Julian gives an update on today's events: As host country, Brazil takes charge of negotiations, and developes a new text (with merged and newly agreed-upon paragraphs) for the work to continue on. Then they distribute it…in the delegates-only pavilion. Oh, and Switzerland wants to go to the beach.
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.
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.
Thoughts on the "Green Economy" and Rio+20
by Adrian Fernandez Jauregui
Published on Stakeholder Forum's Outreach magazine
It’s been almost 2 years of mounting excitement around the Rio+20 conference. But what is there to be excited about? How has the world changed in the past 20 years since Rio? Has the lot of the world’s poor been improved? Apparently not. Quite the opposite, in fact. Have global power structures changed? In some ways yes, but in most ways no. There are still the same winners and losers in the great game of international relations. Especially when it comes to the idea of the “Green Economy," where it seems that the Global South will once again get the short end of the stick.
Decades after the lengthy and painful structural adjustment periods of the 70s and 90s, which left deep scars on the industries, agricultural sectors, and societies of the developing world, it is insulting to now see an eerily similar initiative appear in the “Green Economy road-map.” This new initiative is similar in too many ways to the older — unsuccessful and damaging — restructuring initiatives. This new Green Economy initiative would see new trade barriers imposed on the developing world (such as a carbon tariff, or border adjustment tax). It would involve “experts” imposing a “one size fits all” development model, or “road-map.” . It risks establishing new aid conditionalities that require progress solely toward environmental goals. It’s all about changing the rules of the game in order to favor specific (developed) economies, and allocate the burden of transition to developing countries. It restarts the struggle to “catch up” with the developed world, this time (and for now) the new direction is the green economy instead of liberalization of the economy.
The original Rio principles and commitments are being ignored completely as governments work towards a new (questionably titled) document, “The Future We Want.” The excuses are many, but the bottom line is that developed countries want to move away from the agreements and principles established in 1992. Although the Rio principles are supposed to be shaping the document, countries like the US, Canada and Japan have been systematically blocking any mention of the Rio principles, especially the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and the Polluter Pays principles, which are key strategic safeguards.
It is frustrating to know that the same story is being replayed over and over again. But the worst part is seeing some developing countries follow the same patterns of development based on natural resource predation and unsustainable consumption patterns that not long ago were heavily criticized by overdeveloped countries. It is not easy to restrain humanity’s aspirations of development, and this is the case in Germany, Bolivia, Zimbabwe or elsewhere. But it is certainly tougher to reject the idea of development when poverty, hunger, and inequality are the standard fare of everyday life for the large majority of people. So, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to see more and more developing countries trading green areas of forests for green cash. Especially after the first Earth Summit, when it was made clear that the only way for the South to develop in a sustainable way was by providing them with adequate assistance such as technology transfer, Official Development Assistance and capacity building, breaking any dependency. These necessities were never even close to being met.
Development is needed in most regions of the world to address poverty and under-consumption. But, just as anything else in the natural world, things grow and develop until a certain point, and no more. Unfortunately, there are a number of countries that are living far beyond their means. Over-consumption — a symptom of over-development — remains a contentious topic. In fact, the US rejects the interdependence between sustainable consumption and production patterns and sustainable development. Bolivia and Ecuador disagree fundamentally with this position; for these two countries the concept of “good living” should instead be the guide to achieve sustainable consumption levels. The concept of “good living” means understanding quality of life as much more than purchasing power and consumption levels: It also takes into account humanity's relationship with nature.
Until underlying issues such as inequality, assumption of infinite growth, over-consumption, and lack of agency in the South are seriously addressed, and principles like common but differentiated responsibilities are seriously respected, any outcome from Rio will not be the future we really want.
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/prepcom3/108-prep3day3/945-prep3day3item5
