Response to the Zero Draft of the Outcome Document for Rio+20

Response to the zero draft of the outcome document for Rio+20

Backdrop/ Introduction:

On 20-22 June 2012 the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20)will take place, 20 years after the first Rio conference where the international community endorsed the concept of sustainable development, and adopted a number of principles and actions to achieve sustainability. The International conventions on biodiversity, climate change and desertification were also approved.

Since 1992 the international community has made further commitments and action plans to take the sustainable development agenda forward, but progress has been far too limited. The gravity of the current situation has been voiced by many and backed up by scientific evidence. The impacts of loss of biodiversity, climate change, land desertification, resources scarcity, deforestation, food insecurity, financial instability or lack of equity pose a threat to the existence of many, particularly in the most disadvantaged and vulnerable parts of the world.

The Rio+20 conference is an opportunity for the international community to put in place the actions and mechanisms needed to address the urgent challenges. It requires a strong institutional framework and enforcement mechanisms that will help and guide governments and stakeholders in the implementation of past commitments and agreements for sustainable development.

However, in light of the outcome of the recent Durban UN conference on climate change many fear that societies that have benefited most from unsustainable past practices are reluctant to accept the differentiated responsibility for addressing the consequences. The concept of common but differentiated responsibilities that was adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit is now contested, laying open concern that other principles and commitments will also be subject to re-interpretation by stronger members of the international community.

The process to negotiate the outcome of Rio +20 begins with the publication of the zero-draft document in mid January. After initial assessments of the zero draft the member states of the UN will begin negotiations on the outcome of the conference. The EU adopted its initial position on the Rio conference in October 2011, but the environment Council is expected to update its position in March.

Equity (intergenerational, social, economic or environmental) is a central concept that must guide any political strategies and actions, only by doing so will the balance of power be more equitable and a sustainable path to development possible. Greening the economy is of course fundamental to environmental sustainability, the planet has limited resources and climate change poses serious threats to many lives, and it also represents an economic opportunity; wealth and job creations can be generated through green and sustainable activities. But without integrating the social dimension of sustainable development (striving for poverty eradication, reduction of inequalities, better equity and people empowerment with a particular focus on women), and reforming the economic and financial system towards more equitable resources and power distribution and increased regulation one can wonder how the green economy will bring about global and long term prosperity.

The EU has sought to project itself as playing a leading role in tackling climate change and on promoting sustainable development. The question is whether this claim is credible, both in terms of the positions it takes towards addressing the outcome of Rio+20, and in the actions it takes to mitigate the impact of climate change and in promoting all aspects of sustainable development. Part of the answer will rest on the willingness of the EU to recognize its own responsibility for creating the current situation and act accordingly. It has to match policies and actions with the rhetoric puts forward in its strategies as well as the principles and values that it has adopted. Without strong political commitment and actions geared towards increasing equity, tackling power imbalances, putting in place strong regulatory frameworks and assessment and enforcement mechanisms immune to vested interest sustainable development will remain a blurry dream.

Evaluation of the zero draft

Message 1: The zero draft is too complacent and lacks ambition

There is not enough recognition given to the urgency of addressing the challenges that face us all.

The outcome of the conference must take full account of the gravity of the situation and of the recent social, political and economic developments, and demonstrate the political will to put in place far reaching changes for implementation without delay. The zero draft puts forward interesting principles and proposals but these are too weak, lack ambition and are not sufficiently comprehensive.

Despite listing in very loose terms in paragraph 11 some of the present problems and practices that have negatively impacted on progress towards sustainable development such as the recent crises that have adversely affected development gains or extreme poverty that touches many people around the world, the urgency of the situation is poorly spelled out in the zero draft. It is said “scientific evidence points to the gravity of the threats we face”, but more is needed, figures and statistical evidence that illustrate the above statements and other negative trends are necessary[1] if the content of the outcome document is to be proportionate to the “gravity of the threats we face”. Without clearly setting out the problems, their root causes and add some relevant data we can doubt Rio+20 will make any concrete difference for sustainable development.

In paragraph 9 “the need to reinforce sustainable development globally through our collective and national efforts” is recognized, but why referring to “the need” when we should be talking about “the necessity”. Governments and stakeholders know that economic development as it is followed in developed countries and now in emerging economies is not sustainable as it relies too much on natural resources consumption and generates high level of CO2 emissions. Besides, the financial crisis has also dramatically and violently showed some of the shortcomings of the system. Scientific evidence points to the limit of our planet’s resources, the disastrous impacts of climate change, and it is acknowledged that rapid population growth, social exclusion, discrimination and poverty are aggravating the problems and will continue to do so if no appropriate and targeted actions are undertaken to address these issues. A common understanding of and an agreement on crucial facts by the international community is therefore essential.

