TWN Update on Sustainable Development Conference 2012 (Dec11/02)
20 December 2011
Third World Network

Rio+20 intersessional discusses proposals for outcome document

New York, 20 Dec (Bhumika Muchhala) – The second intersessional meeting for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (or Rio+20) was held in New York on 15-16 December for the purpose of discussing the format, content and structure of the outcome document from the Conference to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 20-22 June 2012.

In summarizing the discussions, the Secretary-General for the Rio+20 Conference, Mr. Sha Zukang said that if he had to distill a message from the interventions of member states, it is that the outcome of Rio+20 should be strong in will and strong in action. Only then will Rio+20 be a historical and ground-breaking conference, he concluded.

According to the UN General Assembly resolution 64/236, the Rio+20 Conference is supposed to result in a focused political document.

The Bureau of the Preparatory Committee of the Conference informed participants to the New York meeting that it had received 647 contributions (of which 74 were from member states) towards the compilation document, from which the “Zero Draft Outcome Document” is to be produced. This Zero Draft is expected to be ready mid-January next year, based on which negotiations will be conducted for the final outcome document.

At the conclusion of the two-day intersessional meeting in New York, Sha summarized the discussions.

He said that many reiterated what was stated in the General Assembly (GA) resolution (64/236) calling for Rio+20 to have a focused political document. “Many indicated their preference for a single document, not multiple documents that would need to be negotiated in parallel tracks. The message on structure is to follow the guidance of the GA resolution, focusing on the objective of the two themes” (viz. a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development).

The Secretary-General said that the outcome document should address the deficits that have been identified in implementation, integration and coherence through an action-oriented outcome. He said that most wanted a concise document.

Sha said many prefer that the vision and declaration of renewed political commitment be accompanied by a set of agreed actions – some called it a framework for action, others a plan, and still others a roadmap. Some want these to be attached in annexes, he added further.

He said that it was also emphasized that the actions agreed must specify actors, timeframes and means of implementation. The need for a compendium, or registry, of voluntary commitments to accompany the negotiated outcome was also raised. (The United States had called for a compendium of voluntary commitments).

Sha also said that much stress was placed on accountability for delivery on commitments, whoever the responsible actors, and whether negotiated or voluntary.

“It was stressed that the starting point should be reaffirmation of all the Rio principles and prior sustainable development commitments. There should be no regression,” he said further.

(Many developing countries called repeatedly for the reaffirmation of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.)

“Building upon that reaffirmation, the outcome must be forward-looking and must provide a vision for the future and endorse a concrete set of actions that address the implementation gap”, Sha added.

He emphasized that Rio+20 must once and for all integrate the three pillars of sustainable development in practice. “One of the most important lessons learned since Rio 1992 is that progress on only one of the three pillars of environment, economic and social, will not be sustainable without the other two”.

He said he heard three key requirements mentioned to ensure that the Rio+20 vision and actions are realized. “First, the actions must be strongly endorsed at the highest level of government. Second, they must be owned by all stakeholders. And third, actors must have at their disposal the necessary means of implementation.”

“There was broad agreement that a green economy must be inclusive, advance poverty eradication and be a means to sustainable development,” he said.

“It is also widely understood that an inclusive green economy must be built in each country according to its own national priorities, characteristics and capabilities. This calls for flexibility, for a menu of policy options and not a straightjacket. Countries will need to share their experiences and lessons learned, and a platform is needed for such sharing. Capacity building will be necessary for developing countries to develop green economy strategies, to mobilize necessary resources and to make necessary investments,” he further added.

Sha said that some member states have proposed goals, timelines and milestones to measure progress. Several have proposed that these be developed in the context of a green economy roadmap. Others have proposed them more broadly, in the form of “sustainable development goals” (SDGs).

“Given the broad support for SDGs, the outcome document will need to reflect proposals in this regard,” added Sha.

He also said that there was strong support for improved measures of progress towards sustainable development that go beyond GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

According to the Secretary-General, several priority areas for action were highlighted by member states. These include oceans; food security and sustainable agriculture; sustainable energy for all; water access and efficiency; sustainable cities; green jobs and decent work; desertification and land degradation; mountains; biodiversity; forests; and climate change. The particular vulnerabilities and challenges facing the small island developing states, the least developed countries and Africa were also mentioned.

“Broad support was expressed for reaching agreement on a 10-year framework of programmes to promote sustainable consumption and production,” he said.

Other cross-cutting issues stressed were gender equality and empowerment, social equity and social protection, education, access to technology and finance and capacity building.

With regard to the institutional framework for sustainable development, Sha said that the guiding principles for Rio+20 were stressed by member states, namely that of promoting integration of the three pillars and implementation. The institutional framework should aim for three achievements: (i) a strengthening each of the three pillars; (ii) a strengthened UNEP, or the elevation of UNEP to a specialized agency to represent the core of the environmental pillar; and, (iii) strengthening of institutional mechanisms to promote balance and integration among the three pillars.

The Secretary-General saw “a growing interest in considering a proposal for creating a sustainable development council to replace the Commission on Sustainable Development, building upon and strengthening existing institutions, including the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly.”

He said that it was stressed that the institutions of economic and financial governance must also be included in sustainable development governance. Reform measures in finance and economics must include clearly defined mechanisms and processes to follow-up on decisions made in Rio.

The Group of 77 and China made an intervention that focused on several different aspects. With regard to the structure of the zero draft of the outcome document, the G77 and China referred to its submission to the Rio+20 Bureau in October 2011, a document named “Preliminary Elements for the Outline of the Draft Outcome.” It included sections on: (i) assessing progress and gaps in the implementation of the commitments of the outcome of major UN Conferences related to sustainable development, (ii) addressing new and emerging issues; (ii) the green economy concept in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; (iii) an institutional framework for sustainable development; (iv) a framework for action; (v) a means of implementation; and, (vi) follow-up.

The G77 and China reaffirmed that this structure, based on the Resolution 64/236, should serve as a guide to negotiations of the outcome document.

The Conference should identify a framework of action in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities which will integrate and implement the three pillars in order to achieve tangible outcomes. The actions should include the following four components:
(i) provision of new, additional, stable, predictable financial resources to support implementation activities in developing countries;

(ii) effective access to and transfer of technologies for developing countries;

(iii) the increase of resources for development, including commitments by developed countries to increase ODA; and,

(iv) effective institutional frameworks at all levels to strengthen the role of governments, and encourage the participation of major groups and other stakeholders.

The G77 and China said that the UNCSD will not renegotiate nor retract agreed principles and outcomes of the major summits on Sustainable Development, including the commitments made in the three conventions, UNFCCC (climate change), CBD (biodiversity) and UNCCD (combating desertification and land degradation).

The Group called for decisions on transfer of technology and capacity building to:
(i) establish an international mechanism to implement concrete actions focused on bridging the technological gap between developed and developing countries and facilitating transfer of technology in sustainable development;

(ii) create an enabling environment that aims at removing all barriers to technology transfer and technology adaptation, consistent and in harmony with the relevant international obligations;

(iii) ensure immediate implementation of the Bali Strategic Plan for Technology Support and Capacity Building;

(iv) stress the need for effective mechanisms, enhanced means, appropriate enabling environments and the removal of obstacles to the scaling up of the development and transfer of technology to developing countries;

(v) address the need for access of developing countries to technologies. Developing countries would also need to have access to the know-how and expertise required for the effective utilization of these technologies to achieve sustainable development;

(vi) address the role of patent protection and intellectual property rights, and examine their impact on the access to and transfer of environmentally sound technology, in particular to developing countries, as well as to exploring the concept of assured access for developing countries to environmentally sound technology in its relation to proprietary rights with a view to developing effective responses to the needs of developing countries;

(vii) address concepts and modalities for assured access to environmentally sound technologies, including state-of-the-art technologies, in particular by developing countries, while providing fair incentives to innovators that promote research and development of new environmentally sound technologies; and,

(viii) bear in mind that recipient countries require technology and strengthened support to help further develop their scientific, technological, professional and related capacities, taking into account existing technologies and capacities.

Two particular themes of global economic and climate challenges, and food security and agricultural development were emphasized by the G77 and China. These challenges threaten the ability of developing countries to achieve the MDGs and for some countries, they also threaten the territorial integrity and their existence and viability as states.

Regarding ‘the way forward,’ the G77 and China identified “Persistent, New and Emerging Issues and a Framework of Action for Implementation of Commitments,” reaffirming that the current major challenge for developing countries is the impacts from the multiple crises, particularly the ongoing economic and financial crisis which is a result of the international financial system. In this context, it reaffirmed the urgent need to address the lack of proper regulation and monitoring of the financial sector, the overall lack of transparency and financial integrity, excessive risk taking, overleveraging and unsustainable patterns of consumption and production in developed countries.

