Who is Rio+20 letting down ?

From the ashes of the Second World War humanity gathered to build international institutions aiming to build peace and prosperity for all. But with the repeated failures of the UN to act in the recent times (in Syria, for example) there is a growing level of popular disappointment in the international system. Will Rio+20 add to this growing list of disappointments? While we sure hope otherwise; the stark reality of the written word on the draft text seems to signal towards the affirmative.

Many member states are opposing prescriptive language that commits governments to actually do what they claim to support in principle and act as duty bearers, including the provision of finance, technology and other means of implementation to support sustainable development effort in developing countries (the biggest demand made by member states of the G77 bloc).  What does failure at Rio+20 mean? Besides the polar bears and the glaciers, who else will a potential failure in Rio let down?

1)      The Future Generations

We grew up hearing that we are the future; but actions of world leaders of today signal otherwise. As the Brazilian Government took over summit proceeding with the conclusion of Prep Com sessions, the language related to a proposal for an ombudsperson or a United Nations High Commissioner for Future Generations has been deleted. The High Commissioner would be the official charged with acting as the UN’s principal advocate for the interests and needs of future generations. The irony of blocking this proposal in the draft outcome which will be referred to as “the future we want” makes one laugh. As of now, the proposal has been placed back on the table by the EU. While, the certain countries are highly supportive of the suggestion, many more including the bloc of G77 countries are blocking it.

1)      Political Moderates

While working in blocs might be a more pragmatic approach to negotiation: increasing the bargaining power of individual states which would otherwise be able to make a lesser impact; it, at least to a certain extent; condenses policies of more moderate states at the expense of states with stronger policies. More often than not, states that are otherwise more moderate are forced to take rather extreme stances due to agreements made within different blocs. Sitting In at the Prep Com discussions, I couldn’t help but feel that perhaps if Sri Lanka stood independently at such global fora, perhaps we would have expressed more moderate sentiments than the rounded stance of the G77 especially with regard to progressive and timely proposals such as the Ombudsman for the Youth.

2)       Moderate Catholics

It was flabbergasting how, the Holy See which is not a member state of the United Nations, possessing only observer status attempted to block all reference to sexual and reproductive rights in the current negotiation text. With no Citizenry of its own, the Holy See does not derive legitimacy from a mandate of the people. Even the Vatican City, where it is based, has a grand total of 832 citizens. After much maneuvering, the G77 proposed a previously agreed text from the UN Economic and Social Council acknowledging reproductive and sexual health, and the Holy See was isolated.

3)       The UNEP

In the run up to Rio+20 various member states and civil society groups were advocating the beefing up of the United Nations Environmental Programme. Currently, UNEP lacks political clout and the financial backing it needs because only a quarter of the member states are on its governing council and it has relies on voluntary donations. Under the draft text, it would have universal membership and be guaranteed a stable, regular budget. However, the reforms appear to stop short of upgrading the programme to the same level as more powerful UN bodies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO).

4)       Renewable Sources of Energy

Fossil fuel Subsidies was the first of the list of recommendations of the Rio+20 Dialogues. Anti-fossil subsidies campaigns have overwhelmed Rio and cities around the world. Their campaigns in Rio ranged from #endfossilfuelsubsidies Twitter storms to flash mobs at the Rio Centro. But still, the the current draft text, there is no action on fossil fuels subsidies, no time frame for eliminating them, and only a very vague mention of the ‘inefficiency’ of such subsidies.  There are no targets whatsoever to achieve the use of more renewable energy sources.

5)      The Green Economy

The Greenpeace assessment of the current text says ‘the Green Economy text is meaningless. The Agenda 21 agreement of 20 years ago was more meaningful text than what is being proposed. What we have is nothing short of an invitation to Green-wash, with countries such as Korea promoting nuclear power as the green economy.’ Concepts such as Green Jobs have been totally excluded in the current draft text, largely due to pressure by the G77.

6)      The Press

It’s often those very countries that advocate liberal freedoms such as the freedom of Expression, and the Right to Information that call for private meetings within these UN talks. Perhaps the UN as the organization advocating these fundamental values should strive harder to facilitate public access to all UN discussions, after all, they are only discussing “the future we want”.

7)      Small Islands States

Imagine if one day you wake up, and your country is just a memory. Everything and everyone you love has disappeared under the sea. Sea level rise is one of the most tangible and readily acknowledged consequences of climate change. By 2100, conservative estimates place global average sea level rise at approximately 1m (3 feet), with a more significant rise of 2-3 meters (6-10 feet) possible. During an interview with state media prior to Rio+20, Sri Lanka’s Minister of Environment, Anura Priyadarshana Yapa said: “Sea level rise directly threatens island states such as Sri Lanka…We have not identified what areas would go under water if the sea level rises by another two meters. We have to find out its impact on our coastal areas and be prepared to face this challenge.”

Two weeks later: Rio+20 has let us down: negotiators have failed to deliver the demands of the people. The only reference to vulnerable small island states in the current agreed text reads: “We note that sea level rise and coastal erosion are serious threats for many coastal regions and islands particularly in developing countries and, in this regard, we call on the international community to enhance its efforts to address these challenges.”Tax payers around the world invested billions of dollars on the Rio+20 process, not for world leaders to ‘note’ those self-evident truths that we are all very well aware of.

On the positives, the sections on the Oceans and Employment are comparatively stronger.  However, even these sections need much more emphasis and elaboration.

Will anything change in the handful of days ahead?

All eyes are on Rio.

How to join a protest and lose accreditation #Rio+20

Born in an island in the midst of one of the most brutal civil wars in history, with my disciplinarian father serving in the military: partaking at the ritual rip-up of the Rio+20 Summit negotiation text, followed by the sit-in before the main plenary hall, and the symbolic walk out of the Rio Centro was not within the self-imposed boundaries of my comfort zone. Even though there is a kind of stigma existing in Sri Lanka, especially as of late (following the UNHRC vote on alleged human rights violations during the final stages of the armed conflict) against the UN: of its partiality and alleged double standards etc… I grew up wanting a job in the UN, because I thought that’s the closest the world got to utopia. Tracking Rio+20 negotiations this June was an eye-opener to the stark reality of the international bureaucracy that is the United Nations.

What we saw yesterday, was an explosion of the frustrations that have been gathering momentum for the past few days. Seated at the occupy-style sit-in, as I looked at the others around me, I saw the passion in their eyes (something you never see in the eyes of negotiators); I realized that they were not representing a country, or some organization. They were representing themselves. They didn’t have hidden agendas and political motivations, they weren’t getting paid for doing this, and it would definitely not look good in the CVs that they protested outside a high level UN meeting. They were there, only because they genuinely cared.

                As highlighted by Wael Hmaidan during the opening statement at the plenary on behalf of NGOs; even though the negotiation text says the text was drafted ‘in full participation of the civil society’ the actions of the members of the civil society in the past few days have clearly suggested otherwise. ‘We as civil society reject this text’, they said, as it ‘barely moves us inches’.

What followed was phenomenal: What began as a small gathering started to get the attention of passersby who joined in. Soon, the media personnel at the Rio Centro were reporting the event to networks around the world, Twitter was flooded with on-site updates and riot police presence at the Rio Centro was heightened. Those present ranged from the major group of children and youth, the major group for women, indigenous people, NGO personnel among many others: including several ‘D Badges’ (members of national delegations).

The protesters ripped off a giant mock text as the ‘future they bought’ denouncing the influence of multinational corporations and business conglomerates over governments’ action at Rio+20. 10 year old, Ta’Kaiya Blaney of the Sliammon Nation, an indigenous group from British Columbia, then sang to the gathering: “what are we going to leave for future generations. There’ll be no environment left without change. It needs to come not tomorrow, but today.” While the ripping off of the text and the gathering were sanctioned by the conference secretariat and UN security, the sit-in and the walk out were not. The participants of the youth action, outside the main plenary hall where world leaders were supposedly negotiating; convened a ‘People’s Plenary’. They all shared the disappointment by the lack of commitment and ambition in the negotiation text. Despite demands by the security, the activists were determined to continue. When the police warned them of being at the risk of losing their accreditation: they did exactly that. They took off their badges and handed them over to security officials and marched out chanting ‘the future we want is not found here’, ‘walkout not sellout’.

After all politicians are politicians, they have narrow political interests and they will do everything within their power to cling on their power. Politicians are followers. They will follow whatever and whoever that will get them more votes. Treaties and legalisms are never solutions, they never have been. Even though the Earth Summit in 1992 had impressive landmark outcomes (including the Convention on Climate Change, Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21) most proposals in these treaties have still never yet been implemented.

But what has come out of Rio this June is a mobilized Civil Society that will not wait for ‘leaders to lead’: NGOs that have initiated various action oriented projects, youth groups that are taking action and mobilizing fellow youth, a business community that has pledged commitments, local government bodies that have committed to far more than their central governments, an academia that is committed to their research and media that will raise awareness: a ‘civil society that leads itself’; and that is priceless. Yesterday’s protest was not a mere expression of disappointment or an attempt to ‘create a scene’ it was a move to show that the civil society is not willing to wait for the leaders that are dragging their feet.

The future we want is not found here. It is elsewhere.

some of the photos: PowerShiftCanada2012/Promo image

Is ‘the Future We Want’, really the future We want?

So this is it. Things are heating up in Rio. The Preparatory Committee Consultations have concluded. Ministers from the world over are here at the Conference location, and the Heads of State will start arriving tomorrow. Outside, June rains have ceded and the weather in Rio is warming up; almost as if to compliment the atmosphere inside the Rio Centro.

There is a general sense of disappointment at the conference location: an understanding that the text lacks ambition and commitment. A growing sense of frustration is in the air at the acceptance of the scrawny text by member states with no hesitation.

Brazil is not making a warm, cordial host; they are playing a rather tyrannical role: forcing states to accept and adopt the watered down draft document before the heads of state arrive.

As if to quantify the substance echoed in the outcome document; a simple ‘cntrl+f’ search in the pdf version of the text ironically titled ‘the Future We Want’ gave the following results. The term ‘recognizes’ is used 147 times in the document, ‘reaffirm’-59 times, and the word ‘encourages’ 49 times. On the other hand, more impactful and prescriptive words are seen hardly ever. [The search found only 6 matches for the word ‘adopt’ and only 5 for ‘decides’.]

Is there anything in it at all?

1)      Sustainable Development Goals

The text reads: “we resolve to establish an inclusive and transparent intergovernmental process on SDGs that is open to all stakeholders with a view to developing global sustainable development goals to be agreed by the United Nations General Assembly”

The text has basically, laid the foundation, to lay the foundation of the SDGs, this is a far cry from the adoption of SDGs.

2)      High Level Forum

It has been decided that “a universal intergovernmental high level political forum [with universal membership], building on the strengths, experiences, resources and inclusive participation modalities of the Commission on Sustainable Development” is to be created.

3)      UNEP upgraded

The UNEP is to be reinforced with universal membership and guaranteed funding. But, the reforms appear to stop short of upgrading the programme to the same level as more powerful UN bodies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO). The call by certain African States to amend the draft do as to adopt the name ‘World Environmental Organization’, replacing the existing UNEP has gone unheard.

4. Registry of Commitments

‘There will be a Registry of Commitments voluntarily entered into at Rio +20 and throughout 2012 by all stakeholders and their networks to implement concrete policies, plans, programs,  projects and actions to promote sustainable development and poverty eradication’.

The draft calls for the promotion of “transparency and implementation through further enhancing the consultative role and participation of Major Groups and other relevant stakeholders”. This is rather ironic as only yesterday was the language related to a proposal for an ombudsperson or a United Nations High Commissioner for Future Generations was deleted.

World leaders should be able to make decisions in the interests of their people.

A successful twitterstorm and a flashmob later, the issue that reigned in the number one position of the Rio Dialogues list of recommendations voted by the people: i.e. eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, was struck off the text.

‘’We recognize the need for further action to rationalize and phase out harmful and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and undermine sustainable development, taking fully into account the specific conditions and different levels of development of individual countries, and in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities.’’

The text has “only” been approved “ad ref” in plenary this morning. This means that it has been provisionally agreed to without any remaining brackets. It is still possible to reopen an agreed ad ref paragraph or text as the text will only become the official outcome document after it has been agreed to by heads of state and/or governments during the high-level meetings. If one or more countries insist on blocking the text, it will not be approved. Leaders should fight for their people, even if it means fighting alone.

This is not the future I want, it is nowhere close. What we have seen is a failure on the part of leaders to take decisions on the best interest of their people. The silence is deafening; the failure to act: unforgivable.