Kuala Lumpur (The Star/ANN) – Rio+20 (UN Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 13-22, 2012), billed as a once in a generation chance to save the planet, was a huge disappointment even an embarrassment given that almost 200 countries were present, with many leaders including from Brazil, France, Australia and India attending. A friend at Rio likened the meeting to “a rally race of back seat drivers. Everyone is sitting in the back seat and no one is taking responsibility.” This meeting was named after the one held 20 years ago (the 1992 Rio Earth Summit) which launched a number of landmark agreements and treaties, including one to limit the extinction of species and acceptance of the human right to safe drinking water. There had been very little progress since then. According to the UN Environment Program (UNEP) June 2012 Report, only four of the world’s 90 most important green goals and objectives have seen significant progress. There has been “little or no” improvement on goals to address 24 key problems, including decimated fish stocks, climate change and deteriorating coral reefs. “Nature”, the world’s pre-eminent scientific publication, graded the implementation of three of its many vital treaties climate change, biological diversity and combating desertification, with a resounding “F”.
Looking back, I must say the agreements that had emerged from Rio 1992 were thoughtful, far-sighted, public spirited and focused on global priorities. Yet, they have not saved us because of poor political support and ineffective implementation all round. This time, Rio+20 produced final documents filled with weasel phases and untidy compromises. As I read them, buried among the caveats in the endless clever use of words and gobbledegook, the final approved document: The Future We Want is so diluted and tentative that it makes, I am afraid, the entire exercise quite meaningless. Someone tweeted soon after agreement was reached: “Nobody in the room adopting the text was happy. That’s how weak it was.” Expectations were simply set too high despite a long string of clear indications on the endless difficulties encountered in reaching ambitious deals among so varied interests and so diverse groups of nations. And, the loud political “noise” from the evolving European debt crisis in particular distracted attention from the main focus on real issues. It will take more than the volumes of words crafted to restore public confidence in the Summit’s outcome, or the lack of it. In the end, the world just got a bad deal at Rio+20.
What happened at Rio+20?
Rio+20 was intended to reaffirm political commitments made 20 years ago and to initiate new action plans and strengthen the implementation framework to resolve the crises confronting the world’s environment which has deteriorated and become much more serious since. Sounds simple enough. But it was not to be. As documented in detail by Martin Khor, negotiations were bogged down by new concepts (including the “green economy”) and second thoughts even about re-affirming the original equity principles or in re-committing previously agreed arrangements on finance and technology transfer. So, not only were there no major breakthroughs this time around, but even initiatives to bring on new ideas to strengthen institutional delivery capabilities and to introduce new goals and road-maps were subject to unduly harsh scrutiny. Six key issues had needed renewal or serious consideration.
To re-affirm the underlying original Rio principles of equity, in particular the CBDR (common but differentiated responsibilities).
To provide adequate finance to developing economies to set them on to environmentally sound development paths.
To transfer technology on concessional and preferential terms to emerging and developing economies.
To identify and set SDGs (sustainable development goals) as key deliverables.
To introduce and adopt the concept of “green economy.”
To strengthen the IFSD (institutional framework for sustainable development) to ensure more effective implementation.
The first three issues had already been resolved and accepted at Rio 1992, but needed to be renewed and re-affirmed, and made more relevant to meet present pressing needs. Even these encountered enormous problems.
The Future We Want
As I understand it, the United States and Europe gave early notice that all issues were on the table nothing was to be taken for granted just because political commitments were made at Rio 1992. I well recall the issue of equity and CBDR was hotly contested in 1992. Although all nations must act to protect and preserve the environment, developed economies have to do the most and assume leadership in global environmental actions. This made sense then, and still does today. The United States in particular, however, had wanted emerging nations (except the poorest developing ones) to take on a similar burden as the advanced economies. In the end, the United States relented and the final document reflected global reaffirmation of the Rio 1992 principles. Similarly, the second and third issues were once again seriously re-visited. On finance, G-77 and China (representing developing countries) had insisted on renewal of the original commitments of new and additional financial resources, including meeting the aid-target of 0.7% of GDP. In addition, they also proposed that advanced nations provide (i) at least US$30bil a year in 2013-17 and US$100bil annually from 2018 onwards, and (ii) establish a working SDF (sustainable development fund). Not surprisingly, all these were rejected by the North, who introduced new references to secure funding from “a variety of other sources and new partnerships.” What was finally agreed was to re-start discussions at the UN to review options for an appropriate financing strategy. I was chairman of the UN experts working group on finance for 10 years. Even then, realistically, political support for funding was not as forthcoming. If anything, today’s politics has hardened. Chances are slim the political will to act is there at all. Rich nations are already experiencing funding-fatigue. On technology transfer, the North had insisted that their prior commitment to transfer technology should now be voluntary and on mutually agreed terms. Finally, the United States agreed to “recall” the text used at Rio+10 in Johannesburg, stating technology transfer would be on favourable terms to developing countries. The UN was also requested to present a report on the technology facilitating mechanism for further debate at the General Assembly.
The concept of SDGs was of concern among Europeans who had insisted that certain SDGs (energy, water, climate, oceans, land) should be listed as priority goals. G-77 and China, while accepting SDGs as an operational tool, wanted SDGs to be represented in a more balanced way consistent with the three agreed key pillars – social, economic and environmental. In support, my friend Prof Jeffrey Sachs (president, Earth Institute at Columbia University) advocated a world-wide call for action: “Around the world, the cry is rising to put sustainable development at the centre of global action and thinking, especially to help young people solve the triple bottom-line challenges economic well-being, environmental sustainability and social inclusion that will define their era. Rio+20 can help them do it. Let’s adopt a set of SDGs that will inspire a generation to act. The SDGs can open the eyes of today’s youth to climate change, biodiversity loss and the disasters of desertification. We can still make good on the three Rio treaties, by putting people at the forefront of the effort.” Rio+20 agreed to set-up a 30-member Working Group nominated by governments, to identify and list these SDGs in a balanced manner.
The Europeans had also pushed hard to endorse a UN green economy road-map with clear environmental goals, targets and time-lines in the hope of changing the way economies are organised. G-77 and China were concerned that its acceptance would (a) be used to divert attention away from sustainable development as the key focus for policy design, (b) be misused as grounds to justify trade protection, (c) be used as an excuse for greater aid conditionality, and (d) lead to imposition of new green economy obligations. It was finally agreed that this concept would be used only as one of the tools for sustainable development and subject to, according to Martin Khor, safeguards along 16 principles to protect real environmental interests against abuse. On strengthening the IFSD, the final document agreed to (i) strengthen and upgrade UNEP, including universal membership on its governing council, and increased financing (but not as a UN specialised agency); and (ii) set-up a high level political forum on sustainable development (to replace the Rio 1992 CSD, the Commission on Sustainable Development) to provide political leadership, design the agenda, facilitate regular dialogue, consider new challenges, review progress in implementation, and improve co-ordination within the UN system.
Cost of not greening
The old conventional wisdom of “grow first, clean-up later” approach to industrialisation no longer works. Environmental concerns hardly played a role until the 1960s. Even so, the Kyoto climate change protocol exempted all developing nations from obligations to cut greenhouse gases. The cost of waiting for the clean-up has since risen. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimated that annual damage to the Chinese economy was as much as 9% of GDP. On the average, World Bank studies pointed to the cost of environmental degradation as being 8% of 2012 GDP for the world. Bad sanitation and water pollution already cost India 6% of GDP. The impact gets more serious as nations grow richer. Over the next 40 years, most of the rise in the world’s population will be in developing nations. Two to three billion more will become middle-class. That’s two to three times as many as was achieved in the past 150 years. They all want higher living standards and improved material comforts. All these simply put greater stress on natural resources, water, land and food. In short, the world will get more polluted. Avoiding such an outcome is a problem for today. Not tomorrow. Development needs to be green from the start. It’s the new mantra for businesses and policymakers. Green growth plans are proliferating. The World Bank in support, published Inclusive Green Growth which likened the work of today’s environmentalists to anti-poverty economists in the 1990s. China’s recent smoggy-choked skies prompted new calls to cut green-house gas and approve a carbon tax by 2015. The real challenge is whether the circle of conflict between greening and growth can be squared. Green growth advocates regard the environment as a form of capital: it makes a “measurable contribution to output and should be accounted for, invested in, exploited efficiently, and (ideally) made to work to create value.” It’s controversial; indeed, even regarded by some as “green-washing capitalism.”
What, then, are we to do?
Twenty years ago, Rio 1992 tried to address environmental degradation through a series of agreements, treaties and international law. Unfortunately, these documents lived in the shadow of our daily politics and media. All we managed so far were widespread neglect, immense delay, political bickering and disputes over legalities. We now have at least three failing grades to show for our efforts. Rio+20 has come and gone. We are no better off. Indeed, we have failed to inject life into simple down-to-earth concepts to determine our own survival. “The Future We Want” misses much of what we really want. It fails to speak plainly about what we need in order to save ourselves and our children. All we want is to: end extreme poverty; decarbonise the energy system; slowdown population growth, promote sustainable food supplies; protect the oceans (and what’s in them), forests and dry lands; and redress inequalities of our time. That’s the future we truly want. The world is poised to act and Rio+20 was supposed to unleash a generation to action. This was not to be. But, there is still time, just barely. Waiting for the politicians to save us despite ourselves is to wait too long. We urgently need to heed Sachs’ call for global action. President Obama says it best: “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” So, for heaven’s sake, let’s get going. –Lin See-Yan in Kuala Lumpur/The Star | Asia News Network
Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who speaks, writes and consults on economic and financial issues. Feedback is most welcome; email: starbiz@thestar.com.my.
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
