"The Future We Don't Want"

The Secretariat’s mandate to chair negotiations officially ended the night of June 15th. The delegates, however, failed to reach agreements on the outcome document by this deadline. Therefore, Secretariat’s work has been passed over to the Brazilian government so that the negations may continue. This means that a once 200+ page document, which took delegations and government 6 months to negotiate, has been consolidated by the Brazilian gov’t in about two days!

 While all previously agreed paragraphs still remain in the Brazilian text, the contested paragraphs have been reduced to their lowest common denominator, leaving heads of state a soft, empty document to sign at the termination of the conference. If you’re frustrated and outraged by this, you’re not alone. You and the 18,000 civil society members here are disappointed in the leadership at this conference and their failure to deliver the future we want. I sat in on a Major Group press conference about the new Brazilian negotiating text and their message was loud and clear: the voice of civil society is not represented in the text. In reaction to the new text and the poor performance of the delegations, the NGO major group has started a petition called, ‘The future we don’t want’ (the official document is title 'The Future We Want." 600 people have signed it so far. See the link below- I hope you will sign it to!!

http://www.ejolt.org/2012/06/petition-the-future-we-dont-want/

 --Julianna Lord

Life in the Pavilions

Emma again! So sorry for our absence. For your viewing pleasure, a screenshot of our week:

To our surprise (and delight), the negotiations have remained open to non-governmental observers even as we get closer and closer to the arrival of Heads of State. Delegates reserve the right to close any and all meetings if they feel that non-state actors are interfering with the process, and I tense up every time someone takes a flash camera out of it's case. Because of the designated role of the host-country, Brazilian representatives are now chairing all breakout group negotiations, in which delegates discuss the biggest underlying issues. 

One of the two themes of the conference is the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development, and delegates have been working on a proposal to restructure UN bodies that work on social, economic and environmental issues in order to eliminate overlap and enhance their capacity through better coordination. It's difficult to believe that we're this close to watching this enormous restructuring unfold. And there's always the big question: what effects will these agreements have on all of the people that UN bodies are trying to serve?

For really excellent coverage of the negotiations, check out the Earth Negotiations Bulletin!

We Find Ourselves in Rio

Emma here. Our team first reunited in the Dulles airport in DC: Ahdi, Bridget and Catherine from South Hadley, Julianna from Maine, and for me, a multi-flight journey from Tennessee. From there we boarded a 15-hour flight to Sao Paolo, which was only a short flight away from Rio de Janeiro.

This is not the office:

After dropping our bags at the Mango Tree hostel, we split up to attend a civil society capacity-building workshop and get cell our temporary phones. We realized that learning Portuguese would have, in fact, been helpful. Signs of the Rio+20 conference are everywhere—shuttle bus stations, hotel check-ins and banners across the city.

Figure 2: a Google image search picture of the Ipanema beach—a five minute walk from our hostel, which we will sadly never see.

http://www.comingrio.com/day/ipanema-beach.html

After meticulous planning and minimal sleep, we took our first shuttle-bus ride to the official conference site—RioCentro, complete with multiple pavilions totaling hundreds of rooms for negotiations, side events, closed meetings and media.

http://planetasustentavel.abril.com.br/blog/riomais20/2012/05/15/chaves-do-riocentro-serao-entregues-a-onu-em-cerimonia-oficial/

Our first victory:

The first event I attended was on the potential legacy that Rio+20 will leave. Quite a start. A panel shared tips for engaging and mobilizing communities, and participants were asked to share the things that inspired them the most, as well as their personal commitments for implementing sustainable development on ‘the morning after’ the negotiations conclude. The driving message was that the success of sustainable development depends on everyone’s participation, both in the process of creating the outcome document and in its implementation. It’s a message that we’ve heard with regards to civil society before—that non-governmental actors often feel out of place and intimidated by the process, and truly don’t know our own power. Delegates don’t have all the answers, and know from experience that top-down approaches don’t work. Stakeholder engagement is absolutely key to correctly defining problems and creating diverse, innovative and locally applicable solutions. In such an enormous and complicated process, it’s easy to forget just that our experiential knowledge and viewpoints are, in fact, just as worthwhile as those of government delegates. For many who do not have access to this process and are not adequately represented, perhaps much more so. We’ve heard this speech several times, but it continues to give me goosebumps. If we really can ‘step into our own power’—to steal a phrase from my community service advisor—and claim this document and it’s call-to-action as our own, there are no limits to the collaborative actions we can take in building the future we want.

To quote a youth delegate on this panel (to the best of my memory): ‘We are seen in this process as the leaders of tomorrow, but we are ready to lead now.’

Outreach

After gaining something of a reputation for our diligent note-taking, Bridget, Ahdi and I were asked to write a synthesis report of Tuesday's negotiations for Outreach, "a multi-stakeholder magazine on environment and sustainable development", published by Stakeholder Forum. This article went into print and was distributed to delegates and other stakeholders on Wednesday:

A big thank-you to to Professor Catherine Corson for training us in the art of writing concise policy briefs!


Check out the full article here, and get an update on where member states and groups stand:


http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/inf1day4home/676-ifn1day4item10

Negotiations on the Zero Draft Begin!

Last week, delegates from 193 countries began discussing sections I, II and III of the compilation text of the Zero Draft of the Rio+20 outcome document, currently titled “The Future We Want”. These are the sections that discuss the Green Economy, the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development, and the Framework for Action and Follow-up. In total these sections include 103 of the document’s 128 paragraphs, and make up 13 pages of the 19-page Zero Draft document compiled by the UNCSD co-chairs after the January Informal negotiations.

Since January, member states and representatives of civil society have submitted 677 proposals for edits to the Zero Draft, and the resulting compilation document is currently 189 pages long. Paragraph by paragraph, the proposed changes are being negotiated in 9 hours of plenary sessions per day.

http://www.iisd.ca/uncsd/ism3/pix/27march/DSC_7809%20room.jpg

A big player in these negotiations is the the G77, or Group of 77. This group was founded in 1964 by 77 developing countries with collective economic interests and the purpose of building their joint-negotiating capacity. The G77 currently has 131 member countries, making it a significant force in the body of 193 nations represented in the UN. Once countries join this group, they can only speak collectively. The same goes for the EU. Countries such as the US, Canada, Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Japan, Australia and New Zealand negotiate on their own behalf.

Check out the text being negotiated here!:

http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?menu=144

Initial Reactions to the Zero Draft

The first version of the Outcome Document for the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, also known as Rio+20) was released on January 10th on the UNCSD website (http://www.uncsd2012.org/). This version of the document is called the “Zero Draft” and its catchy title is “The Future We Want”. The Co-Chairs and bureau of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee compiled the Zero Draft from hundreds of submissions from Political Groups, Member States and contributions from the Major Groups. The initial discussion on the Zero Draft took place in the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) chamber from January 25th to the 27th at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Bridget Brady, Emma Beals and myself had the great opportunity of attending the initial discussions on the Zero Draft.

Logo for the Conference taken fron the UNCSD website

The publication of the Zero Draft was an exciting step forward in the preparation process leading up to Rio. The 19-page document, although very short and concise, brings a broad array of topics discussed to date onto the table for negotiations. The “Informal-informal” consultations present a platform for delegates to negotiate the text in the Zero Draft and for stakeholder to lobby different agendas. The objective of Rio +20 is to assure renewed political commitment for Sustainable Development, evaluate programs to date and fill the gaps in the implementation process and to also address emerging issues. The two main themes of Rio +20 are; green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication and institutional framework for sustainable development. Delegates negotiated Section I and II of the zero draft. Section I- the preamble that sets the stage for the discussions and Section II looks at renewing political commitments. Discussions on the other sections and the themes mentioned above will be negotiated in “informal-informal” consultations being held in March and April-May.

The first meeting on January 25th was lead by John Ash, Permanent Ambassador Representative of Antigua and Barbuda- one of the Co-chairs of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee. He mentioned, “The success of the Rio+20 Conference very much depends upon the success of this phase”. Mr. Sha Zuang, currently serving as the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, was also given the floor- he emphasized that the time period between now and the conference is crucial for setting the stage for “The Future We Want”. He reaffirmed that “We need a robust outcome from Rio+20, with reinvigorated political commitments by all… It is hoped that whatever process is agreed at Rio on sustainable development goals, the outcome will provide a major building block for the post-2015 UN development agenda.” Hearing this was very exciting as it reaffirmed the purpose of our research in following up on the core events leading up to Rio +20.

In the first session Member States, Intergovernmental Organizations, UN system agencies and Major Groups were given the floor to express their initial reactions to the Zero Draft. Member states were given 5 minutes, while other groups were given 3 minutes. A general remark that can be made from the statements is that although participants were pleased with the Zero Draft as the bases of the negotiations, they emphasized that the goal of an ambitious and action-oriented document will require equally ambitious negotiations in the days left between the January consultations and Rio +20. The following extract is from the African group presented by Jean-Francis R. Zinsou Ambassador Permanent Representative of Benin;

“On Substance, the African Groups observes in general terms, that the ‘zero draft’ lacks vision and ambition. Indeed, much work is needed to turn it into a bold vision to achieve sustainable development based on 3 paramount objectives: implementation, integration and coherence”

Regarding the themes of the green economy stakeholders expressed the lack of a clear definition of what the green economy is, what it should consist of and how it can be achieved. On the topic of institutional framework for sustainable development there was a need for greater integration between the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environment. The European Union suggested the following way as a means of strengthening the current commission on sustainable development;

“With respect to the issue of strengthening the international environmental governance, the EU and its Member States firmly believe that the establishment of a fully-fledged environmental organization as a United Nations specialized agency for the environment, based on UNEP and located in Nairobi, will be the most effective manner in which to further develop the environmental dimension of sustainable development.”

In an interview uploaded by the Stakeholder Forum on youtube, Farooq Ulla, Head of Policy and Advocacy for the organization, stated “the zero draft was a good starting point for Rio+20--Not as strong as we would have hoped for, but not as bad as we feared”. Ulla emphasized the need for something expressive of how we are going to achieve our ambitions. Some of the topics strongly referred to in the statements that he mentioned include green economy road maps, sustainable development goals, a successful framework to the Millennium Development Goals. On the governance side; developing Sustainable Development Council that will be part of the Security Council according to the General Assembly, corporate sustainability and accountability and enhanced integration between science and policy-making. A key topic reiterated was the transfer of environmentally sound technological innovations and the reconsiderations intellectual property rights.

The initial reactions set the tone for stakeholders to delve into the negotiations to bring into being a document that met their objectives for Rio+20. Delegates began actively negotiating their amendments to the Zero Draft during the consultations.

For a detailed analysis on the discussions of each paragraph of the Zero Draft visit;

http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2716e.pdf

To check out the interview with Farooq Ullah click;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc7HYnvHBk

The Zero Draft

What is it?

The zero draft, titled “The Future We Want,” is the first draft of what is to be the first draft of the outcome document of Rio+20. In a revolutionary move towards inclusion and transparency for all stakeholder, the Preparatory Committee for the UNCSD asked the Bureau to lead an “open, transparent and inclusive process, led by member States, to prepare in a timely manner a draft text, based upon all preparatory inputs, to serve as the basis for an outcome document for the Conference.” They invited all relevant stakeholders to submit inputs and contributions to the text by November 1, 2011. Of the 677 submissions they received from political groups, member states, UN organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and civil society, 493 (or 73%) were from civil society. The Bureau then created a massive compilation document (which was discussed in the December Intersessional and in the previous post) and finally, on January 10th, released their consolidated version, the zero draft. This text will now be negotiated in the informal negotiation meetings leading up to the June Conference. More information on the process, the compilation document, and the zero draft itself can be found on the UNCSD website.

Initial Reactions:

The document, which was leaked through the Guardian just several hours before it was officially released, has generated a variety of responses— though most are disappointed or under-whelmed. In the week since its release, a variety of stakeholders— from science communities to youth groups— have voiced their scrutiny of the document’s content, or lack thereof.

The youth group “Rio+twenties” wrote a comprehensive and well balanced analysis of the zero draft, which can be found here, deeming it “not yet the future we want.” They remark that it “lacks ambition” but provides a “useful canvas” to build from. The Green Economy Coalition released their own response to the document, which can be seen here, including a helpful list of questions that must be addressed in the next draft. For a very thorough overview of the responses to the draft, check out Richard Johnson’s “The Road to Rio is Paved with Ambitions,” here. Finally, this encouraging yet critical review from the scientific community provides practical and specific suggestions for moving forward.

At Mount Holyoke, we have been going through the Zero Draft with a fine tooth comb—comparing it to the submissions and past agreements and attempting to decipher what, exactly, this draft is proposing. Here is an image produced using our qualitative content analysis software, giving a visual representation of the words most often used in the Zero Draft: