada, Norway, and Switzerland. Much like the other developed countries, if anything remotely threatened their current lifestyle and economic situation, they proposed deletion of it: References to common but differentiated responsibilities, under the pretense that focusing on CBDR was unequal and not fair to the other Rio principles; proposals that developed countries initiate sustainable consumption and production, under the pretense that they were too strong; and even concerns that the green economy cannot allow developed countries to renege on past commitments, under the pretense that this was not “positive” enough.

Of course, it must be noted New Zealand was not completely supportive of the G77 in the morning either. They pushed for text on human rights, which China opposed. They also proposed the deletion of a paragraph by the G77 regarding the three pillars of sustainable development, the urgency of implementing mechanisms for implementation and common but differentiated responsibility. This was supposedly because it was repeated later on in the document, but the paragraphs New Zealand cited as already covering that content regarded various past programmes and declarations and mentioned implementation only in passing. This is a tactic often employed (especially by the US, the EU and Canada) whereupon they state that they are making the document more coherent and concise by removing repetitive paragraphs. However, those paragraphs – while similar – contain key differences that those delegations attempt to eliminate.

Why did this happen? Of course I don’t know with certainty, but I could comfortably imagine that, in one way or another, the New Zealand delegation was reminded that it is a developed country. Its priorities do not lie in supporting anyone that is less fortunate than them. The pressing question for me is not why New Zealand shifted from defending the G77 to attacking them, but rather why they were sticking up for someone other than themselves in the first place. Perhaps their delegate actually had some empathy and honesty, before being forcibly reminded that things here don’t work like that. This is particularly depressing considering how progressive New Zealand is for a developed country – their treatment of the ‘indigenous’ people is (relatively) excellent, none of their energy is nuclear, 31% is renewable, and there is very limited censorship of political expression. The fact that any real chance of change actually happening – that is, those with power supporting those who need it – gets stamped out so quickly is a depressing facet of the UN that we have come across time and time again. The mere act of a developed country somewhat siding with the G77 was radical: a breath of highly welcome fresh air in the stale, crusted environment of the UN negotiating room. It will be missed.

Posted:
December 8, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Options for the Outcome

by Samuli Sinisalo

The last 48 hours of Durban are at hand. Decisions are going to be made, one way or another.

On the future mandate, the LCA working group on legal options for the outcome, came up with a conference room paper yesterday. That paper specified four options for the LCA outcome from Durban. And as we well know, most Kyoto proposals are conditional on what comes out from the LCA.

Option 1 on the paper is: a new protocol to the Convention, pursuant to Bali Action Plan and the Cancun Agreements. Negotiations would be started in 2012, and completed by COP 18 or latest COP 21. The protocol would include mitigation for all parties as targets and/or actions, with MRV and market mechanisms. The protocol also covers adaptation, technology transfer and finance. LCA working group would be extended until the completion of the new protocol.

Option 1bis requests the LCA to complete through a legally binding instrument/outcome. My interpretation of this is, that it is very similar to option 1, but the outcome would not be called a protocol.

Option 2 requests the LCA track to complete through a series of decisions, pursuant to Bali Action Plan and the Cancun Agreements.

Option 3 requests the LCA to continue negotiations.

Option 4 is no decision.

This is more or less where the negotiators finished their work. The issues are not forwarded on to the ministerial level. From here on decisions and progress cannot be technical, but political decisions need to be made.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →