|
||
|
TWN
Update on Sustainable Development Conference 2012 (Feb12/01) We are pleased to share with you a report of the initial discussion on the "zero draft" of the outcome document for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) that took place at the UN headquarters in New York on 26-27 January 2012. General statements reacting to the document and textual additions on sections I (Preamble/Stage setting) and II (Renewing political commitment) were made at the meeting. Two more rounds of informal negotiations will take place on 19-23 March and 23 April to 4 May. The 3rd intersessional meeting will be on 26-27 March. All these will be in New York. Meanwhile the deadline for member states and negotiating groups to send to the Rio+20 Bureau all textual amendments and new proposals to sections III (Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication), IV (Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development) and V (Framework for action and follow-up) of the draft outcome document is 29 February. The article was first published in 2 parts in SUNS #7303 (7 February) and SUNS #7304 (8 February). With best
wishes, Negotiations inch forward on Rio+20 outcome document New York, 6 Feb (Bhumika Muchhala and Chee Yoke Ling/Third World Network) – Discussion on the first version of the outcome document for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be held in June 2012 saw developing countries emphasise the need for the full integrated implementation of the commitments made almost 20 years ago to the latest programme for least developed countries in 2011. It also signaled a retreat by some developed countries from the agreed principles and commitments on sustainable development, with the United States stating that that UN member state discussions “are too often dominated by a preoccupation with the outdated North-South divide” and Australia questioning the highlight on common but differentiated responsibilities, a key agreed principle for global cooperation that recognized the historical responsibility of developed countries for environmental damage. Initial discussions on the “zero draft” of the outcome document for the June Conference took place on 25-27 January at the UN headquarters in New York. Known as the Rio+20 conference, it will occur in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on 20-22 June to mark the 2 decades after the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development where heads of States and Governments endorsed principles and a detailed work programme for sustainable development also in the same city. Rio+20 has the objective to renew political commitment for sustainable development in view of the major implementation gaps so far and the multiple crises across the world. There was general discussion and comments on the zero draft at the New York meeting, as well as initial negotiations on the first two sections of the zero draft, namely the sections on the Preamble/Stage Setting and Renewing Political Commitment (to sustainable development). Statements in reaction to the zero draft were presented by eight country groupings and over 50 member states, followed by various UN agencies and coalitions of Major Groups. (Major Groups for the UN sustainable development process were identified in Agenda 21, adopted in the 1992 conference: business and industry, children and youth, farmers, indigenous peoples, local authorities, NGOs, scientific and technological community, women, workers and trade unions.) The zero draft of the outcome document for Rio+20 is the starting point for the Rio+20 inter-governmental negotiations. It was tabled by the two Co-Chairs of the Rio+20 preparatory committee in the first week of January and comprises a 19-page document that draws from over 6,000 pages of submissions by member states, UN agencies and regional commissions as well as civil society organisations and the private sector. The two Co-Chairs are Mr. John Ashe (Antigua and Barbuda) and Mr. Kim Sook (Republic of Korea). While government negotiators and delegates have agreed to work with the zero draft text, there are wide-ranging and numerous amendments that have been proposed, many spurred by significant disagreement and dissatisfaction with the inadequate or limiting scope of the zero draft. While most speakers emphasized a “concise and action-oriented” document, it is expected that the text of the zero draft will first balloon, given the exhaustive range of topics and proposals discussed in the general debate, before being trimmed down as informal negotiations progress on the road to the June conference (heads of states are expected to attend, turning it to a Summit). A matter of concern that was raised by many developing countries was the issue of “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) that was proposed last year by Colombia and Guatemala as a possible outcome in view of the contentious debate and limited progress on the themes of the conference, “green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” and the institutional framework for sustainable development (see xxx). The proposal on SDGs has received support from many members, though no substantial discussion has taken place on the possible parameters and content of the goals. The zero draft proposes accepting the concept of SDGs and to work out the details after the conference until 2015. The relevant section of the draft will be the focus of discussion later. There were four informal consultations over the 3-day meeting in New York that dealt exclusively with SDGs, led by Colombia in partnership, sponsored by or in collaboration with Australia and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) that is the Rio+20 Secretariat. Prior to the meeting, Colombia also organized an informal retreat for discussions on the SDGs. Concerns were expressed in the halls that the SDGs issue was moving at a faster pace than other issues in the zero draft, and that the proposal which is now included in the zero draft raises new uncertanties regarding the following: whether there will be a balanced treatment of the 3 pillars of sustainable development (not just the environmental pillar as suggested in the green economy roadmap proposed by the EU and also included in the zero draft, but also the economic and social pillars); and the relationship with the post-2015 development agenda when the Millennium Development Goals’ deadline is reached. Another main concern shared by many developing countries is the number of processes outside the multilateral intergovernmental process, particularly those proposed in the zero draft to be led by the UN Secretary-General. In particular, the Secretary-General’s intention to establish a task force to define new SDGs for the post-2015 period following recommendations in the five-year Action Agenda contained in the final report of the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability (also an initiative of the Secretary-General himself) caused enough concern so that during the closing session on 27 January, Argentina, a Rio+20 bureau member, requested clarification from the Secretariat on this new initiative. Sha Zukang (head of the Rio+20 Secretariat) said that the Secretariat has the responsibility to support the process and not to make recommendations on the content or the policies and that he was committed to inform Member States of any information that was made available to him, and did not comment further on this matter. The next session of informal intergovernmental negotiations is scheduled for 19-23 March, also at the UN headquarters in New York. The deadline for member states and negotiating groups to send to the Rio+20 Bureau all textual amendments and new proposals to sections III (Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication), IV (Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development) and V (Framework for action and follow-up) of the draft outcome document is 29 February. The Rio+20 preparatory committee Co-Chair Ashe in presenting the zero draft stated that a sincere effort was made to produce a balanced text that addresses the priorities of all member states and political groupings. The text includes several key proposals, such as the creation of an international knowledge-sharing platform to facilitate countries’ green economy policy design and implementation, the launching of an international process to promote innovative financing instruments to build green economies, a capacity development scheme to provide country- and sector-specific advice and funds for countries, an institutional framework to improve the governance of sustainable development and the establishment of an Ombudsperson, or High Commissioner for Future Generations. Ashe urged member states to view the document in its entirety and with a strategic lens, with a goal of producing a “focused and action oriented document which all member states and stakeholders can support, own and act upon.” Algeria on behalf of the Group of 77 and China (G77) stated that the outcome of the meeting should be a compilation document containing all the proposals of member states, not a revised text offered by the Co-Chairs. The Group’s spokesperson, Mr. Mourad Benmehidi, stated that the zero draft “lacks vision, ambition, balance and action-oriented language and did not reflect all the concerns and positions of the G77 and China, especially in terms of the means of implementation and the full integration of the three pillars of sustainable development, namely economic, social and environmental pillars.” The zero draft did not address peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation in accordance with the relevant documents on sustainable development, especially the agreed language from the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (adopted in 2002 to further implement Agenda 21 and related sustainable development commitments), that were in the submission of the G77 and China. The draft also neglected important issues of health and population and the relevant outcomes of conferences and summits dealing with the three pillars of sustainable development, including the three conventions of Rio (1992): UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), CBD (Convention on Biodiversity) and UNCCD (UN Convention to Combat Desertification). The G77 and China expressed a “firm willingness to engage constructively in negotiations of the outcome document”, with a goal of achieving renewed political commitment for sustainable development and to refrain from renegotiating or retracting agreed outcomes of the major summits and agreed principles, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The Group asked to address oceans and Small Island Developing States in two separate sections rather than one. It also said that the outcome document needs to produce an assessment and stocktaking as to why many of the commitments of the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio 1992, as well as the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg 2002, were not realized to their full potential. What has prevented the international community from moving forward on agreements, and how can the political will be re-energized in order to avoid the perception that multilateral approaches are associated with indecision, stalemate and unfulfilled commitments? The G77
and China identified the following concrete actions and measures
that the Rio+20 conference should deliver, in addition to the fulfillment
of previously agreed commitments on sustainability: The Group stressed that any outcome of Rio+20 should prioritize the eradication of the root causes of poverty, and support national strategies in developing countries to promote empowerment of the poor, including enhancing the productive capacity, full and productive employment and decent work for all. Forward looking policies and action plans must be adopted that promote gender equality and empowerment of women in all spheres of sustainable development. An integrated focus on women and gender issues is essential for achieving equitable and inclusive growth. The need for sustained funding and increased targeted investment to enhance world food production was emphasized, and new and additional financial resources from all sources to achieve sustainable agriculture development and food security was called for. Increased political commitment of developed countries is essential to fill the gaps in implementation, the Group stressed. It proposed one way to achieve this by establishing a registry on financial resources and technology transfer from developed countries for the implementation of sustainable development commitments, as well as its timelines, functions, recipients, management and objectives. The G77 and China reaffirmed that the major challenge for developing countries are the impacts from multiple crises, particularly the ongoing economic and financial crisis which results from current imbalances in the international financial system. Financial regulation and monitoring is urgently stressed, alongside reform of the global financial system and its governance. Major UN conferences and summits in economic and social fields have played a vital role in shaping a broad development vision. There is a clear need to continue working towards a new international economic order based on the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States. In the
technology transfer and capacity building sections, the G77 and
China stated that the zero draft did not reflect any concrete action
and mechanisms. The Group reiterated its proposals for: The G77
and China recognized that there is no consensual agreement on the definition
of a Green Economy, and stated that this theme is being considered
and discussion be based on the following tenets: With reference to the Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD), the G77 and China’s submission to the Rio+20 compilation document (in October 2011) had stated that the General Principles and Goals should be the basis of the IFSD and its two functions: that of implementing sustainable development and integrating the three pillars of sustainable development, within the context of strengthening the UN system and its capacities in sustainable development. The African Group, represented by Benin, stated that the zero draft lacks vision and ambition, and much work is needed to turn it into a bold vision to achieve sustainable development based on three paramount objectives: implementation, integration and coherence. These objectives should be the backbone that links the document so that it will reflect a holistic approach to realize sustainable development. It said that the main outline of the document must address all three pillars of sustainable development (economic, environment and social) in a mutually reinforcing manner. The African Group expects the outcome document to address elements of economic governance, which has challenged developing countries in accessing funding. The document should be ambitious enough to establish clear and concrete actions to be taken, notably with respect to the means of implementation, which constitute the main problem that developing countries, and in particular, Africa, faces. The African Group also notes that the zero draft lacks balance in its discussion of critical issues to various regions or groups. Although oceans and marine issues are of critical importance, desertification, drought and land degradation must also be given equally sufficient attention. It must be remembered that the three Rio conventions on climate change, biodiversity and desertification were agreed in light of the interconnectedness and importance of these issues to human wellbeing, the Group emphasised. It said that since most African economies are agrarian in nature, it is essential that sustainable land use and management, agriculture and food security are considered the cornerstone of the green economy. African dependency on rainfall and soil fertility makes it important that the Rio+20 conference inject renewed political impetus for the full implementation of the drought and desertification convention, supported by globally agreed strong and effective science policy, and improvement of the financing framework for implementation. The African Group further said that the continent would like to see concrete outcomes from Rio+20 that will provide a good basis for the launching of an all encompassing legally binding agreement on climate change by the 2015 deadline. For this purpose, the ambition of (greenhouse gases) emissions reductions targets must be boosted in order to protect the most vulnerable peoples rights to food, water and health. The Group believes that equitable development and the right to development will be the key principles that will underpin a new legally binding regime. With regard to the proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) the African Group is not adverse to them, but emphasizes that SDGs must not be a convenient excuse to bypass or disregard the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals). With regard to the negotiations process, the African Group emphasized the need for a clear negotiations schedule so that all member states can plan for it, stressing the particular importance of facilitating active and effective developing country participation in the Rio+20 process. The Least Developed Countries group (LDCs), represented by Nepal, stated their expectations for an inclusive and result-oriented outcome document from the Rio+20 Conference. This should be built on the Rio principles, Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. The group stated that poverty eradication and inter-generational human wellbeing should remain at the core of the outcome document. In line with Principle 6 of the Rio Declaration, the special situation and needs of the LDCs must receive special priority. The IPOA (10-year Istanbul Programme of Action for the sustainable development of LDCs adopted in May 2011) provides the basic framework for the sustainable development of the LDCs and is also a part of the global sustainable development framework. It further said that despite their efforts, the LDCs are unable to make significant progress due to the high incidence of extreme poverty, as well as their huge human, institutional and financial constraints and multiple crises including the impacts of climate change. In this context, discussions on the zero draft should focus on how to accelerate the implementation of Sustainable Development Agenda in LDCs more meaningfully. This should also set the stage for the outcome document. LDCs call for incorporating in the zero draft stronger commitments on reducing poverty and deprivation, increasing universal access to affordable and reliable energy and related technologies, appropriate investment in water infrastructure, its management and sanitation, especially in the rural areas, financial and technical support for ensuring food and nutritional security and provision of high-yielding and climate resilient seeds and fertilizers as well as helping combat desertification and land degradation. As an important cross cutting issue, the role of women and gender equality should be strengthened. LDCs also expect robust commitments for rural infrastructure investment, support for sustainable development of forests and mountains and protection of biodiversity, sustainable use of marine resources, and protection from disasters and vulnerability of small islands, mountain countries, coastal countries and other countries in the LDC group. The outcome of the Conference should ensure providing additional, and predictable financial resources to support the sustainable development of LDCs, along with the implementation of all ODA-related commitments, including those contained in the IPOA. The international community should also take concrete steps to reducing and canceling debt and opening their markets for all LDC products. The LDCs group also said that a coherent and coordinated support for finance, technology transfer and capacity building for LDCs will go a long way for the success of the Rio+20 conference. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said that a more ambitious document is needed and that the outcome document should provide a more comprehensive analysis of the gaps in implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development. It stressed the need for more concrete language to reflect the needs and priorities of its group, recalling that it was in Rio 20 years ago that for the first time the international community recognized the unique and particular vulnerabilities of small island states. On the green economy theme, AOSIS noted that “member states rather than the (UN) Secretariat must lead further discussion on any platforms, road maps or framework of action for the implementation of commitments relating to the Green Economy”. The group expressed disappointment that oceans and climate change did not receive sufficient attention in the zero draft. It highlighted the need to increase the level of ambition in the reduction of emissions from developed countries taking into account their historical responsibility on climate change, otherwise the achievement of sustainable development will be impossible. “Unless there is political will to raise mitigation ambition, change unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead, we risk rendering the Rio plus 20 outcome document meaningless for some of the most vulnerable members of the international community,” said AOSIS. China supported the structure of the zero draft, while noting that there is still room for improvement in many aspects. It said the Rio principles need to more clearly be reflected in the outcome document, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. It stated that the assessment of progress and gaps, and new and emerging issues, are still insufficient and fail to fully reflect the difficulties and challenges facing developing countries, especially the lack of implementation. The major groups and the private sector are very important, but the primary responsibility of promoting sustainable development lies with governments. The G77 and China have put forward specific text for the strengthening and improvement of the relevant parts of the draft, which China hopes can be adopted in the negotiations. On the means of implementation, China stressed that this is an issue of great concern to developing countries, and the key to the success of Rio+20. The zero draft is fragmented on this issue and has a low ambition level. China hopes for greater emphasis on this in negotiations, coupled with an effort to consolidate relevant parts in the sections on green economy and Framework for Action and Follow-up. Specific targets, mechanisms and a plan of action for supporting developing countries’ access to finance, technology and capacity building is what the outcome document needs to lay out clearly. With regard to the green economy, China underscored the importance of national conditions and the avoidance of new green economy trade barriers or conditionalities to aid and finance. The zero draft underestimates the risks and challenges that green economy can pose, and therefore falls short of more specific and effective measures to support developing countries. China is ready to have discussions on initiatives such as establishing an international