So far countries have been slow to engage actively with the Rio+20 agenda – no global leaders have come forward with a compelling vision for the Summit, and it has received little press attention. This is partly because it still seems a long way off – the officials in government working on this agenda and the various stakeholders trying to influence it may be aware that engaging early buys some dividends, but more significant political momentum tends to galvanize closer to the event itself.
However, the seeming lack of ambition so far on Rio+20 also has deeper roots. There is a wider malaise in relation to multilateral processes – the failure to agree a global climate change agreement in Copenhagen in 2009, and the apparently intractable geopolitical stand-offs in the negotiations point to a crisis within the international community. The lower-profile but still significant failure of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to deliver an outcome in May 2011 provided further evidence of widening distrust and an unwillingness to cooperate on some of the most urgent global issues of our time. There exists a deep and understandable resentment on behalf of many developing countries that the North has consistently failed to adhere to its international commitments, and a perception that developed countries are constantly ‘shifting the goal posts’ in multilateral debates.
One of the issues that captures some of these underlying tensions is the ‘green economy’ – one of the themes for the Conference. Many developing countries are highly suspicious of this new agenda, which they perceive as predominantly dictated by Northern countries seeking to detract attention away from the fact that they haven’t delivered on their commitments to sustainable development. There are also concerns that the new-found enthusiasm for the green economy is seeking to re-write and replace the sustainable development narrative – with an associated weaker emphasis on social concerns.
Yet whilst multilateralism is experiencing something of a low period, and developed countries have undoubtedly fallen short of expectations in many areas, an over-riding scepticism and unwillingness to engage with Rio+20 is not the answer. On the contrary, a major Summit on a challenge as broad and all-encompassing as sustainable development represents an unprecedented opportunity, taking place as it does at a critical moment in terms of humanity’s ability to avert major global crises. This opportunity expresses itself in a number of ways.
Firstly, Rio+20 offers the opportunity to move beyond a narrow focus on climate change and carbon emissions. To a great extent climate change has become a proxy for sustainable development, and the kind of people who once engaged with the Commission on Sustainable Development have in recent years diverted their attention to the climate change negotiations. Undoubtedly the achievement of a global deal on reducing carbon emissions is critical, but the target alone cannot lead to the transitional changes that are necessary. In other words, the UNFCCC is very good at addressing the ‘what’, but less comprehensive in addressing the ‘how’. Rio+20 , with a broader and less constrained mandate, opens the space for wider discussions on energy, agriculture, water, poverty and inequality – all of which must be addressed in our efforts to mitigate climate change.
Secondly the green economy offers the opportunity to enhance the debate on sustainable development and move it forward, rather than hijack it and undermine its principles. Sustainable development is a process of enhancing prosperity within the ecological limits of the planet – the green economy is a vehicle to achieve that. Too often sustainable development has been perceived as damaging to economic interests and – like it or not – this has presented a significant barrier in furthering its objectives. A focus on the green economy opens up a conversation on how economies can thrive without necessarily leading to pollution and environmental degradation. And it would be wrong to assume that this debate will focus solely on the narrow interests of ‘green business’. On the contrary, emerging discussions on the green economy are ripe with references to alternative indicators of wellbeing, delivering social and environmental goals simultaneously, and questioning a narrow focus on GDP-growth. Such conversations at the highest level of the UN are well overdue.
Lastly, though the outcome from Rio+20 will not be legally binding, it has the potential to accelerate action through ‘softer’ means. In the absence of any rigorous enforcement mechanisms at a global level, legally-binding measures do not guarantee compliance. This being the case, Rio+20 offers the opportunity to identify alternative frameworks for compliance that enhance accountability and encourage States to deliver on their commitments - such as a set of time-bound sustainable development goals, with clear targets and indicators that allow civil society to easily hold governments to account. The Millennium Development Goals have proved powerful in this regard - though debate continues as to whether the particular targets are the right ones, the success of the MDGs in rallying civil society globally and holding governments publicly accountable has been inspiring. Importantly, a set of sustainable development goals should not solely focus on what needs to happen, but also on what needs to stop – including a phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies and clear targets for reducing excessive consumption in developed countries.
Rio+20 takes place at a crossroads – the way in which humanity responds to the interconnected challenges of climate change, poverty and increasing natural resource scarcity in the coming decade will to a great extent determine the fate of future generations. Facing this daunting prospect, Rio+20 offers the opportunity to reinvigorate multilateralism under a more open and inclusive framework, and address the challenges of sustainable development in a 21st century context.