The G77 and China called for urgent and substantial increases in financing to developing countries for sustainable development. It is also essential that financing for the UN system be significantly enhanced for it to operate effectively and fulfill its sustainable development mandate. To this extent, the G77 and China called for the prioritization of sustainable development in the allocation of resources, where needed and in line with the priorities and needs of developing countries. Oversight of these resources is key to ensure that developing countries have steady and predictable access to resources.

China’s intervention focused on upholding the Rio principles, especially the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” which is a crucial factor determining whether consensus can be reached on the outcome document. Any attempt to reopen negotiation on this principle or to distort or deviate from this principle will spoil the cooperative atmosphere of the Conference and will not garner wide support.

On the content of the outcome document, China underscored that while the positive effects of green economy on poverty eradication and economic restructuring is important, the accompanying risks and challenges should also be recognized.

To address the challenges developing countries will face in pursuing green development, three points must be paid attention to: (i) to refrain from using “green economy” as a pretext to attach “green conditions to development aid, or setting new trade barriers to practice “green protectionism;” (ii) making poverty eradication the key indicator in formulating and implementing the policy on green economy; and, (iii) respecting country-specific development levels and capabilities by avoiding uniform criteria and indicators.

China also expressed the importance of including positions from all sides in a comprehensive, balanced and objective manner, deepening the political will of all countries and sending a strong message on revitalizing international cooperation for sustainable development.

It stressed that the outcome document should be particularly clear about means of implementation, such as technology transfer, financial support and capacity building. Only then can Rio+20 really help developing countries address their difficulties and challenges in sustainable development.

The institutional framework, according to China, should meet four requirements: (i) it should fully demonstrate the central and leading role of the UN; (ii) it should help reinforce the function of existing mechanisms such as the ECOSOC and the CSD; (iii) it should encourage the IFIs, the WTO, and multilateral development banks to incorporate the agenda of sustainable development into their planning and programming, and cooperate with relevant UN agencies to maximize effectiveness; and, (iv) it should help increase the voice and decision-making power of developing countries in mechanisms for sustainable development.

India stated that the Rio+20 conference provides a valuable opportunity to bring a sustainable development agenda back to the centre stage of the global development matrix, guided by the Rio principles, in particular the principles of equity and “common but differentiated responsibilities.” There can be no rewiring of the Rio-principles or their dilution, India asserted.

On the substance of the outcome document, India stated that strong defining actions on development challenges should be illustrated, in particular the unsustainable patterns of consumption and production in developed countries need to be rationalized so as to reduce their ecological footprints. “This cannot be a forgotten and relegated to the back-benches issue,” India clarified.

In line with China, India asserted that the green economy should not be used as a pretext for green protectionism, including tariff and non-tariff barriers on exports of developing countries or aid conditionalities. It should also not exacerbate the technological dependence of developing countries on developed countries. The evolution of green economy should be facilitated through a menu of policy options and a toolbox of instruments with ample flexibility and policy space for countries to allow them to make their own choices.

Furthermore, green economy paradigms need to ensure that they will not adversely impact the livelihoods of vulnerable sections of society, like the small and marginal farmers and those employed in small and medium enterprises. Overall, the outcome document should recognize that national circumstances and priorities will define the nature of policies and strategies adopted by each country to green its economy. No one size fits all.

India said that “win-win strategies need to be identified and formulated where greening activities are synergistic with economic growth for poverty eradication.”

The means of implementation are critical. Some examples of these means are: (i) new, additional and predictable financial support; (ii) transfer and sharing of technology, capacity building; and, (iii) a development oriented international environment on trade, intellectual property rights, debt relief, financial mechanisms and global governance in general. All of these are critical for developing countries to pursue sustainable development.

In specific reference to the joint proposal on “Sustainable Development Goals” by Colombia and Guatemala, India said that a target based prescriptive approach on sustainable development should be carefully thought out. Such an approach could undermine the relentless and ongoing efforts being made by developing countries on poverty eradication, MDGs and other internationally agreed development goals. These issues need to be the subject of detailed negotiations among member states with a balanced approach in which developed countries need to walk the talk on action and support.

India identified three crucial obstacles to developing countries in the field of sustainable development: (i) unmet commitments; (ii) inadequate means of implementation; and, (iii) a clear lack of political will on the part of developed countries to put in place an enabling global environment that gives a level playing field to developing countries.

It is critical that issues of core development concern such as poverty eradication, and the financing it requires, food security and sustainable agriculture, universal access to modern energy services, access to clean drinking water, natural resource and land degradation, challenges of urbanization, public health, human resource development and employment generation are addressed in all their manifestations.

With regard to the institutional framework on sustainable development, India supports the strengthening of UNEP through scaled up financial resources, an enhanced mandate and universal membership.