knowledge-sharing platform, but China does not support formulating mandatory indicators. On the institutional framework for sustainable development (IFSD), China supports, in principle, strengthening the role of the General Assembly, ECOSOC and UNEP, as well as exploring the feasibility of establishing a Sustainable Development Council. China stated that it holds a positive and open attitude towards launching SDGs, which it believes will be conducive to the integration of the economic, social and environmental pillars as well as the implementation of the global sustainable agenda as a whole. However, in designing the SDGs, member states should secure the right to development and leave some leeway for policy-making in each country, and avoid any establishment of binding indicators. India said that poverty eradication remains the overarching goal in India’s quest for sustainable development. Linkages between poverty, green economy and institutional framework need to be reflected in a more integrated manner. In the Green Economy section, India said there is an imbalance in the treatment of the three pillars of sustainable development, in that the environmental aspect is overemphasized. India calls for giving equal consideration to both economic and social pillars, particularly in issues related to access to basic services. Empowerment of women and gender equality must be dealt not only as cross-cutting issues, but as a core development challenge in themselves in the outcome document. There must also be a stronger focus on unsustainable patterns of consumption and lifestyle in the developed world. India suggested that a separate sub-section be devoted to this issue, a question which India believes is fundamental to addressing equity in sustainable development. The framework of action must be anchored in the Rio principles, India said, specifically in the principles of Equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and the sovereign right of states over their natural resources and the right to development. Renewed political commitment should not imply creation of a legal form of arrangements. A legal form of agreement does not necessarily raise the ambition level, India stated, as such a crisis of confidence is already being witnessed in climate change negotiations. All legal arrangements will become ineffective if there is no political willingness to implement them. The Kyoto Protocol is a perfect example of such a legally binding agreement which has been unable to deliver because there is no political willingness to abide by its principles. Without doubt, the weakest link in the draft is the means of implementation, according to India. How are states going to implement the action framework if there are only policy guidelines and private investment-led approaches to renewing our commitment to sustainable development? The efforts of developing countries have to be supplemented by international support in terms of technological know-how, additional finance, including ODA, and capacity building. With regard to the proposal to create a new institution of ‘Ombudsperson or High Commissioner for Future Generation’ to promote sustainable development, India stated that there has to be an informed debate on the role, structure, need and responsibility of the said institution before the adoption of such a proposal. It may open a Pandora’s Box with similar demands for other thematic institutions. The Indian experience in “setting prices right” suggests that when goals such as equity, food security, and balanced regional development are present, some prices will deviate owing to subsidies. The treatment of these subsidies should be left to the sovereign rights of states as per national policies and circumstances. The paragraph on green jobs in the draft text is too simplistic and based on optimistic assumptions about job creation opportunities in a green economy, said India. This has to be suitably amended in order to reflect the concerns of livelihoods security. Green economy measures should not adversely impact the livelihoods of marginal and vulnerable sections of society, such as small and marginal farmers and those employed in Small and Medium Enterprises. On green economy, there cannot be a globally standardized growth model when natural endowments and economic capabilities differ amongst countries. Developing countries cannot move along the path of low carbon development without access to affordable alternative energy resources and cleaner technologies. Regarding the SDGs, India understands them to be an aspirational and voluntary part of the international community. More importantly, these should not distract us from our efforts on MDGs. Any framework on SDGs will have to necessarily incorporate the principles of equity and CBDR. We must also ensure that the goals in no way restrict the already limited policy space developing countries have to pursue socio-economic advancement. No quantitative targets and timelines should be undertaken without a clear understanding of their feasibility of attainment by developing countries. Malaysia said that an important outcome of Rio+20 will be the shaping of Sustainable Development over the next few years. Thus, the Group of 77 and China has asked for the reaffirmation of the Rio principles as one of the key principles, namely common but differentiated responsibilities, is slowly being marginalized. It stressed that reaffirmation of common but differentiated responsibilities is important as it is a manifestation of the general principle of equity in international legal framework and recognition of the historical differences in the contributions of developed and developing countries to global environmental problems and differences in our respective economic and technical capabilities to tackle the problems. Malaysia said further that the tendency to group the