International UNCooperation?

William Mudford's forthcoming article in peppercorn the ANU law student magazine

While at Rio+20 it struck me how under-connected and under-cooperative the international diplomatic and legal negotiations are. However, the civil society parallel conferences made me think of the potential for something so much better. The differences between the events were so stark both physically and emotionally...

The official conference
The official conference was a two hour bus ride out of town in a place much like Exhibition Park. The negotiations occurred within pavilions with temporary rooms erected inside, with a massive diesel powered air-conditioning system and harsh fluorescent lighting. To get into the conference you had to have pre-registered with your passport and through an organisation officially accredited with the United Nations. The accreditation gave you a pass to get into the preparatory conference where the text was being negotiated prior to the plenary session with all the world leaders. There was no clear program as to where the different parts of the negotiations were occurring. The state parties spent their time locked in these rooms fighting about the details of the text, with long periods spent negotiating about whether commas should be included, or whether single words should be included. Despite the rhetoric the state parties were not genuinely discussing how to fix the three big problems that the world is facing of environmental destruction, economic crisis and extreme poverty.

The parallel civil society conferences
There were several other parallel conferences I attended. Each was in the centre of Rio or on the metro line. They were held in buildings where you could see natural light, had interesting speakers, and provided great opportunities for meeting a wide variety of people. To get in all you had to do was turn up and each provided ample opportunities for a variety of people including myself to participate. At each of the conferences we were discussing the big topics that the state officials should have been addressing at the official UN conference. For me the greatest thing that came out of each of the conferences that I attended was the genuine connections I was able to make with such a variety of people from across the world, even across language and cultural barriers.

The potential
There is a challenge for us, but one that we have so many tools to deal with. Right now the world is facing a set of human induced environmental crises including climate change, biodiversity loss and lack of access to safe water. There is currently enough food around the world to meet the needs of the world’s people. The problem for those who are starving is that the food is not distributed in a just and equitable fashion. The world’s farmers are not adequately connected to all the world’s people. However,at Rio+20 I saw that we, the people of the world, have the knowledge, the potential, the physical resources and the connections to address these sorts of issues. I say let’s make it happen.

But you say: what's stopping us?
Rio+20 revealed writ large two of the big forces that are subduing or preventing the potential international action that we need to address the multiple crises that our world is facing. These two distinct but connected classes of international actor are corporations and inactive state parties. Many corporations such as Petrobras, the Brazilian oil company and Coca Cola bottling company sponsored the official conference but contribute significantly to the multiple crises that we face. Petrobras makes money off the continuation of the destructive and exploitative fossil fuel industry. Amongst other things Coca Cola has cornered many markets in safe drinking water, a basic necessity of life that everyone should have free access to. The presence of these corporations at the conference, at best, had a pacifying influence on the state negotiators, and, at worst, had thoroughly destructive connections to them. One of the Australian government's key negotiating positions was to get ‘mining for sustainable development’ included in the text. The pretence behind such a position was that mining in Australia is safe and sustainable and that we should export such practices to our region. This, and other untruths, were peddled by destructive state parties with vested corporate interests. We can create something better.

How do we overcome this?
We as young people need to continue to go to international events, to connect with people in genuine ways. We need to cooperate and work together on the common ground that we have with so much of the world’s people. We need to be doing everything we can. We need coalitions of the world's willing people, which need not include the uncooperative governments of nation-states. It is through the connection, the sharing of knowledge and the sharing of resources that we can truly create a world that protects the environment, distributes resources and stops the high levels of inequality and poverty experienced by people across the world. This may not happen instantly, and I do not have a magic formula. However, what I have experienced is that together we can create the alternatives that we want, and divided we will lose against the inactivity caused by large corporations and the officials of state parties with vested interests. It is through the process of working together and creatively developing the alternatives as we go that we will address the issues that we face.

