|
||
|
TWN
Update on Sustainable Development Conference 2012 (Oct11/01) Rio+20 conference should reaffirm principles of Rio 1992, say developing countries Beijing, 25 Oct (Chee Yoke Ling) – Developing countries stress the centrality of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) that will take place in June 2012 while they continue to have concerns over the uncertainties of the concept of a “green economy”. Regional preparatory meetings convened by the respective UN regional commissions are in full swing for the conference, dubbed “Rio+20” as it will occur 20 years after the historic 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development. Like its predecessor, the conference will be held again in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The 1992 conference was attended by heads of states and governments and many hope that next year’s conference will also attract summit-level participation. At the recently concluded Asian and Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting in Seoul on 19-20 October that was organised by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in collaboration with UNEP and the Asian Development Bank, participants reaffirmed the principles contained in the (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21 (action plan adopted in the 1992 summit conference), as well as the instruments further adopted for the implementation of Agenda 21, in particular the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (adopted again by a summit conference at Rio+10). There was continuing divergence of views on one of the two themes of the UNCSD, i.e. “a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”. (The other theme is the institutional framework for sustainable development.) This divergence between strong proponents (the Republic of Korea and Japan), and several developing countries especially China and India, as well as the Russian Federation reflects the differences voiced throughout the preparatory process that started in May 2010 at the UN headquarters in New York. Developing countries’ concerns centre on the possible use of the concept of “green economy” for trade protectionism and development assistance conditionality. In Seoul, several developing countries emphasized that in the UN General Assembly mandate for the UNCSD the objective of the conference is to secure renewed political for sustainable development, assess the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the major summits on sustainable development and address new and emerging challenges. Many delegates and non-government participants observe that this part of the mandate is receiving disproportionately less attention compared to the two themes. An 8-page draft proposal on a statement had been prepared by the ESCAP secretariat to be considered as “the major regional input” for submission to the UNCSD. This proposed statement focused primarily on the two themes of green economy and institutional framework. Following concerns and reservations voiced by several delegates over a joint statement (implying consensus), a one and a half-page document titled “Seoul Outcome of the Asia and the Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for UNCSD (Rio+20)” was finally agreed to be the input from the region. There is also a Chair’s Summary of the presentations and discussions that was not adopted by the meeting, and these 2 documents are annexed to the official meeting report. The Seoul Outcome thus reaffirms the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, as well as the instruments further adopted for the implementation of Agenda 21, in particular the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. It also reaffirms that the main objective of the UNCSD is to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, assessing progress to date and the remaining gaps in implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development, and addressing new and emerging challenges. It states that the outcome of the Rio+20 conference should be: Based on Rio Principles, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; Action-oriented; Forward-looking; Consensus-based; Inclusive; Supportive of global partnership for sustainable development. It states that Green Economy has to be seen in the context of the overriding objectives of sustainable development and poverty eradication. The Green Economy approach should take into account the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in particular, along with Rio Principles. In that regard, it should: Promote sustained economic growth for poverty eradication; Be one of means to achieve and promote sustainable development; Facilitate trade opportunities to all countries, in particular, developing countries; Address the three pillars of sustainable development in a comprehensive, coordinated, synergetic and balanced manner; Allow sufficient policy space and flexibility for governments to pursue sustainable development strategies based on national circumstances and respective stages of development; Promote the inclusion of vulnerable sections of the society, women and youth; Involve all stakeholders; Facilitate technological innovation and transfer and promote access to green technologies at affordable costs; Address the challenges of delivering a green economy in small islands developing states in particular, along with high mountain and land-lock states; Increase the resilience to natural disasters. In line with the same principles, the Outcome states that green economy should not be used as a pretext for green protectionism. The Seoul Outcome further states that there is a need to reform and improve the institutional framework for sustainable development. These reforms should:
The Seoul Outcome was produced by the Bureau of the meeting comprising of representatives of the Republic of Korea (chair), China, Russian Federation, Thailand, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Australia, Samoa and Pakistan (all vice-chairs) and Japan (rapporteur). They had long discussions in a separate room while statements were made in the parallel plenary session by member states and major groups/stakeholders. When the final plenary opened late afternoon, the Bureau Chair Yoon Jong-soo introduced the Outcome document. “After three times of hard and long debate we have reached agreement at the Bureau,” he announced. “There was full overnight and morning discussion of the Chair’s draft which the Bureau helped to prepare with active participation and consultation.” According to one of the Bureau members, there was extensive debate over the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in relation to the paragraph on the green economy, with Japan stating that this principle had not relation to the green economy issue. [On the first day of the meeting, Japan surprisingly questioned the inclusion in the agenda of the review of the implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 (from the Rio+5 conference) and the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Action. Japan said that the meeting should discuss the green economy and institutional framework. In response the representative of ESCAP said that the review is set out in the UN General Assembly mandate for Rio+20.] Reservations over a “Joint Statement” At the plenary session on the first day during the discussion of the meeting agenda that included time for drafting a joint statement, India expressed its reservations regarding the adoption of a Joint Statement, citing three main reasons. First, according to India, national submissions have not yet been made by the member states to the UNCSD process (1 November is the deadline); in other words our national priorities and concerns have not yet been formally articulated to the UNCSD Secretariat. In such a scenario, it would perhaps be premature for the member States here to produce a single collated Joint Statement. Secondly, India said, there is some precedence where in some recent meetings including those at Beijing (High Level Symposium on UNCSD organized by China and the UNCSD secretariat, 8-9 September) and New Delhi (Ministerial Dialogue on “Green Economy and Inclusive Growth” organized by India and the UNCSD secretariat, 3-4 October) as well the 2nd (UNCSD) Preparatory Committee meeting at New York, the format of the outcome documents were in the form of Chairperson’s summaries. (The Latin America and Caribbean regional meeting produced “conclusions” while the Arab Region one produced a “recommendations”. The sensitivity over the nature of the regional meetings’ output is that most member states do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the formal intergovernmental negotiations that will begin next January when the “zero draft of outcome document” is made available based on the submissions of states and non-state actors.) Thirdly, India said that given the diversity of the Asia Pacific region, a negotiated statement would moreover have the effect of pre-judging the outcome of the Rio+20, which is avoidable. It called for a Chairperson’s Summary of the presentations and discussions, adding that given the short time of the meeting, it may be difficult to conclude and agree on a common negotiated statement. Several other countries shared similar concerns. A number of delegates told Third World Network that a considerable part of their concern was over the unresolved issues related to the green economy. (See separate article on: Divergent views continue on “green economy”.) All the outputs from the various regional preparatory meetings will be submitted to the UNCSD secretariat by 1 November for a Compilation Document to be prepared that will also include submissions from non-governmental sources. Based on this a “zero draft of outcome document” will be prepared by the secretariat and approved by the Bureau of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee as the basis for inter-governmental negotiations that will begin in New York in January 2012.+
|
||
