A mixed reaction to summit outcome

How did the world leaders and representatives of the nations that attended the Rio+20 summit view its outcome? The summit's closing speeches, while reflecting the sense of relief that consensus had been achieved, also evinced the general feeling of disappointment that more had not been achieved.

Meena Raman

THE Rio+20 summit ended late evening on 22 June with the adoption, to loud applause, of the outcome document entitled 'The Future We Want'. This was followed by closing speeches by several delegations, some of which lodged reservations and interpretations.

There were also closing speeches by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the President of the UN General Assembly, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, and the Rio+20 Conference Secretary-General, Sha Zukang. They described the conference as 'historic' for implementing sustainable development.

    Rousseff said that the outcome document was a landmark for sustainable development and a historic step. She said it was a 'starting point', not a 'threshold or ceiling' for implementing the path to sustainable development.

Ban said that Rio+20 has affirmed fundamental principles, renewed essential commitments and given new direction.

Sha said the outcome document should now be used to guide actions for the next 20 years. He listed the important outcomes as including sustainable development goals (SDGs), green economy, strengthening the environment pillar (of the institutional framework for sustainable development), setting up a high-level political forum (on sustainable development), progress on sustainable consumption and production, marine biodiversity, and strengthening social protection floors.

In a session chaired by Brazilian Foreign Ministry senior official Luiz Machado, the outcome document was put before the delegates and adopted to loud applause. In the closing speeches, some countries, including Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and the United States, then expressed their reservations on various paragraphs.

In the final two days (21-22 June), there had been corridor talk of a possible attempt to reopen the outcome document during the summit. The document had earlier been finalised and adopted by negotiators on 19 June at the end of 'informal consultations' conducted by host country Brazil ahead of the summit.

The corridor talk was sparked off by remarks by heads of state from Kenya, Niger and France who had in their statements to the summit on the first day (20 June) indicated that they wanted the transformation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) into a full United Nations Environment Organisation (UNEO) with equal status with other UN agencies.

This proposal had been strongly advocated by the European Union (EU) and some African countries, but had been opposed by other countries. The final document agreed on strengthening and upgrading UNEP through various measures but did not accept that it become a specialised agency.

However, there was no attempt to reopen the text in the final summit plenary and the adoption of the outcome document proceeded smoothly.

New path

Algeria, speaking for the developing-country Group of 77 (G77) and China, welcomed the adoption of the outcome document. It said that although some proposals by the Group were not kept in the outcome document, the balance characterised by the document paved a new path for reaching agreement on different areas that would start with the implementation phase. The G77 paid tribute to Brazil for playing a leading role (in making consensus possible on the document).

The results achieved at the summit provided the greatest chance for reaching ambition that all wish for in the future in multilateral diplomacy, said the G77 and China chairman.

Denmark, speaking for the EU, while supporting the adoption of the document, said that there were a number of areas where it would have hoped for more ambition, such as timelines and goals in priority areas covered by the outcome document. It welcomed the document's acknowledgment of the important role of the green economy in achieving sustainable development and poverty reduction; the recognition of broader measures of progress to complement gross domestic product (GDP); and the importance of corporate sustainability reporting.

The EU said it would remain fully engaged in operationalising the SDGs and welcomed the decision on the institutional framework on sustainable development, in particular, the strengthening of UNEP with universal membership and for a common global environmental agenda. The EU said it would continue to work for a full-fledged UNEO to be on equal footing with other UN organisations.

Reservations

Bolivia said it joined the consensus but expressed its reservations on and interpretation of the outcome document.

On the 'green economy', Bolivia rejected it as a new model and tool for the privatisation of nature and society pretending to achieve sustainable development and poverty eradication. It said that countries have the sovereign right to choose their own approaches, visions, models and tools for sustainable development. It had chosen the vision of 'Living Well' through a comprehensive model of integral development in harmony and balance with Mother Earth while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and its citizens.

On energy subsidies, which are addressed in paragraph 225 of the document, Bolivia reserved its position on the rationalisation of inefficient subsidies of fossil sources of energy, as this implied a restructuring of its tax system and royalties, and was contrary to its constitution. It could not accept any kind of assessment, monitoring, reporting and reviewing of its national energy policies and measures that affected its sovereignty.

On 'innovative financing mechanisms', Bolivia had reservations that they could imply or be interpreted as sources from carbon markets, water markets and rights, payments for environmental services, and schemes for the commodification of the functions and cycles of nature.

Ecuador also expressed reservations in relation to paragraph 225 on energy subsidies and said it could not act in any way that was against its constitution. It underlined the need for a new social contract as regards the rights of nature, requiring a change in the system and values of people.

Venezuela said that in the interest of consensus, it agreed to the outcome document but it had reservations on certain paragraphs which were contrary to its sovereignty and constitution, which it would submit in writing.

Peru said that one of the most important achievements of the conference was the reaffirmation of the Rio principles, and called for urgent and swift implementation of the outcomes. It wanted to see more ambition but the outcome document provided a road to follow.

Canada said that the outcome document was a balanced, forward-looking document. It said Brazil had shown leadership in shaping a balanced overall result.

