Reflections on Rio+20: Bitter Disappointment in the Whole Process

Details

Created on Sunday, 01 July 2012 01:50

Last Updated on Sunday, 01 July 2012 01:52

Written by Adam Hasz

Cross-posted from Searching for Sustainability

I intended to blog about Rio+20 daily during June 20-22, the “official” days for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, the UN. Instead, I was swept up in the emotional roller coaster of the final days, joining in Civil Society actions protesting the weak outcome document claiming to represent the “Future We Want.”  I needed a week for the overwhelming feelings of excitement, heartbreak, hope, and disgust to settle before coming back to reflect on what actually happened at the conference. This post is the first of a series evaluating Rio+20, both in terms of the policy it produced and the transformative experience it was for me.

 

There is no consensus on the outcome of Rio+20.  Some (mostly governments) say it was a resounding success in multilateral diplomacy, proof that UN negotiations need not engage in brinkmanship in the very last hours of a conference.  Speaking on behalf of the entire UN system, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that "Rio+20 has affirmed fundamental principles – renewed essential commitments – and given us new direction." Others observers (mostly NGOs) claim that Rio+20 was an incredible failure, a wasted opportunity where millions of dollars led to a greenwashed, corporate approved, business-as-usual document that takes us closer to environmental and social ruin.  Among the critics, Vandana Shiva described Rio+20 as “the death of democracy” and Bill McKibben joined in the twitter trend of #Riofail.

 

For the most part, I share McKibben’s perspective that Rio+20 was a huge disappointment.  I was expecting a very weak policy outcome document to emerge from the conference, but I did not expect to also be so disappointed in the policy process.  The UN prides itself on being inclusive and transparent in all of its proceedings and supposedly designated special pathways for civil society participation in Rio+20.  Brazilian President and conference host Dilma Rousseff was particularly emphatic about this point, declaring that Rio+20 was the most inclusive and participatory conference in history and a "global expression of democracy."  Yet on the final days of the negotiations, civil society groups were shut out of the official conversations.  Policy points my friends had spent years lobbying for were curtly removed, calls for greater participation were ignored, and after some secret closed-door meetings, Brazilian facilitators produced the “final text” with no possibility for alteration. 

 

The outcome document satisfied the minimum requirements for all of the national governments in attendance, but it was a far cry from the ambitious response we need to deal with the world’s mounting social, economic, and environmental crises.  And with the outcome document completed a day before the arrival of heads of state, the official three days of Rio+20 turned to be little more than leaders posturing in an endless stream of speeches.  To add even further insult to injury, on the last day of the conference civil society groups were barredfrom making any final statements.  Originally, the UN had promised each of the civil society participatory groups the chance to give a 2-minute final symbolic statement.  But even this symbolic participatory measure was taken away.

 

With nothing productive left to do in the conference and every avenue for participation blocked, I decided to join a youth-led protest of the entire negotiation process.  We highlighted the corporate influence on the Rio+20 process, held a “people’s plenary” to decide what next steps to take, and ultimately decided the strongest action would be to simply walk out of the conference venue.  To see the full story, check out the video below:

 

 

While walking out of RioCentro, I experienced powerful feelings of solidarity and moral resistance.  It was in many ways a culminating protest for my past four years of climate activism, a declaration that current global policy is leading us towards catastrophic tipping points.  I believe that real sustainability requires nothing less than a complete transformation of society.  We need new economic models that provide for everyone’s basic needs while respecting planetary boundaries.  We need to change our underlying societal motivation from greed to empathy.  We need to realize that cooperation is often more efficient than competition.  And we need to do this on a very short timescale, because climate change and widespread environmental degradation suggests we are rapidly approaching the limits of what the planet can sustainably bare.

 

There are limitations to protest though, limitations that deeply troubled me after walking out of RioCentro.  While protests can help spur policy change, they are much more effective at blocking destructive proposals than creating alternatives.  And even policy has its limitations.  Full sustainability cannot be mandated through legislation, nor can complete social and cultural change be imposed through a UN declaration or national law.  Policy and protest are incredibly powerful tools, and they can move society forward in large bounds when used effectively.  But to make something new, to create a better world rather than just preventing a worse one, requires something more.

 

Thankfully, Rio+20 was more than just a disappointing policy process.  With more than 50,000 people participating in more than 3,000 side events, many real solutions to our pressing sustainability challenges did emerge from Rio.  In my next post, I’ll highlight some of these solutions and the potential collaborations in the post-Rio+20 world.

