The Rio+20 declaration entitled ‘The Future We Want’ is arguably somewhat better than expected by some in the past months, but it has been criticised as motherhood and apple pie with limited substance by others.
The goals, prior to the conference, included, inter alia: establishing a High Commissioner for Future Generations, upgrading UNEP so that it could become a specialised agency, effectively implementing sustainable development commitments, drawing (yet another) roadmap for a green economy and hopefully defining what this means so we recognise a green economy when we see it. Poverty, access to energy, food and water, gender equality and women’s empowerment were also on the agenda.
Important issues such as planetary boundaries, tipping points, reproductive rights and the need for a renewed urban agenda, among other, were not properly addressed or were even left out according to Major Groups.
The declaration, in its point 4 states ‘We also reaffirm the need to achieve sustainable development by: promoting sustained, inclusive and equitable economic growth, creating greater opportunities for all, reducing inequalities, raising basic standards of living; fostering equitable social development and inclusion; and promoting integrated and sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems that supports inter alia economic, social and human development while facilitating ecosystem conservation, regeneration and restoration and resilience in the face of new and emerging challenges’. There is little doubt that many, if not the majority of us, would agree with this statement. But the tough questions of how to achieve the above stated goals, how much all this will cost, whether we will prioritise long term environmental benefits over short terms economic gains in the midst of a severe economic crisis remain, at least in part, unanswered.
As regards the leadership role of different countries, it can be argued that despite Brazil’s globally recognised leadership throughout the negotiations, the outcomes of the conference have been modest, at best. Europe’s role in these macro summits also has to be thought through in a world in which the economic and political weight has shifted away from Brussels, even if the European financial commitment of €400 million for sustainable energy projects is significant. The Group of 77 and China with increasing weight in international negotiations successfully opposed a more ambitious European stance regarding the transition to a green economy.
The overall institutional structure of international environmental negotiations is in need of proactive adaptation to an increasingly complex and uncertain world that strives for a hard to organise yet functional and coherent governance framework.
A couple of references that may be of interest:
- Mr. Parker (Globalisation editor, The Economist) reflecting on the possible Rio+20 outcomes (video): http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/06/green-growth
- IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulleting providing an overview of the conference as well as a brief history of sustainable development conferences. You can also find some of the 700 voluntary commitments that resulted from the conference. The financial commitments amounted to a total of US$513 billion. http://www.iisd.ca/uncsd/rio20/enb/