Paragraph 11, as already mentioned, referred to the impact of the multiple crises on development gains. While acknowledging this fact there is no analysis of the root causes of the crises or any proposed actions to be undertaken to prevent them in the future. These are serious omissions. How can phenomena be recognized as serious threats to sustainable development and not addressed in any way in the document? We know that the lack of regulation of the financial market, uncontrolled and intense speculation or the problem of representativeness in IFIs which are biased towards the financial sector interests are some of the main problems of our current global financial system. If governments are serious about achieving sustainable development and about giving Rio+20 the importance it deserves, these issues have to be addressed. Sustainable development will never be a reality within an unstable, insufficiently regulated and inequitable economic and financial system that allows on the one hand a handful to make huge profits and perpetuate inequalities and poverty on the other.

The problem of extreme poverty is mentioned in the zero draft but there is nothing on increasing inequalities and inequities. The recently released OECD report shows that in developed countries, while wealth and growth have steadily increased throughout the years, inequalities have also risen. These facts reflect the flaws of our development where redistribution of wealth is not equitably ensured. Better redistribution of and equitable access to resources need to be given priority so as to reduce conflict, contribute to economic development, and ensure sustainable development (as explained in the 2011 UNDP report: “Sustainability and Equity: a Better future for all”).

The interdependent nature of the world and therefore the necessity to act globally and collectively should be further stressed and explained (reference to para.9).

Message 2: Analysis of gaps and barriers to implementation

These must be defined in detail if effective action is to be put in place.

Paragraph 13 refers to the “major barriers and systemic gaps in the implementation of internationally agreed commitments” without specifying the nature of these barriers or gaps.

How can governments and other actors avoid repeating history if no identification and analysis of the obstacles and proposals to overcome them are undertaken?

Some of the gaps and barriers: Power imbalances (at the national level – small enterprises vs. transnational companies, women vs. men etc, at the international level – developing vs. developed countries, CSOs vs. transnational companies, at the governments level – power imbalances between the different ministries), vested interests (power of transnational corporations), the importance of the economic pillar, of economic development over environmental and social concerns, lack of regulation (private sector in general, financial sector),lack of transparency and democratic scrutiny, serious limitations of GDP as an indicator for assessing progress in sustainable development, lack of enforcement mechanisms, improving policy coherence for sustainable development at national and international level is crucial, huge implementation gapregarding the norms of the human rights system (prioritization in policy and development strategies and national budgets..), lack of means of implantation for developing countries (financial means, technology transfer...)etc.

Message 3: Strengthening political will towards implementing a common agenda

All of the Rio92 principles underlying sustainable development must be re-affirmed and implemented

In part II/ of the document: “Renewing political commitment”, “A. Reaffirming Rio principles and past Action plans”, commitment to “advance progress in implementation” of all past and important agreements on sustainable development is made. While being positive, an unambiguous commitment to “fully implement” is needed.

The re affirmation of the importance of the Rio principles and in particular of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is to be welcomed. This principle is crucial. It is central to equity and promoting intergenerational justice, from the past to the future. As a principle its application should be universal.

It is crucial to re affirm the importance of the Precautionary principle for sustainable development. New technologies do offer important opportunities and can contribute to achieving effective approaches to sustainable development. However, there are risks too, and the development and implementation of new technologies must be subject to the precautionary principle, with transparent and participative mechanisms being established under the auspices of the UN framework.

Message 4: A radically different economy for ensuring sustainable development

The principles of sustainable development must be rooted in future economies.

The green economy is presented as the key to sustainable development. It is stressed that the green economy is just a means to achieve sustainable development, not the end goal. Accordingly the green economy “should contribute to meeting key goals – in particular the priorities of poverty eradication, food security, sound water management” etc and should be “people-centred and inclusive”.

As previously stated in our analysis, the problems of poverty or equity are complex; there are structural flaws in our economic and financial system that needs to be dealt with at the international level, and exclusion and discrimination constitute serious obstacles to the improvement of people’s lives and sustainable development. Asserting that the green economy should be inclusive and people centred is not enough. People are not naive; the rhetoric has to be matched by proposals and commitments. The implementation of green economy strategies alone without addressing the above issues will do nothing but repeating current trends; power imbalances, inequalities and inequities. In this case one can wonder how the green economy can be a means to achieve sustainable development.

Therefore the zero draft needs to comprise clearer definition of what the green economy is and how it will lead to poverty eradication; green jobs creation and better management and use of natural resources are not enough to eradicate poverty, there are powerful forces at play at the international and national level that prevent people from enjoying equitable access and sustainable use of natural resources.

The link between the green economy and sustainable development should be clearer, sustainable development is a multi dimensional concept but as we have seen the green economy seems to only tackle the environmental pillar of sustainable development, and the economic at a certain level (growth, job creation) with the hope that the rest will naturally follow (poverty eradication, equitable distribution of wealth and resources).

Message 5: Recognising real strengths and limitations of different actors

All sectors of society have a role to play in achieving sustainable development

The role of all sectors in society needs to be equally recognised in a global strategy to promote sustainable development, as consumers, as producers, or as social interest groups. Specific attention is given to the private sector seen as having a “key role in promoting sustainable development” and being urged to “show leadership in advancing a green economy”.

Private sector actors may be central to economic activity as producers, service providers, and innovators and they can make an important contribution towards a sustainable economy being realised. However, this is not inevitable as some will act in ways that hinder such a goal. Distinctions need to be made between different actors within the private sector and the roles that they play. The role that small local enterprises play within their local community is very different from that of a transnational corporation with their leverage over markets, products, consumption patterns, trade rules, and indeed decisions taken by governments.

Private sector activities are intrinsically driven by profit making therefore sustainable development requirements are not naturally followed by the private sector, except in certain cases when sustainability constitutes the basis of the activity (ecological agriculture, renewable energy etc). Some Transnational corporations have been very active in blocking any substantial advancement on issues such as climate change, social and environmental protection or technology assessment.

Citizens want their governments to ensure justice and that long term interests prevail over short term and vested interests, as can be seen by the support given to the sentiments of the Occupy movement.

The private sector must be encouraged to contribute to achieving sustainable development within suitable regulatory frameworks that are consistent with and derived from theprinciples for sustainable development and human rights, various conventions, and otheragreements adopted by the international community. Applying the UN principles of Corporate SocialResponsibility, establishing independent control mechanisms and ensuring democratic accountabilityas well as implementing the UN "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework for business and humanrights should be made mandatory at Rio2012. There is also a need to establish binding country bycountry financial reporting as an international standard applying to all multinational companies, toadopt automatic, multilateral information exchanges which take account of the needs of developingcountries, and sanctions should be imposed on countries that practise banking secrecy and maketransactions to such jurisdictions.

Private sector activities that directly contribute to sustainable development (i.e ecological agriculture) must be given priority in terms of strategy and financing.

Message 6: The future global institutional and action framework must ensure effective and accountable implementation

Achieving sustainable development requires adherence by all to common objectives with differentiated obligations

In the zero draft there is no immediate commitment to targets or concrete goals but there are commitments to devise Sustainable Development Goals and develop Green Economy roadmaps in a near future. It is specified at the end of the zero draft that these commitments are voluntary and not legally binding (paragraph 128). Sustainable development is too important an issue to be subject to voluntary commitments, this will again allow governments to implement what they want in a flexible way and poses serious questions about the effectiveness of any accountability framework and assessment mechanisms.

Regarding the specific priority areas identified in the zero draft, CSOs must ensure that the proposed actions do not represent steps backwards; past agreement and commitments regarding each priority area should therefore be recalled by the international community.

When proposing to devise sustainable development goals by 2015, it is re affirmed the need to integrate and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development. However, when looking at the proposed priority areas for such goals one can doubt that the social and economic pillars are dealt with in a balanced way.

It is the same for the institutional framework for sustainable development. The environmental pillar is again given priority. The proposal for a Council for Sustainable Development is the best way to ensure that the 3 pillars of sustainable development can be given balanced treatment.

The limitations of GDP as a measure of well being are recognized, and the need to “strengthen indicators complementing GDP that integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions in a balanced manner” is also put forward. These are to be welcomed,even if a list of potential complementary indicators could have been added. Because of the sensitivity of this issue, instead of the Secretary General to be in charge of the process, the General Assembly or a potential Council for Sustainable development should be given the mandate (para.111). The same logic applies for the SDGs.

23 January 2011

1

[1] Regarding climate change, references, for example, to the International Energy Agency and the Stern report (CO2 emissions) could be added, regarding poverty and exclusion, references, for example, to the fact that women represent 70% of the poor (based on the less than 1 USD per day definition of poverty) or that two thirds of the world's illiterate persons are women are important realities to mention.