Having had first hand experience of negotiations within the United Nations I 'note with interest' (a little negotiation humour there) that the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) outcome document is still under negotiation at this late stage of the game. The third round of 'informal informal' consultations on the draft outcome document titled the 'Future we want' took place from 29 May
to 2 June 2012 at UN Headquarters in New York. This additional informal negotiating session was convened because of the lack of consensus on the primary themes of the conference, namely the green economy and the institutional framework for sustainable
development (IFSD)
It is also of interest to note that information technology was perceived as a hurdle to the negotiating process. The environmental News Bulletin Service reported that excessive 24-hour control from capitals (home states), sapped negotiators initiative and slowed down negotiations. There has been some debate in recent years of the role of information promoting sustainable development so this insight into the negotiating process adds an interesting perspective on this relationship. Of course the negotiation of sheer complexity of issues that relate to sustainable development is a significant hurdle in its own right. And returning to the central themes of the conference the Green Economy and the IFSD received little early consensus, also a significant hurdle. There is also the issue of defining and effectively articulating the Sustainable Development Goals Other key areas of debate include several issues within the framework for action, such as climate change, oceans and food and agriculture.
As always within the international negotiating architecture the differing North/South perceptions on how sustainable development should be perceived and implemented is present. In this case China and the G77 have asserted the 'Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility'. The EU has focused on setting specific targets by 2030 including those relating to biodiversity and this in turn has been opposed by the United States. The Realpolitik of International Relations. Other issues that seem to be taking a front seat are the possible upgrading of the United Nations Environment Programme, a proposal supported by the EU and objected to by the US and Russian Federation. Of course we are in a world now that is vastly different from the Rio conference of 1992. A number of global pressures impact on the success of this months conference
It is also of interest to note that information technology was perceived as a hurdle to the negotiating process. The environmental News Bulletin Service reported that excessive 24-hour control from capitals (home states), sapped negotiators initiative and slowed down negotiations. There has been some debate in recent years of the role of information promoting sustainable development so this insight into the negotiating process adds an interesting perspective on this relationship. Of course the negotiation of sheer complexity of issues that relate to sustainable development is a significant hurdle in its own right. And returning to the central themes of the conference the Green Economy and the IFSD received little early consensus, also a significant hurdle. There is also the issue of defining and effectively articulating the Sustainable Development Goals Other key areas of debate include several issues within the framework for action, such as climate change, oceans and food and agriculture.
As always within the international negotiating architecture the differing North/South perceptions on how sustainable development should be perceived and implemented is present. In this case China and the G77 have asserted the 'Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility'. The EU has focused on setting specific targets by 2030 including those relating to biodiversity and this in turn has been opposed by the United States. The Realpolitik of International Relations. Other issues that seem to be taking a front seat are the possible upgrading of the United Nations Environment Programme, a proposal supported by the EU and objected to by the US and Russian Federation. Of course we are in a world now that is vastly different from the Rio conference of 1992. A number of global pressures impact on the success of this months conference
- Economic drift
- Financial Shocks
- Turmoil in the Eurozone
- The impact of the US election year
- Lack of political commitment from world leaders
- Lack of reference to UNCSD in recent international summits. Including the G8 summit
There is then general concern that this most recent conference focusing on sustainable development will be only a shadow of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (The Earth Summit) 20 years previously. The Rio Principles and Agenda 21 being notable milestones on the history and the future of sustainable development both globally and locally.
However, international conferences such as these extend beyond the concrete tangible outputs, of which i hope there are many, providing hope and many reasons to be cheerful. For example, it has brought sustainable development into sharper focus, provoking citizens’ groups with a renewed fervor to sway government negotiations. The International Institute of Sustainable Development reports that NGO representatives were seen sitting in on informal contact
groups without objections raised from delegates. The activists of “Occupy
Rio+20” could also be seen as a sign that the economic downturn has actually promoted
sustainable development awareness, and has put people’s well-being,
socioeconomic equity and environmental health in a strong public spotlight.
What ever the outcomes of the conference (June 20-22) it provides a global focus on sustainable development as one of, if not the most important ideas of the 21st Century
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment