All posts tagged Rio+20

Posted:
June 25, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Brazilian fractals

by Maria Alejandra Escalante

“I also take it as granted that every created thing, and consequently the created monad also, is subject to change, and indeed that this change is continual in each one.

Gottfried Leibniz 

 

Listening to political conversations about the past, the present and the future of Rio+20 has been a daily ingredient of my life since I first jumped into the global politics realm a year ago. Many words I have read in preparation to what came already. Yet, words fall short when living what Rio+20 meant in all its wholeness. I still need to process what I saw, heard and talked about to come to any accurate understanding of this overwhelming trip to Brazil. Therefore this post becomes my thoughts’ delineation so I can hope to make any sense out of this experience, rather than an explanation or a description for you, the reader, about Rio+20. And as this is more for me than for you, I am doing it my way. According to the theory of fractals, any chosen element has infinite scales of reflections that interact with one another and affect what they are. I see myself an element reproduced in the Earth in Brackets team, the UN as an institution and the rest of the world that does not involve the UN. This view is my best attempt to reach an understanding. 

The idea of sustainable development renovated my faith in the human spirit. It is a brilliant strategy that, in theory, addresses the root problems of this unconscious society: overconsumption and overproduction of everything and all you can think of. I got inspired. In my head I thought that if we pushed hard enough, this new way of living would be a breakthrough in the course of our existence. But that could not happen at Rio+20 because the people of the world cannot reach consensus on any major issue. With sharp words and speeches they, the delegates, convinced and unconvinced each other several times. Words in this context seem to weigh a lot, and the power they possess is a delegate’s best weapon. But delivered how it was, sustainable development could not pass through the UN’s framework. If that was the only idea that I believed in and as it was unsuccessfully adopted by the UN, then I had no choice but to lose my minimal faith in the UN as an international platform for agreements. 

Then me, an individual finding no sense in what is being done, was part of a group of people that, believing or not, was also embedded in this frenetic Rio+20 bubble. I had to respond to them and make them count on me because one thing is to walk away from a system, like the UN one, and another thing is to walk away from the people who are acting as teachers to me. So, for most of the time, I let my apprehension hide away from the common goal. We found a common group goal that more or less aligned with my thoughts: the future we want was not being given by the negotiators at Rio+20. We worked hard to deliver such message. And then I felt that as much as I disagreed in a bigger sense with even participating in a conference that was mostly set to give media comfort and some work, having a cohesive group was important if we wanted to maker ourselves heard loud enough. 

And so Earth in Brackets became known as a radical voice to the youth participants in particular but among civil society in general. We spread around like a plague, covering negotiations, networking with key people, transmitting messages from and to RioCentro, pushing everywhere we could for The Future We Really Want. We were united and had a direction (this seems like an easy task, but it is truly not. We had many meetings to decide which direction to go), and hence we were heard by other groups. Again, in this political world if your rhetoric is not strong enough you are not heard. I felt like we, clearly with the help and input of so many other people who became our “allies”, tilted the balance of the Rio+20 outcome towards our favor. At least a little. Through conversations and especially through the protests and manifestations, we made sure that Rio+20 did not walk out with an absolute victory and be transcribed into History as the biggest and most important conference of the United Nations. 

But Rio+20 is just one reunion within dozens of UN meetings. The UN is just one institution organizing (or trying to) the structure of this modern society. It is just one institution that has existed over less than a century in History. The chances that I, or  that Earth in Brackets, or the final negotiating text will radically change the destructive senseless model of living is pretty slim according to my calculations. So I cannot leave Rio de Janeiro without asking the question: was this whole endeavor worth it? I burst out a gigantic NO, but then I remember my fractal theory. These scales of perception can and may influence each other in ways I cannot even perceive. In that case, the work that we all have done here can potentially have unknown repercussions in the course of the universe. It might change it. But it might not. If something indeed changes, I hope I can perceive it before deciding if it worth it to go to the next COP in Qatar, or not. 

Posted:
June 25, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Demand A Future

Some new friends of ours were present at the Thursday action, and made a short video about it:

Basta! Rio+20 Walk Out from Permacyclists on Vimeo.

On June 21, 2012, leaders from around the world gathered in Rio de Janeiro to discuss sustainable development and related issues. Nobody hoped for much but the results were even worse than expected. Some members of civil society who were present decided to take bold action to show their anger at a failed process and that the time has come to unite to demand a future for all. Over a hundred people walked out the conference center, symbolically returning their UN badges on the way out. Here is the story of that day.

Music: 'Polaroid' by Jahzzar: http://www.betterwithmusic.com

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.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →