Rio: not plus or minus, just 20

 
By Sunita Narain
Last Updated: Thursday 11 June 2015

The Rio+20 UN conference on sustainable development is over. The conference declaration, titled “The Future We Want”, is a weak and meaningless document. It aims at the lowest common denominator consensus to say it all, but to say nothing consequential about how the world will move ahead to deal with the interlinked crises of economy and ecology. Is this the future we want or the future we dread?

rioThe final document is being touted as a victory for the developing world, in particular, for India, because it reiterates the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. This guiding principle, hammered out following much acrimony in 1992, establishes the differentiation of action of different parts of the world. It is clearly not negotiable. So in that respect, Rio 2012 is a move ahead. But is this enough?

We need to ask why things have come to such a pass that 20 years later all that the world is doing is to reaffirm principles that cannot and should not be rewritten. Why does the world, confronted with the dangers of climate change, destruction of the high seas and the need to reinvent growth so that it is green and inclusive, do nothing more than mouth platitudes about change? Why is the world not willing to act?

The fact is that Rio+20 has come at a bad time. Europe, the environmental missionary, is preoccupied with domestic financial concerns. The Eurozone is in danger of collapse and governments now say that austerity and no-growth may not be the way to the future. They are seeking a new term of industrialisation in the face of crippling unemployment. In the US, things are not very different. The Barack Obama government is facing an election year and economy is its paramount concern. It has no time for global environmental issues. Obama, who was elected on the promise of change, is shy of even mentioning the word climate.

More importantly, the US wants to dismantle the framework that puts it under pressure to act and contribute more to reduce the global environmental burden. In the US view the principle of equity in global negotiations is an albatross that gives advantage to countries like China and India. It wants none of this. It wants to rewrite the global agreement on this. It worked hard to do this in climate negotiations. Rio+20 was its chance to get rid of the principle of differentiation from where it was first inscribed. It tried and, thankfully, failed.

But as a result every other agenda at Rio+20 was a victim of the first. The second key aim was to establish the concept of green economy and to use sustainable development goals—not unlike Millennium Development Goals—to measure performance against green targets. This agenda was soon lost to geopolitical tectonic shifts, where the rich world is declining and the poor world is ascending. The very idea of green economy was viewed as a new form of green protectionism and conditionality that would hinder growth. In the final Rio+20 decision, the agenda has been tied up in convoluted wordings that will make progress difficult.

It is also important to note that the agenda of green economy was floated without an agreement on its definition. Industrialised countries look at environmental action as divorced from concerns of development and social well-being. They see environmental measures as the icing on the cake of development, already done and delivered. This icing helps improve performance through efficiency and cleaning up of pollution. Developing and emerging countries do not have this luxury. They need growth, and if they accept that growth must be equitable and sustainable, their approach to a green economy will be different. This is the challenge that Rio+20 should have faced squarely.

In this way, Rio+20 was the opportunity to tackle what is clearly the most intractable and most obvious of all issues confronting the world: the current economic growth paradigm that is consumption-led and is gobbling its way through banks and the Planet. It is now well understood that the world is staring at financial recession on the one hand and environmental catastrophe on the other. It is also increasingly understood that the consumption patterns and lifestyle of the already-rich cannot be afforded by all. So what is the way ahead? How can the world move towards sustainable production and sustainable consumption while ensuring growth for all? Rio+20 should have focused on sustainable development goals to achieve such growth. In addition, it should have focused on new robust measurement tools to track progress in well-being, the GDP-plus economy.

Instead, in my view, Rio+20 became the battleground for what can only be considered an illegitimate fight. And if Rio+20 is a failure because of non-action, then it is a failure of global leadership that allowed the US and its cronies to try fiddling with the principle of equity. This deepened the distrust that destroys cooperative action.

I returned to Rio after 20 years to better understand developments crucial for the future of the world. I came back saddened by realisation that all these years, people have grown up but our leaders are still in kindergarten.

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.

  • I think your last para

    I think your last para explains everything. We have to prepare leaders who come out of their kindergarten stage fast and graduate in the issues related to environment. Unless there is a political will and social cooperation nothing is going to change. The climate change taking gargantuan proportions and time is running fast-the leaders should realise that they too are a part of the human race!
    There must have been leaders in the Indus Valley Civilization or the earlier civilizations-but they too vanished with the race. May be our future will also be limited to ruins of skyscrappers that we shall leave behind for the future...!

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • The following is my posting

    The following is my posting on discussion in The New York Times/Environment section on June 19, 2012:

    Here is another conference that is going to generate hundreds and thousands of tons of waste and burn billions of litres of fuel & tons of paper that counters the very purpose of the conference. Finally it comes out with few catchy words to exploit third world Nations. This type of conferences by themselves are not sustainable to fit in to the definitions of the words like "Sustainable Development" "inclusve growth/development", etc. creating more confusion.

    As stated in the text above clearly indicate the two concepts -- conserving biological diversity and curbing emissions of greenhouse gases -- of 1992 Rio summit are a big failure story. This is basically because, what we say at these conferences are countered by our actions in real life as we think locally and act globally. Unless this attitude changes and follow think globally and act locally such meetings will serve very little except developed nations exploit and destroy the developing or third world Nations. In the absence of such policy such conferences serve wasting of public money and creating more pollution. Just look at the global scenario, some thing is happening in some where the market economy psychophents create problems in other countries to serve their vested interests. This is the reality."

    We are now going to organize in Hyderabad another such type of conference on biodiversity in October 2012. Everybody looks at how much we are going to pocket!!!

    The end result of Rio+20 Conference is "The meeting produced no enforceable environmental commitment".

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • It is sadly mistaken that

    It is sadly mistaken that they belong to kindergarten. What is missing in the whole game is non participation of the business community itself. If only they are sincere in their intentions to find solutions to environmental issues - Climate Change - I am sure there would be a better situation.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • This is one problem that will

    This is one problem that will not be solved by political leaders. The sooner we stop waiting for them and figure out ways to solve this by circumventing politics and authorities, the better.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • Dear Editor, Your editorial


    Dear Editor,
    Your editorial is well conceived utterance in advance for we did not see at that time what happend there.However,
    the situation on the environment front is serious. Whatever the politics, weight of the countries and diplomacy, if they cannot come out of the quagmire; deciding clearly to save nature and environment, people of the earth have to pay for the delay, may be by drowning into the Arctic Sea.
    Sincerely,
    Aju Mukhopadhyay

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • Conferences are basically to

    Conferences are basically to compete more than achieve consensus. This applies unfortunately even too energy, growth and environmental issues and since we ultimately are dealing with green economy it means we are amenable to trading in green technology and measuring carbon points.
    All this objectivity is to show others where we stand or show how correct we are rather than introspect and act with equity.Rio thus generates more and more newer jargon than more and more consensus. This is not a fallacy or failure of the conference .It is failure governance and world economic order.
    With limited commitments and an overwhelming mood of justification on our past actions it is impossible to drive to any meaningful destination.
    Your editorial calls for a new world ecological order that is transnational and supreme. LetÔÇÖs forget Rich versus poor. It is those committed versus vagabonds and escapists. Those who are genuine versus those who are opportunists.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply
  • Conferences are basically to

    Conferences are basically to compete more than achieve consensus. This applies unfortunately even too energy, growth and environmental issues and since we ultimately are dealing with green economy it means we are amenable to trading in green technology and measuring carbon points.
    All this objectivity is to show others where we stand or show how correct we are rather than introspect and act with equity.Rio thus generates more and more newer jargon than more and more consensus. This is not a fallacy or failure of the conference .It is failure governance and world economic order.
    With limited commitments and an overwhelming mood of justification on our past actions it is impossible to drive to any meaningful destination.
    Your editorial calls for a new world ecological order that is transnational and supreme. LetÔÇÖs forget Rich versus poor. It is those committed versus vagabonds and escapists. Those who are genuine versus those who are opportunists.

    Posted by: Anonymous | 7 years ago | Reply