June 6, 2012
United States, Canada and China, with occasional support from other countries (like Russia), depending on the situation, are boycotting the minimum possible Rio +20 conclude with concrete progress in terms of measures to reverse the global environmental crisis. The boycott of these countries was evident in the third round of informal negotiations on the final document of the Earth Summit, the official name of Rio +20. The meetings were closed this round on Saturday in New York without further definitions of those who should be the main products of the Rio +20, the creation of a global body on the environment, defining the Sustainable Development Objectives, strengthening UNEP and the mechanisms for implementation and funding of the actions listed in the conference.
The generalized expectations are very low in terms of concrete results from the Rio +20. And the meetings last week in New York confirmed that the severe economic crisis in Europe, the election campaign in the United States and other conjunctural issues contribute to the reduction of these expectations, which can be measured by the expected absence of many important international leaders the conference. There is a consensus on the results of the Rio +20 will be even remotely similar to the Rio-92.
Despite this low profile expected for the Rio +20, yet countries like the United States, Canada and China, with special support from one or another ally, are striving for the Earth Summit did not result in any measure advanced in terms of firmer commitments to reverse the global degradation. Even at the meeting of heads of state, in the final days of the Rio +20, will eventually occur some unforeseen breakthrough, the North American and Chinese pressures are so strong that in general the final document will be very fragile and neutral, before the picture of multiple concomitant environmental crises. Opposition to the advances on the part of the triad, it was clear in the negotiations about the key points of the draft final document of the Rio +20:
Eradication of Poverty – United States opposed the inclusion of reference to the guarantee of access “universal” social services. Fearful before any questioning the processes of economic growth, according to their environmental impacts, the G77-China alliance is in favor of including the imperative of economic growth, with the constraint of social protection and priority to the poorest countries.
Education – Similarly, the United States resist the inclusion of the term “equal” in reference to full and equal access to quality education, championed by the European Union and Switzerland.
Council for Sustainable Development – The United States and Japan oppose the creation of a Council for Sustainable Development in the UN system, replacing the Commission on Sustainable Development emptied. Canada was manifested against the creation of new structures involving overlapping mandates and generating new costs. Unlike the European Union, Switzerland, Mexico and Liechtenstein, in favor of the concept, the United States and G77/China manifested so reticent in terms of an instance of high-level UN to promote sustainable development, considering the horizon of the new generations.
UNEP or specialized agency to monitor the global environment? – United States and Canada, with support from Russia, are opposed to a specialized agency. The creation of the agency is supported by the Republic of Korea and Turkey. There is a consensus on the maintenance in Nairobi, Kenya, the headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), an agency that has very limited mandate. However, there are serious disagreements about a rumored strengthening UNEP’s post-Rio +20. These two themes – specialized agency and / or strengthening of UNEP – were put on hold.
Sustainable Development Objectives – There is a tendency that the Rio +20 indicate the creation of the Objectives of Sustainable Development Objectives (SDO) from 2015, deadline of the Millennium Development Goals. However, negotiations in New York showed significant differences with respect. The United States wants the SDO are voluntary and “aspirational”, without any requirement for achievement of goals. Norway and other countries suggest clear indications of areas of goals for the SDO, such as energy, water and food, but G77-China understand that Rio +20 should only start the process. The measurement of goals related to SDO is supported by several countries, but new G77-China consider early discussion. In terms of dissemination of global reports of SDO, the United States argue that the matter be handled by the Statistical Commission of the United Nations, which clearly deprive its impact. The U.S. does not want the disclosure directly related to the UN Secretary-General.
Financing of actions – Canada and the United States are emphatic in stating that the Rio +20 is not the donors’ conference and, therefore, that the termination of service to the historical target allocation of 0.7% of gross national product of developed countries by way of official development assistance (ODA). The goal of 0.7% ODA was reiterated at Rio-92, but in practice the last 20 years was the average allocation was well below that. In the EU the average is 0.43%. According to the study of AidWatch, seven European Union countries are allocating 0.7% by 2015: Belgium, Denmark, Britain, Holland, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden.
Right to water – The European Union reaffirms the human right to water and proposes 2030 as the deadline for universal access to safe water sanitation, Canada proposes alternative text with reference to the human right to water and sanitation.
Energy and global warming – In the week that the International Energy Agency reported that carbon emissions hit record in 2011, totaling 31.6 billion tons, and that measurements of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from data collected at stations located in the Arctic indicated overcoming the dangerous barrier of 400 parts per million (ppm) in the Northern Hemisphere, the negotiations in New York indicated that it is far from a consensus on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. European Union, Norway and G77/China back measures to an average increase in global temperatures of up to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, but want to avoid the same G77/China quotes on the need to reduce emissions by the fleet of cars toward the use of clean vehicles and fuels, which is defended by the European Union and the United States. This contradiction may be explained by the fact that China is investing heavily in clean energy in general (thus identifying potential markets in the struggle for growth in average maximum temperatures two degrees in the 21st century), while his car fleet grows gigantic, while advances in electric vehicles are larger in the United States and Europe. In terms of emissions control, G77-China insists on the concept of “historical responsibilities”, which would place more responsibility for cuts to the U.S. and Europe, thus endorsing the Chinese growth. Canada, however, prefers the term “respective capabilities” than “historical responsibilities”. Differences background maintained also in the term “energy”, purely, or “sustainable energy”.
Technology transfer – Curious divergence in the “triad.” G77-China advocate the structuring, in the sphere of the UN General Assembly, directed mechanism to promote technology transfer to developing countries. United States, Canada and Japan do not want the final document of the Rio +20 mention it. The European Union believes that statement but with the observation that technology transfer must be voluntary.
Common but differentiated responsibilities – This concept reiterated at Rio-92, indicating that all countries have common responsibilities to promote sustainable development, although some have greater responsibility than others, has long been questioned by some rich countries. They want developing countries growing rapidly, as the meeting in the BRICS, also take on greater responsibilities. It was a huge diplomatic effort to maintain the concept in the Rio +10 in South Africa again will be a great struggle to maintain this concept in the Rio +20, which may end up, in short, with more setbacks than advances.
Leave a Reply