The Commission for Sustainable Development either needs to be reformed comprehensively, or the UN should consider creating a new body such as a ‘Sustainable Development Council’ based on equitable geographical representation reporting directly to the General Assembly.

There is clearly a need for greater representation of developing countries, accountability and transparency in the Bretton Woods Institutions in order to increase their effectiveness and responsiveness to UN-led processes and outcomes. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has to be strengthened. The quantum of financial contributions to GEF Trust Fund should substantially increase from the present level.

With regard to the structure of the outcome document’s zero draft, India said that a balanced text will take into account the inputs provided by various stakeholders, in particular the member states. India favors a single outcome document, one that renews political commitment and provides for an action plan in an integrated manner.

A strong political reaffirmation for a renewed sustainable development agenda firmly anchored in the Rio principles must be provided in the beginning of the document as a chapeau or introductory part. This would set the stage for an action oriented programme.

Two subsequent sections may begin with certain basic principles which define the global sustainability agenda, in particular the principles of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR)’ and equity contained in the Rio Declaration. In addition, ‘what a green economy is not’ also must be clearly delineated.

Pertinent questions such as, how does the green economy and the proposed changes in the institutional framework relate to economic growth, social development, women’s empowerment and sustainable livelihoods have to be clearly brought out in the document. Finally, while discussing the various instruments, tools and policy options for a transition to greener economy, the pros and cons of such mechanisms have to be elucidated so that individual countries are guided to take the right decisions for an appropriate mix of such options in accordance to their national circumstances and priorities.

The Africa Group, represented by the Republic of Tanzania, stated that the three pillars of sustainable development must be integrated and holistic, and that a key lesson learned since the 1992 Rio conference (the Earth Summit) is that where progress was advanced in any one of the pillars, it was often at the expense of the other two pillars. The commitment to development must be comprehensive and balanced.

The Africa Group articulated the green economy as a “tool to achieve sustainable development.” The region recognizes that the transition to green economy offers new opportunities for changes to the world political economy. However, Africa will need substantial financial and technological resources in order to make existing industries more efficient and new technologies as green as possible. International commitments related to sustainable development in Africa must be met.

The current institutional framework on sustainable development falls short and does not adequately represent the constraints and priorities of the African region. Efforts must be taken to transform UNEP according to the characteristics laid out in the African statement.

The Africa Group highlighted the specific theme of agricultural productivity and food security, which includes the improvement of livestock and the strengthening of adaptation and mitigation measures which protect forests, freshwater, fragile ecosystems and biodiversity.

The outcome document must be action-oriented and must have more robust implementation than has been witnessed in past UN conference outcome documents. It must renew political will and resolve to close all outstanding gaps of commitments made in past international agreements and conferences.

The United States proposed a “voluntary compendium of commitments” as an alternative to the Bureau’s proposed Action Plan. The compendium would be an annex to the outcome document, and would include a list of voluntary, non-negotiated commitments and intended actions from governments, stakeholders and partnerships, and would be delivered as part of the overall Rio+20 outcome.

The compendium would be a non-negotiated official meeting outcome. It would represent pledges from actors at all levels to take action to achieve sustainable development. The US asserted that such a voluntary and non-negotiated compendium would “send a clear message to the global community that Rio indeed represents a new approach, one that is broad and inclusive, toward achieving sustainable development.”

The compendium, the US further rationalized, would focus on developing solutions rather than on gaining detailed consensus. It would allow all key stakeholders, including national governments, cities, the private sector, NGOs, scientific communities, and any interested parties, to bring forward their ideas and initiatives to achieve a sustainable future. The commitments could include action at the local, national or global levels.

By not requiring consensus on every item, the compendium, the US asserts, would allow for more bold forward movement, in a way that “reflects the new dynamism often absent from lengthy negotiated texts.”

While the US sees these commitments as voluntarily entered into, the US supports a mechanism for accountability. The commitments would be registered and announced as one part of the official outcome of the meeting, so that media and stakeholders can identify and report on the concrete actions undertaken and delivered.

The European Union was of the view that the outcome document should be in the form of a political declaration setting out a shared vision for change, as well as objectives and actions in one single document. It wanted the political declaration to have three basic sections – an introductory section recalling the objective of the Conference to renew political commitment for sustainable development, assessing the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges; a section on green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication in which it wanted a green economy roadmap with specific goals, objectives and actions at the international level; and a section on institutional framework for sustainable development to improve governance at all levels. It wanted this section to include a call for the establishment of a UN Specialized Agency for the Environment based on UNEP.+