The Earth Summit (Rio+20 conference) organised in Rio de Janeiro last week ended with an adoption of a document called The Future We Want. Many delegates measured the success of the summit as the reaffirmation of the Rio principles agreed 20 years ago in the same city. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff who was also the chair of the summit seemed determined to make the conference a success. She rallied hard among the delegates to produce a ‘balanced outcome’ that brought the parties to a compromised position.
As a result, the document clearly fell short of ambitious and concrete actions to solve the world economic and environmental crisis. Along with 193 country delegates tens of thousands of people flocked to the conference which saw no greater progress than reaffirmation of earlier commitments. In other words, heads of state and government from over 120 countries could not make a real difference.
In his closing remarks, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon sounded hopeful, “The conference was successful and the leaders of the world have renewed their commitment to sustainable development. The outcome document, which was adopted by consensus, provides a firm foundation for social, economic and environmental well-being.” But many disappointed delegates could not even wait to listen to Moon’s assertion and left disappointed before the official closing of the conference.
Coming out of Rio, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, Kumi Naidoo said, “We didn’t get The Future we Want in Rio, because we do not have the leaders we need.” To show their displeasure with the outcome, many civil society organisations criticised the conference for failing to produce robust output.
When the Brazilian chair brought the gavel down to conclude the summit, only a faint applause was heard in the room; no, government delegates weren’t exactly whooping with delight. There were mix reactions—rich countries and emerging economies termed it the best outcome they could achieve in the present context while many developing countries and civil society representatives called labelled such assertions a ‘fluff’.
Nonetheless, some of the noticeable outcomes from the summit are agreement on a process to launch the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the application of green economy policies as a useful tool for sustainable development; agreement to strengthen the environment pillar and decision to have a high level political forum for sustainable development. Similarly, the final document also contains progress on sustainable consumption and production; sustainable use of marine biodiversity; controlling ocean pollution and more liveable cities and communities.
Many claim that these issues are not new, but only reaffirmation of principles enshrined in Agenda 21 and other international instruments. A great deal of cynicism lies behind this agreement as no concrete targets and commitments back the outcome for an assured action and implementation. Many of the critical issues have been taken into the process of further negotiation, even after years of discussion.
Once again, world leaders have failed to provide a vision and leadership for the benefit of the commons. The hope that these leaders will halt the economic and environmental crisis was devastated. Rio+20 summit allowed the rich and powerful a free ride to exploit the depleting recourses for their interest without any mechanism to hold them accountable. One of the pertinent examples is the issue of fossil fuel subsidy, which blatantly failed. If the government had only agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidy, it would have saved hundreds of billion of dollar yearly, which instead could have been spent on clean energy and development.
The concept of green economy raised serious doubts in the summit and many developing countries still do not buy this concept believing that it is designed to replace the concept of sustainable development. For instance, Bolivia rightly rejected it and doubts if it is not a tool for privatization of nature and society on the pretext of sustainable development and poverty eradication. It said that countries have sovereign right to choose their own approaches, visions, models and tools for sustainable development. Many developing countries feared that this concept could have been spun by developed countries to monetize and market natural resources.
Developed countries also failed short in committing additional and new financial and technological support other than reiterating the past Official Development Assistance (ODA). Concept brought forward as the “innovative financial mechanism” is abstract about provisions to raise new money. In fact, it was developing countries such as Brazil and China that came forward to commit the finance in numbers in support of the poor developing countries.
Likewise, the call to reinforce United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as a specialised body on an equal footing with other UN organizations and transform it into a strong UN Environment Organisation (UNEO) also failed. Interest of a few powerful countries like US overshadowed important discussions.
The Rio+20 summit has once again signalled that wealth and power continue to eclipse the interest of the majority, i.e. the poor and marginalised masses. Rio has truly been the conference of the rich and powerful, dominated by corporate interests. These interests are unlikely to support sustainable development and save the environment—this has never happened in the past and will not happen in the future. Without a major shift in present model of economic development, world without poverty, hunger, injustice and environmental degradation looks more elusive than ever.
Now, only strong grassroots movement can drive the agenda of the poor and save the environment at the same time. It is high time that people and communities get united (for their own interest) against this corporate takeover. The inspirational words from Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has,” has not been more relevant. We should embrace this message to pave the way for sustainable development, environmental care, social justice and peace.
rajupc80@hotmail.com
Related story
Future of about 4000 students uncertain after Lalitpur metropol...
