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.                          

To Those Who Want To Know the Status of the Rio+20 negotiations: An Analysis of the Present Progress on the Rio+20 Outcome Document

Rich nations backtracking as Rio Summit nears

 by Martin Khor, Executive Director of South Centre

(This article was first published in The Star (Malaysia), 4 June 2012.)

New York, 4 June (Martin Khor) -With only ten days to go before the start of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, the countries are still far from agreeing on what to say in a summit declaration or plan of action.

The final meeting to prepare for the Conference last week in UN headquarters in New York made some progress to narrow the gaps, but it was not enough. Only 70 paragraphs out of a total of 329 in the latest draft declaration have been agreed on.  There are differing views in the rest, which have to be bridged when the delegates meet again on 13 June in Rio. 

They have a few days to do so before the political leaders meet on 20-23 June for what is dubbed as the Rio plus 20 summit, so called because it is marking the twentieth anniversary of the historic Earth Summit of 1992, also held in Rio. More than a hundred heads of state or governments are expected to attend Rio + 20, making it the most important international conference this year.

It will be held amidst a global financial crisis, growing unemployment, and worsening environmental problems, including increasing water scarcity and floods,  biodiversity loss, food insecurity and climate change.  These are all part of the crisis in sustainable development and its three dimensions—economic, social and environment.

Unfortunately, the summit comes at a time when developed and developing countries seem less and less able to reach a common understanding on key issues and principles.  The North-South divide has been visible in the negotiations at the World Trade Organisation, in the Climate Change Convention and most recently at the UN Conference on Trade and Development.

The same divide also exists in the Rio+20 negotiations, the latest round of which ended on 2 June. Big differences have emerged on the three new issues being addressed by the Conference  -- the concept of the green economy, how to define sustainable development goals, and what new institutional framework to create to house future activities on sustainable development. But what is even more worrying is that the developed countries are attempting to remove or dilute the principles agreed to in Rio 20 years ago, and to backtrack on the commitments they had made to assist developing countries through finance and technology transfer in order to implement sustainable development. 

Thus the North-South divide is not only over specific issues but is also at the deep level of the fundamentals that lie at the foundations of international cooperation of the past many decades.

 These include the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), and the commitments on technology transfer and finance. The CBDR was one of the Rio Principles adopted in 1992.  It was agreed that all countries have a common responsibility to protect the environment, but also differentiated responsibilities because the rich countries should play the leading role, due to their greater contribution to the environmental crisis and their higher economic status.

This basic principle is under attack. In the recent negotiations, the United States has made it clear it cannot accept CBDR.  Wherever the term is mentioned, the US wants it deleted.  Almost all developed countries use the excuse that no single Rio principle should be singled out and a general reference to the set of Rio principles should suffice. This is causing great concern to the developing countries, grouped in the G77 and China. For them, the clear reaffirmation of the CBDR principle in particular and the Rio principles in general is the most important point that Rio+20 must proclaim.  Otherwise it would be a great retreat from the original Rio.

The second serious problem is the developed countries’ back-tracking on their commitment to transfer technology to developing countries.  In the section on technology transfer in the draft declaration, the US, European Union,  Canada and Australia do not even want any reference to technology transfer in the title itself. The original title in the text by the Co-Chairs of the meeting is “Technology development and transfer.”   The US, supported by Canada and Australia, want to delete the word “transfer” and instead change the title to “Technology development, innovation and science”. 

The EU also wants a new title: “Research, Innovation and Technology Development.”  This is the clearest indication of an intention to kill the concept, let alone the commitment to, Technology Transfer. Wherever the words “technology transfer” appears, there is an attempt by the US (supported by Canada) to put in the words “voluntary transfer on mutually agreed terms and conditions”.

This is backtracking from the previous commitment by developed countries. In the 1992 Rio Summit and in the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 and in other fora, the developed countries had agreed not only to technology transfer without restricting the term, but also to technology transfer on “concessional and preferential terms”, or to “fair and most favourable terms.”

In one part of the original text calling for enhanced access by developing countries for environmentally sound technologies, one developed country even proposed changing the meaning to enhanced market access to developing countries’ markets for the developed countries’ technologies. The major developed countries also want to delete entire paragraphs that call for a balanced treatment of intellectual property rights. For example, the Co-Chairs proposed that the impact of patents on developing countries’ access to technology be examined, but this was rejected by almost all developed countries.

On the issue of financial assistance to developing countries, the developed countries are resisting the concept of new and additional funds, or any concrete figures or mechanisms. For example, the Co-Chairs proposed that “We recognise the crucial importance of increases in the provision of finance for sustainable development”.  But Canada, US and New Zealand wanted to delete “increases in the provision.”

The draft also urges developed countries to make additional concrete efforts towards the target of providing aid equivalent to 0.7 per cent of their GNP, which had been in the original Rio action plan.  But Canada and the US want to delete this as they said they have never agreed to this target.

There is an attempt to significantly water down the role of public finance in financial transfers to developing countries and shift this to private financing or even to South-South financing. The G77 and China proposed that developed countries provide new funding for sustainable development in developing countries exceeding US$30 billion a year in 2013-17 and US$100 billion a year from 2018 onwards, and to set up a sustainable development fund.

In fact this is not a new idea, as the UN secretariat back in 1992 had estimated that developed countries should provide $100 billion a year to developing countries to implement the proposed sustainable development actions. However, in the discussions last week, several developed countries objected to the mention of concrete funding figures and to the idea of a fund.

There is an air of despondency among developing country delegates, due to the trend in the recent negotiations.  As one delegate put it, the developing countries are being asked to take on more obligations through the concepts of the green economy and sustainable development goals, but there are no new funds to assist them, and there is a backtracking on the technology transfer commitment.  However there are still some negotiating days ahead, and there is a slim chance that there may be a change of heart at Rio itself.

What is Rio+20 all about?

JUST RELEASED TO ALL INTERESTED IN WHAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN RIO.

[If you want to understand the policy platform that Rio+20 is based on.]

We want to share with you an 8 min video, just released by Vitae Civilis, explaining Rio+20 to “non initiatedes."

We hope you like it, and if you do so, please feel free to use and share as you like.

http://youtu.be/SmqXJcSthgU

What does 350 stand for?

Meet the person who started 350, Bill McKibbens

Meet the 350 gang.

Are you ready for RIO?

Meet the young women who spoke to the delegates in 1992.

Meet her again 20 years later and what she has to say.

A look at the political maneuvering during the Copenhagen climate change meetings in 2009

This is a lengthy documentary. A few minutes of watching 'what goes on' might entice you view it to the end. 

This documentary 'The Climate Game and the World's Poor' looks at climate change from the perspective of the poor and the developing countries. The ones who have most at stake and already suffer from the impacts of climate change, which are mainly caused by developed countries. Yet, the views and voices of the poor are often sidelined at global summits dominated by the big and the rich players.

The film provides a revealing insight into the way international diplomacy can become an intricate game played by competing nations, a game that for millions of the world's poorest people is really a question of life and death.

These documentaries are produced by Anders Dencker Christensen with financial support from Danida's Information Grant, Danish Foreign Ministry, Danish Ministry of Education, Hermod Lannungs Fond and UNESCO.

What does “Eco” have to do with “Justice?”

Poverty is a very significant cause of environmental destruction, and environmental destruction is a major cause of poverty. Many people in developing countries live in rural settings, relying directly on nature— fishing, hunting and small-scale farming—particularly vulnerable to the effects of pollution and climate change. Because of climate change (even aside from water shortages) crop yields are expected to decline as temperature patterns change in most tropical regions, and the frequency of severe natural disasters inevitably play a role in the mass destruction of poorly-constructed homes. Climate change refugees are joining other migrants as some of the poorest people on earth, and with them contribute to the desperate exploitation of scarce resources. And -- is the owner of a dirty mine likely to live next to it?  Who gets the profits from a logged rain forest? Who produces the most greenhouse gases?...not the poor.

      

"My heart is moved by all I cannot save:

So much has been destroyed

I have to cast my lot with those

who age after age, perversely

with no extraordinary power,

reconstitute the world."

                                                       -- Adrienne Rich

Rio+20 is only the first step in a process. People all over the world are being invited to make Voluntary Commitments.  Schools, businesses, NGOs, public and private groups are getting their pledges ready. One of the first was given by 10,000 Japanese schoolchildren, who pledged to save 100 Watt hours of electricity a week, saving 1500 tons of coal / day. To help us be involved, the United Nations has launched a Volunteer Action Counts campaign. Visit www.volunteeractioncounts.org and think how you might make a personal or group commitment: support of a sustainable development project, a change in personal or community practice, policy advocacy, or public education / awareness-raising?  Or pray for the ones making this effort!

                     (Material taken from Unanima International Update edited by Sister Michele Morek)