behavior and actions of all actors together without differentiating the types of responsibilities, obligations and commitments can result in the dilution of common but differentiated responsibilities principle, thus not addressing the question of equity. Bhutan said that the doctrine of limitless growth on a finite planet is inherently unsustainable. The earth has limited resources, and we are already in a state of global ecological ‘overshoot’: consuming resources much faster than nature can regenerate. It called on the economic community to accept and adopt a sustainability-based economic paradigm for human happiness and the wellbeing of all life forms. Bhutan also invited delegates to the High-Level Meeting on “Happiness and Well-being: Defining A New Economic Paradigm”, being hosted by the Royal Government of Bhutan at UN headquarters in New York on 2 April 2012. Pakistan agreed with many other member states that the zero draft represents the lowest common denominator of positions and views. It noted that informal engagements have occurred on SDGs but that there has not been any conversation, formal or informal, on the concept of a Sustainable Development Council. Pakistan expressed that the Bureau or the Co-Chairs should consider informal facilitation on these issues before developing the text any further. Pakistan also acknowledged the role and participation of the international financial institutions (IFIs) and UN-led development programs, and proposed that during the intervening period, engagements with the IFIs be further strengthened to forge a common perception on gaps and how the existing implementation framework can be synchronized. The mandate of the UN Development Program should be further reviewed to ensure that sustainable development becomes one of its core priorities in the post-2015 global development architecture. Pakistan said that a transition towards green economy imposes additional costs, especially on the developing countries, and that financing sources cannot remain restricted to ODA alone. As part of the Rio outcome, Pakistan urged identifying new and additional financial resources to ensure a robust implementation framework. Bangladesh stated that the international community should embark on a holistic approach that guarantees and achieves an equitable mix of economic, environmental and the social sustainability. It said that poverty eradication and people’s empowerment through full and productive employment should constitute the core of Rio+20 deliberations. The recent resolution of the 66th UN General Assembly Session titled ‘People’s empowerment and development’ interlinked poverty alleviation, the right to vote, empowering people, including the youth and the excluded, with education and jobs, sustainable income, and the elimination of discrimination and terrorism. This resolution could thus guide the framing of the specific agenda items in this regard. Bangladesh pointed out that the zero draft focuses more on green economy, while watering down implementation, finance and transfer of technology. The Istanbul Program of Action could be a basic framework to address these issues, as indicated in paragraph 81 of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (on LDCs). Green economy should be pursued for the purpose of eradicating poverty, hunger and job creation while ensuring energy and food security. It also stressed that Rio+20 should ensure additional and predictable financial resources to support sustainable development in all LDCs. The European
Union said that it strongly believes that in Rio we should agree
to accelerate and broaden the worldwide transition towards a green
economy that promotes sustainable development and contributes to
poverty eradication around the world, and we should agree on improved
governance for sustainable development, including by strengthening
the environmental pillar in this regard. In a second statement the EU on the green economy it said the overall narrative and rationale should be developed further by highlighting the many positive opportunities that a green economy provides for sustainable development and poverty eradication and that the social and economic dimensions will need further elaboration. It reiterated that a roadmap approach is a ”useful tool” (the EU had earlier submitted a detailed green economy roadmap with targets and time lines). The United States stated at the outset of their remarks that the conversation on technology transfer needs to be reframed at Rio+20 to reflect technology development in today’s world. New technologies are being accessed daily by citizens, businesses and organizations throughout the planet, from the developing to developed worlds, and this is made possible through the power of private investment and innovation and the active partnership of scientists, entrepreneurs, and governments. The US asserted that Rio+20 should focus on ideas that work in today’s world, such as capacity building for developing countries to adapt technology and policy environments that spur innovation and private investment in green technologies. A greater recognition of the role of science and technology in enabling sustainable development should be reflected in the final outcome document, and member states should work together to develop science and technology policies that foster research and innovation that will lead to solutions to meet local challenges. The US also stated that member state discussions are too often dominated by a preoccupation with the outdated North-South divide. In reality, this gap, and differences between countries, are shrinking rapidly as development takes hold, albeit at varying rates, in all corners of the world. Member states, the US said, should focus on partnership, inclusion, and cooperation rather than false distinctions between countries. To achieve sustainable development, the US asserted that the full potential of one-half of the world’s population, women, must be leveraged. Gender equality and women’s empowerment cannot be relegated to a separate, isolated mention, and the outcome document should seek inclusive references to women and gender. Good governance, the rule of law and equal administration of justice, transparent institutions and strong civil societies empower individuals and spur sustainable development outcomes, the US stated. It stressed that the global community will be focused on a Rio+20 that is more than a sum of its parts. The outcome document, the Compendium of Commitments that Rio will produce, and the wealth of events on the margins of the meeting are essential components that will mark the success of Rio+20. Canada called for a shorter document than the 19-page zero draft and said that the document has “too much emphasis on ideas of two generations ago regarding financial and technology transfer from developed country governments to emerging and middle income countries, rather than promoting a 21st century partnership focused on strengthening local enabling environments to engage the private sector”. Australia emphasized marine resources and ecosystems, calling for a “Blue Economy” section in the outcome document with policy goals and objectives, linked to an achievable framework for action. It also called for the promotion of sustainable mining practices as a key component of Rio+20’s focus on poverty eradication. It cautioned against the “singling out or selectively quoting from individual Rio principles” (clearly referring to the highlighting of common but differentiated responsibilities). Norway expressed concern over the unambitious zero draft. It said that the first Rio-conference was a milestone in global sustainable development and our ambition for Rio+20 should be no less. If governments at Rio were to adopt the draft as it stands, the world would soon forget what was decided there. It called for higher ambitions and a more innovative and action-oriented outcome. The Republic of Korea said that the preamble does not describe very clearly the gravity of the challenge the global community is currently facing, fearing that “it does not inspire us much with a sense of urgency for action”. It said that the document lacks a diagnosis of the reasons why many of the previous commitments were not completely fulfilled. On green economy, Korea said it is a new economic growth philosophy which provides an integrated response to multiple crises. Without a new development paradigm, tensions arising from unsustainable economic management will undermine future growth prospects, adding that developing countries are more vulnerable to multiple crises. It welcomed the idea of toolkits for policies and measures of the green economy. On Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development, Korea said that the CSD’s capacity has been too limited, and there has been insufficient integration and collaboration of sustainable development-related institutions across the UN system. The CSD’s emphasis should shift from a primarily review function towards a promotion of implementation function. Korea supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council with equitable representation and broader participation of major stakeholders. It also called for a clear mandate on Sustainable Development Goals and supported South-south and triangular cooperation as “innovative financial mechanisms that complement the traditional North-South cooperation”. At the conclusion of the informal discussions, Sha Zukang, the Secretary-General of Rio+20, stressed several issues. He said that SDGs should be addressed by all member states, and that trade should advance, rather than hinder, the development of green economies. The Sustainable Development Council (SDC) can address the weaknesses of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and form a key component of an improved IFSD. Sha also emphasized that the means of implementation for sustainable development must address the role of international financial institutions, innovative sources of financing and South-South cooperation. He clarified several ongoing and upcoming processes on the road to Rio+20 in June. First, parallel informal task forces have been created to motivate and assist the negotiations process. However, the content of negotiations does not fall under the mandate of these informal task forces. Second, many member states have made a strong call for establishing an institutional framework to advance sustainability. However, there is no consensus as yet. Some member states have asked for further guidance on various options, such as strengthening the CSD versus transforming it in to the SDC, while also enhancing the role of ECOSOC in sustainable development and creating a voluntary compendium. Sha reassured member states that the Secretariat is ready to do whatever it can to assist member states in these new developments. Third, Sha highlighted that the SDGs could be one of the important contributions of Rio+20. At the very least, the conference should define these goals in a clear time frame, so that by 2015 a set of goals can guide the economy in both sustainable poverty eradication and environmental sustainability, which includes building green economies appropriate to national circumstances. Of course, goals cannot be simply pronounced without a mechanism for how to achieve them. Mechanisms should include mobilizing of financing from all sources, technology cooperation and transfer, capacity building, engagement of all stakeholders in innovation and partnerships between countries. Two more rounds of informal negotiations will take place on 19-23 March and 23 April to 4 May. The 3rd intersessional meeting will be on 26-27 March. All these will be at the UN headquarters in New York.+
|
||
