Another analysis of the Third Round of Negotiations on the Outcome Document for Rio+20

Third Round of ‘Informal-Informal’ Negotiations on the zero draft of outcome document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20)

29 May - 2 June 2012 | UN Headquarters, New York, United States of America

One month ago, delegates did not expect to return to New York for an additional round of negotiations on the UNCSD outcome document. Yet with two weeks to go before the final PrepCom meeting in Rio, a third round of informal-informal consultations was convened by the PrepCom Bureau, who realized that the homestretch was upon them with little in terms of a solid document that could be approved by world leaders at the UNCSD from 20-22 June. Many perceived another negotiating round as an obligation to reach agreement on the text in good faith, especially its most contentious portions. Success was badly needed as the clock continues to tick down to Rio.

Yet many observers and negotiators recognized they were working against a political backdrop not terribly conducive to a successful preparatory process—negative trends seem to be mounting with the economic drift, financial shocks, a troubled Euro and the traditionally harsh political impact of a US election year. The vacillation of some world leaders who haven’t firmly decided on whether to attend Rio+20, the absence of any references to the UNCSD in recent international summits, including the outcome of the G8 Summit, are all indicative of shifting priorities and a lack of engaged leadership.

This brief analysis will address the importance of the latest round of informal consultations in New York, its dynamics and implications for the conference, focusing on historical context, process and issues still to be resolved.

 “A MERE SHADOW OF THE PAST”

Such was the rueful comment of one observer. For him, the latest informal negotiating session confirmed the risk of Rio+20 becoming a poor shadow of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)—the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. The Earth Summit had the benefit of extensive meticulous preparation with ample Secretariat and expert input. In the case of UNCED, the outcome was truly substantive: the lasting Rio Principles and Agenda 21. While the UNCSD must live up to this historic meeting, it is not clear whether the current preparatory process will culminate in something comparable, particularly given the absence of a grand vision and driving leadership.

The “zero draft” emerged from 6000 pages of submissions that became a 200-page “compilation text.” The initial 19-page “zero-draft” that emerged in January, ballooned to over 206 pages in March before resulting in an 80-page version tabled by the Co-Chairs on 22 May. By the end of this session, it had only grown by six pages and, as Co-Chair Kim Sook noted on Saturday, 70 paragraphs had been agreed ad referendum, with 259 paragraphs still bracketed. While this may not seem like much of a success, this marked an improvement from the 21 agreed paragraphs and 401 bracketed ones at the beginning of the week.

However, many remained frustrated, with some delegates convinced the preparatory process, through a coincidence of circumstances, was flawed from the start. They complained (albeit unfairly in some instances) that it lacked strong leadership from the Secretariat and some wished that Brazil, as host country, would play a more inspirational and practical role in the negotiations. Many delegates at this session were particular unhappy with the organization of work, the uneven chairing styles, and the modest role of the PrepCom’s Bureau, whose members seemed reluctant to wield authority to spur on negotiations.

The problem of informal drafting groups haunted the negotiations until the last day. The unintentionally but aptly named “splinter groups” proliferated to over 20, precluding participation of small delegations, giving rise to complaints and consequently a feeling of denial. Many felt that the groups were convened too late in the process. The inability of many delegates to attend all of the groups, the dearth of strong facilitators and Secretariat support resulted in confusion on what had actually been debated and agreed. Indeed, in several instances during the closing hours on Saturday, delegations asked to re-bracket ostensibly agreed passages, just to be on the safe side. One long-time participant commented that an unexpected factor—information technology—had hit the preparatory process with a vengeance: instant communication led to “excessive” 24-hour control from capitals, sapping negotiators’ initiative and slowing down negotiations. “Rarely has a drafting process been so erratic,” observed one delegate. The disorder anesthetized the sense of urgency with some delegations acting as if they had months to go. Yet time was slipping away like sand in an hourglass.

NEGOTIATING IN AN HOURGLASS

Admittedly, there are substantive reasons for the disarray and snail-like pace of drafting. The first is the enormous range and sheer complexity of issues addressed in the draft outcome document, embracing as it does the three pillars of sustainable development. The second is the lack of early consensus on the parameters of the main issues on Rio+20 agenda—green economy, the institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD), and the more recently introduced sustainable development goals (SDGs). As expected, these issues plagued negotiations in New York despite the new Co-Chair’s text, which many considered to be well crafted, an improvement on previous drafts and based on realistic assumptions of what may be acceptable to all.

Some saw it as shifting gears: the text was designed to avoid battles over controversial decisions with uncertain results, by suggesting that Rio “launch” new processes so that the big issues could be resolved at a later stage, rather than taking final decisions on SDGs or the high-level sustainable development forum. The conciliatory draft raised hopes, which were almost immediately dashed by amendments from the EU and the G-77/China, which quickly turned from a trickle into a torrent. Once the Co-Chairs’ text was opened, there was little holding back. Predictably, the G-77/China reinserted a number of references to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and equity, against the expected objections of developed countries. For their part, the EU insisted on specific targets, introducing language under most thematic areas with specific targets to achieve goals by 2030, including biodiversity—against the objections of the US and developing countries, which claimed the EU was trying to impose its own agenda. In a “free for all” melee, some delegations tried to insert language on issues that they were unable to satisfactorily address in other fora, like marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, thus draining energy and precious negotiating time, and resulting in accusations of “forum shopping.”

THE LAST BRIDGE TO CROSS

This third round of informal consultations conducted a thorough examination of all of the issues in the outcome document and provided insights into the limits of what governments may agree to and where their “red lines” might lie. Some bracketed language was clearly kept for last-minute trade-offs, including common but differentiated responsibilities, sustainable consumption and production, as well as monitoring and follow-up. Some delegations remained skeptical of proposals like the creation of a post of a high representative for future generations, which one delegate said had an unclear mandate. A number of observers expect that these bargaining chips will be quickly traded in the final negotiations.

The bottom line was that the unresolved substantive problems are too political with long-term implications to be resolved by mid-level negotiators in New York; they will have to be decided at the last PrepCom in Rio, possibly at the conference itself. The most important issues are difficult to trade, and these are what delegates will have to resolve as they try to cross the last bridge—the three-day PrepCom in mid-June (although there was talk that it will be extended until the first day of the conference). Among the major sticking points are SDGs, their relation to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) review process (the MDGs will lapse in 2015) and the method of their elaboration: should it be a Secretariat-driven process or an intergovernmental negotiation (the latter preferred by G-77/China and some others)? Delegates will also have to figure out how to deal with the EU insistence on “deliverable” concrete targets and goals.

Another issue still on the table is the idea to establish an intergovernmental high-level political forum, building on the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and other relevant bodies. Since this could mean a major restructuring of IFSD, many countries are wary of the implications, including overlapping mandates. Without prejudging the outcome of negotiations, delegates discussed the possible functions of the high level political forum, represented in a heavily bracketed list, an as yet unknown entity (the “ghost,” in the words of a delegate). The future of UNEP is another outstanding issue—should it be upgraded to universal membership of its Governing Council, or transformed into a specialized agency? The US, the Russian Federation and several others have strongly objected to the latter option, which means that the EU, the passionate proponent of the specialized agency option, faces an uphill task in Rio. Acceptable modalities for green economy will also require hard bargaining.

The onus for the outcome of the informal consultations may be the result of a number of factors, but it is a fair reflection of the current state of affairs. The world has changed since 1992, which was a time of optimism at the end of the Cold War and the dawn of a new era in multilateralism. 2012 is a time of recession and economic uncertainty, the pessimism of today is in dark contrast with the optimism of 1992. Perceptions still differ considerably: what is common sense for some appears as arrogance for others. Least developed countries are worried they are being forgotten in the process, and the problem of “means of implementation” will not disappear. The consultations have shown that “building on Agenda 21” is no easy task, and no consecutive “Rio+xx” will automatically find a place on an exhilarating trajectory extending into a bright future. Substantive differences are bound to dominate the negotiations in Rio before the closing gavel.

“We are near, and yet so far,” said UNCSD Secretary-General Sha Zukang in his closing remarks. While complete success at the informal informals proved elusive and much of the text remains heavily bracketed, it was not a complete loss; some large portions of the text are now agreed. Perhaps most importantly, the fault lines have been defined, positions clearly articulated, and all amendments tabled. Still, the process has been erratic, and the informal session closed with tempers running high. In the last minutes on Saturday, some delegations reserved on whole sections of text, a sign that positions have not yet softened. Nevertheless, the general feeling was upbeat, one of relief and even reserved satisfaction. As a civil society observer noted, the preparatory process should not be seen in too pessimistic a light, as centering on a single issue—the outcome document. Negotiating the road to Rio has already had positive repercussions around the world: it has brought sustainable development into sharper focus, and spawned citizens’ groups with a renewed desire to sway government negotiations (interestingly, NGO representatives were seen sitting in on informal contact groups without objections raised from delegates). The activists of “Occupy Rio+20” are a sign that the bleak world economic situation has actually promoted sustainable development awareness, and has put people’s well-being, socioeconomic equity and environmental health in a strong public spotlight. Yet it remains to be seen whether the renewed spirit of activism will be reflected in an ambitious outcome that gives hope to future generations.