A Different Approach to Rio +20: The Transition from Dynamism/Inception to Implementation

Details

Created on Friday, 22 June 2012 21:36

Last Updated on Friday, 22 June 2012 21:36

Written by Sarah Dayringer

Introduction
In preparation for the 3rd Intersessional to the 2012 UN CSD or Rio +20, which took place on the 26 & 27 of March, three events took place on March 24th and 25th, 2012. The first was the Major Groups Dialogue on the Green Economy in the context of Poverty Eradication and Sustainable Development, the second is the World Resources Institute’s Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD) dialogue, and the third is the US/Canada Citizens’ Summit for Sustainable Development hosted by SustainUS, NRDC, Citizens Network, We Canada, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Science and Human Impacts Institute. Identification of key messages that emerged out of these three events is a strong indicator and recognition of the strength of these messages.  Civil society has used these commonalities to attempt to influence the Zero Draft of the outcome document in the Rio +20 process. Rio +20 requires a different approach than used for 1992 Earth Summit. There are many things that exist today that did not in ’92 and/or that have emerged due to unsustainable development and practices such as new technologies, new environmental threats, new economic pressures and different dynamics of cultural realization.  A different approach to Rio +20 can mark the transition from inception to implementation.

A new approach to Participation
The world we live in now is different in many ways than the world in 1992.  For example, mobile phones are the primary tool used to communicate; there is widespread WiFi, giving people from around the world access to more knowledge than ever thought possible. Citizens Summit examined a spectrum of tools, technologies and resources to access and share information and knowledge and to organize and enable actions and initiatives. These ranged from useful websites, publications and organizations to market-based, regulatory-based, and social policy approaches, and current or proposed indicators and measures of local, national or global sustainability. Many policy instruments have been developed and used in different sectors and settings with equally varied outcomes. These offer important lessons, which in turn require access to the details and analysis of these lessons. Social innovations, experiments and projects are taking place throughout the region as well as in other countries. In turn, new technologies are being developed and used in creative ways to make that information available and to encourage exchange and collaboration, including social media such as Facebook, Twitter and ways of using the internet to allow for “live-stream” virtual participation, which were all used to enable wider participation in the three concurrent civil society meetings.

Participation in policy-making, from all stakeholders involved, adds perspective, viability and feasibility to Rio +20 process.  A main point within the Rio +20 process is cross-sectoral, integrated participation.  After the Earth Summit in 1992, those who came together, but afterwards, people grew into their own sectors and fields, losing dialogue and perspective from other vital stakeholders and sectors. All three concurrent events were created out of a need for a wider breadth of stakeholder participation. Incorporating priorities from a wider range of stakeholders into civil society concerning sustainable development and Rio +20 can foster new network connections and unification among different sectors.  In turn, this would enhance the efforts to inform a strong outcome text from member state negotiations in the Rio+20 process and provide insight into how we can bring the outcomes of Rio +20 home, with commitments to implementation plans at all levels of government, sectors and countries; keeping in mind common-but-differentiated-responsibility and focusing on non-regression.

A New Approach to Developing Sustainable Economies
The Major Group Expert Meeting was created to identify cross-sectoral themes for advocacy, by opening up the meeting and bring all the major groups together as one strong voice of civil society. Among their identified policy points were emphasis on equity, inclusiveness, of participation, stakeholder participation and accountability by all.

A rights-based approach was agreed upon among all major groups. The Major Group Expert Meeting emphasized the need for equity, a ‘social protection floor’ and inclusion of specific sectors and vulnerable groups is essential.  Affirm specific geographies for realization of a rights based approach such as cities and rural areas, including transportation, water, health and reproductive rights, among others. Specific multi-stakeholder modalities for implementing a rights based framework should be included in the Means of Implementation connected to Principle 10, including informed consent, education about the rights-based approach to sustainable development. This meeting concluded with discussion of a coherent approach of major groups on the core issues of finance and rights. Civil Society across these three concurrent dialogues called for linkages to rights-related issues such as equality, corporate accountability, trade and finance, etc., needed to be concretely laid out in the text.

The US/Canada Citizens’ Summit for Sustainable Development was collaboration between the organizing partners who all had a similar vision to raise participation and increase inclusivity, aiming to get a broader range of sectors and stakeholders involved in policy making processes through civil society. There a new approach was emphasized because it will not only be governments or our member states making commitments at Rio +20, but civil society and business (private sector) are making commitments at Rio +20. Key messages which emerged were a need for clarification of issues and recommendations; market mechanisms to be implemented, allowing new technologies, entrepreneurs and small businesses to feasibly enter and compete in markets; financing models for investment incentives; broader integrated participation from those stakeholders who are not part of a Major Group, intergenerational equality and representation from all stakeholder groups. Therein, was a strong message of cross-sectoral and cross-discipline collaboration and approach, urging sectors to begin “getting out of their silos.”

Civil society and a new and emerging demography within, youth are advocating for a more inclusive and robust approach to policy making on all levels of government. ‘Business’ has proven to be a critical stakeholder in these processes more than in1992 because private business and industry are carrying out much of today’s economic development. Member states are required to begin taking new measures in policy-making processes that were never required before because of this integration.  Therefore, extra time was necessary to get the Zero Draft to a stage needed in order to conduct the final negotiations at Rio +20.

At Rio+20 governments are encouraged to work in a more collaborative and transparent manner with other nations in order to make concrete and binding commitments related to the role of business in sustainable development. With respect to the private sector approach, it is necessary for the government to recognize the influential power and indispensible role of business in the green economy, and expand synergistic actions such as guidelines and voluntary contracts. On the national and local level, governments should foster actions that incorporate externalities in to its decision making process; use new scientific information to adjust norms; foster social enterprises; and innovate on national institutional structures to address new challenges.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) hosted a workshop focused on discussions on promoting transparency, inclusiveness and accountability as outcomes of Rio 2012.  The discussion focused around means to enhance Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio declaration on access to information, public participation and access to justice, as well as new means to ensure accountability through public monitoring of commitments. The IFSD Workshop participants agreed that key principles need to be based on the Rio Declaration/Agenda 21 and should include transparency, intergenerational and gender equity, sector integration, and public participation. Also, determining that establishment of the Ombudsperson for Future Generations function may also provide additional entry points for diverse stakeholder participation.  

A New Approach to Governance
Current governance systems are not strong enough to ensure effective implementation, monitoring and review.  We hoped that Rio+20 could deliver on governance institutions and mechanisms that are strong enough to carry effective universal periodic review of implementation, provide accountability framework, and build coherence and coordination across the UN system.

To meet this need, the position of Ombudsperson for Future Generations was proposed. The IFSD workshop began to outline the development of a new mechanism to ensure that there is a future looking agenda for the development of the proposed new institution of an Ombudsperson for Future Generations. This office would provide a link from international issues to local issues. Part of the mandate for the Ombudsperson should be to act as an interface and watchdog for promoting sustainable development.  This policy proposal itself is evidence that a different approach is needed and also that it is even more crucial for sustainable practices to be adopted.  However, this is again, something new on the table. A role that must be laid out, and position within the United Nations defined.  

This proposal to establish an ombudsperson for future generations has the full continued support of civil society. The ombudsperson office needs to be multidisciplinary understanding law, policy and science. The office must have a level of independence, including an independent source of funding, institutional power and be appointed by the multi lateral system. This should be a very high level office at the level of the Secretary General. This office would provide a link from international issues to local issues. Part of the mandate for the Ombudsperson should be to act as an interface and watchdog for promoting sustainable development. There are a number of offices that we could review to help determine the mandate of the ombudsperson including the Controller of the US, other UN Rapporteurs, Canadian Commissioner for Environment and Sustainable Development, Hungarian Ombudsman for Future Generations and the World Bank Inspection Panel.  A number of governments have spoken about the financial implications of this new office. This institution is critical for implementation of outstanding gaps, which have prevented us for meeting the challenges of sustainable development. Investment in this body could have a longstanding impact on achieving the aims of sustainable development. The financial cost of other similar panels does not make this prohibitive e.g. World Bank Inspection Panel.

Conclusion
So, What are some of the reasons the method of approach hasn’t been successful in the past? International Institute for Sustainable Development’s (IISD) Langston “Kimo” Goree IV, explained (1) The agreements made in 1992 at the Earth Summit were not fulfilled, causing animosity to grow between the global North and South. The deal (that developing countries would forego the unsustainable use of their natural resources in exchange for new financial resources, transfer of technology and capacity building) was unfulfilled and developing countries in Rio+20 have not forgotten. (2) The sustainable development paradigm that some thought would ascend in 1992 was supplanted by the globalization paradigm, that emerged with the WTO two years after Rio, taking the mantra “trade, not aid.” Funds that could have been used to halt environmental degradation instead were used to address political instability, in many instances caused by environmental degradation. (3) Governments have lost interest in sustainable development because the process has deteriorated into an endless series of annual negotiations, rather than in an environment where real discussions could take place on best practices and means of implementation. The US, to its credit, has called for a new approach, as seen in the recent conference on “Rio 2.0,” bringing together practitioners, policymakers and entrepreneurs to focus on ideas and solutions rather than rhetorical “woulds and shoulds.”   

Citizens’ Summit participant Katrina Malaknoff, further announced a civil society conference with similar aims on economics and sustainability, highlighting diverse interdisciplinary approaches to green economy, see: thisisneweconomy.org for more information.

While almost everyone agrees that change is needed, there is a wide range of ideas and approaches on the kind of change needed and ways of getting there. As Dan Esty pointed out, “when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority,” especially when the social dimension is added to environment and development.

 
Approaching these three components of the Rio +20 process differently than the past UN conferences, cannot go without noting how they work together to lead to concrete outcomes and commitments from Rio +20. In a reformed institutional framework for sustainable development should provide more space for civil society rather than just being mere observers, given the role civil society plays in implementation, holding governments accountable, and their contrition to the full integration of sustainable development dimensions.

In conclusion, despite the outcomes of Rio +20 there is much civil society as done to transform the negotiating dialogue into tangible action. Despite the weak outcome, we will continue to mobilize to create the future that we all want.