On the reaffirmation of the human right to water in paragraph 121 of the outcome document, Canada's understanding was that this was essential to the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living under Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The human right to safe drinking water to be progressively realised did not encompass transboundary water issues including bulk water trade and mandatory allocation of international assistance, it added.

The United States joined the consensus on the outcome document to mark real advance on sustainable development. It was pleased that the document endorsed sexual and reproductive health and said there was a need to ensure women's reproductive rights. The US conveyed its intention to provide a statement for the record on several elements of the outcome document.

Kenya said that the process of the negotiations had been open, transparent, balanced, intense and difficult and compromises were made. It called for practical actions.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo considered Rio+20 as a crucial step forward to lead to sustainable development. The strengthening of UNEP should lead to an institution that reflects its true functions.

Nicaragua said that the main issues of the 1992 Rio summit on sustainable development and poverty eradication must continue and efforts should not be diluted.

Switzerland said that progress was made but the conference missed a historic opportunity. The outcome was a compromise and did not have the vision and strong commitment needed. It avoided a major setback and there was some progress in specific areas. The green economy was not a threat to sustainable development but was an opportunity, it added.

Iceland regretted the lack of reference to reproductive rights in the outcome document.

Brazil's Luiz Machado, who chaired the official closing session, said that the statements of reservation and interpretations would be included in the report of the summit.

'Starting point'

For the summit's closing ceremony, Brazilian President Rousseff took over as chair. In her closing speech, Rousseff said that the outcome document was a landmark for sustainable development and was a historic step. She said it was a 'starting point' and not a 'threshold or ceiling' for implementing the path to sustainable development, which had to be ambitious and serve as a legacy for future generations.

The document was a consensus for collective ambition and that same spirit was needed for the solutions, said Rousseff. Saying that the document did not set back the gains of the 1992 Rio, Johannesburg or other summits, she said it was a great step forward.

She highlighted some of the key decisions, including: recognition of the need to eradicate poverty and hunger and respect for human rights; the SDGs provided focus and guidance for the future we want; the high-level political forum will now coordinate sustainable development and ensure implementation of the SDGs; UNEP is to be further strengthened, even from a budget perspective; recognition of the need to have an indicator that will be more than GDP; adoption of a 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable production and consumption; recognition of the status of marine biodiversity and a decision on the development of a treaty on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity (beyond national jurisdiction).

The Brazilian President was convinced that the conference would bring sweeping changes for current and future generations with economic growth which was inclusive, enabled the distribution of income and respected environmental sustainability. She said that multilateralism is a global expression of democracy and is the legitimate pathway to find solutions.

Rousseff pledged $6 million to UNEP and $10 million for the most vulnerable countries and small island developing states (SIDS).

(On the first day of the summit, China's Premier Wen Jiabao announced that China will contribute $6 million to UNEP and $31.7 million for a three-year international project to help SIDS, underdeveloped countries and African countries tackle climate change.)

UN Secretary-General Ban said the conference was successful and the leaders of the world had renewed their commitment to sustainable development. The outcome document which was adopted by consensus provided a firm foundation for social, economic and environmental well-being. 'It will guide us - all of us - towards a sustainable path. It is now our responsibility to build on it,' said Ban.

He added that Rio+20 had affirmed fundamental principles, renewed essential commitments and given new direction. Agreement was reached to establish universal SDGs to create a stronger international architecture to support sustainable development. A 10-year framework on sustainable consumption and production had been adopted and there was acknowledgment of the potential for greening economies.

The road ahead was long and hard, he said, with too many people remaining poor, hungry and vulnerable to easily preventable disease, and the environmental base that will improve their opportunities for prosperity was under unprecedented threat. 'No longer can we afford to recklessly consume scarce resources. No longer can we carelessly pollute fragile ecosystems. No longer can we mortgage our future for our short-term needs ... Rio+20 has given us a solid platform to build on. And it has given us the tools to build with. The work starts now,' concluded Ban.

Sha, the Secretary-General of the Conference, said the conference was historic and the next stage of the work was to take the outcome document and use it to guide actions for the next 20 years.

He said the process to launch the SDGs provided an expression of commitment for the future we want. Other important ground-breaking outcomes were: the application of green economy policies as a useful tool for sustainable development; agreement to strengthen the environment pillar; decision to have a high-level political forum for sustainable development to integrate the three pillars; progress on sustainable consumption and production; sustainable use of marine biodiversity; addressing marine pollution and ocean acidification; more liveable cities and communities; strengthening social protection floors and tackling youth unemployment; and decision on a strategy for mobilisation of financing and technology transfer. Sustainable development was the only option for the common future, he added further.

President of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Al-Nasser said that member states had come a long way and the conference was historic. He said the UNGA had played a central role and the outcome document provided critical guidance for implementation and the right decisions needed to be made in the UNGA.         

Meena Raman is a senior researcher with the Third World Network. This article is reproduced from the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS, No. 7397, 26 June 2012), which is published by TWN.

*Third World Resurgence No. 262, June 2012, pp 28-30