How can you get involved?
The students who went to Rio+20 as part of the ANU student delegation are hosting an event during October to discuss some of these issues of sustainability that the world is facing and help us to connect the global to the local. To find out more you can check out our blog for the Rio+20 project http://anurio20.blogspot.com.au/

A Multilateralist’s Manifesto

Multilateralism[1] may be out of fashion as a way of addressing our global environmental problems, but the way forward is in its reform, not its abandonment. 

Failures at Copenhagen climate summit, and more recently at Rio+20 have led to a loss of faith in the multilateral system throughout society.  I was at both of these summits, and the disappointments of multilateralism are all the more potent when you are personally engaged.  But despite these emotional roller-coasters (which are mostly downs), I believe in multilateralism.  I believe in multilateralism because there are no real proven, realistic or fair alternatives.  I believe in multilateralism because as we mark the 25^th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol, I am reminded of how the recipe of international environmental agreements can work once we use the right ingredients.

                In fact, it is the only real logical recipe to apply to our global problems.  On a basic level, international ecological issues like climate change are a “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin, 1968) and it is widely accepted that such collective action problems require cooperative solutions and decision-making (Ostrom, 1990).   The basic economics of “public goods” logic suggests that collective action must be organised at the scale of the problem or externality that must be addressed (Olson, 1971).    In other words: global problems require solutions organised at a global level.  The most effective and proven method of doing so, while building up trust and reducing free-riding, is through multilateral frameworks.   Despite this, the political inertia within environmental negotiations has proven overwhelmingly disillusioning.  We are facing a death by a thousand conferences.

                However, multilateralism as an idea is not out of date, our processes and institutions are.  Consensus is an archaic decision-making tool, our methods of negotiating and diplomacy lack transparency or effectiveness and the bureaucratic structure of the UN and other international institutions are clearly lacking.  We need to resurrect multilateralism, not bury it. 

                Despite this logic, it is still a rare day that I’m not questioned, by friends or colleagues on the validity of multilateralism and the pointlessness of negotiations.  Even at a recent seminar panel one of the other speakers, a world renowned climatologist whom I deeply respect, couldn’t help but declare that the time of multilateral environmental treaties was over and we were better off solving climate change through a nation-based “green” industrial revolution.  It seems a little odd (although poetic) to attempt to solve a problem with the same thinking and processes that created it in the first place.  The Industrial Revolution was driven by greed and competition and resulted in the perverse and pervasive structural inequalities which now plague the world.  This is a mismatch with sustainable development which must be based on cooperation and a thorough repair of our unbalanced structures.  Even if we did solve climate change through such a state-based, business-focused paradigm, what about the other problems like biodiversity loss? 

This bottom-up revolution is also short-sighted.  We are already locked into some degree of climate change, and it is unlikely that such an approach will foster the form of cooperative, cohesive governance that is needed for international society to adapt to the coming environmental changes.   But then the multilateral sceptics point to the numerous states, provinces and nations that have adopted carbon prices despite the absence of a global climate treaty. Well that is just fantastic, but how have overall global emissions been going?  Oh right, record levels…  

                I don’t say this to detract from the bottom-up approaches.  Minilateralism and regional forums have proven useful (look at the EU’s environmental policy, or the outcomes of the recent APEC summit), but not all regions have integration and those that do still require global coordination.   Civil society is also a great tool, but I have yet to see a trans-boundary pollution problem which has been solved primarily by NGOs. Regional governance, local initiatives and non-state actors (both NGOs and businesses) are valuable as contributors to a larger international framework, not substitutes.  The bottom-up is not antithetical to the top-down.   On the contrary, the bottom-up feeds into the top-down, creating the necessary momentum and pressure to construct effective international agreements.  Yet some wish to stop this momentum, and they are the exact same states blocking the process.

                While I usually believe that it is important to address the message, not the messenger, in this case it is important to look at the proponents and their motives.  The proponents of a bottom-up (particularly a pledge and review) system within climate change are the primarily the US, Canada and Australia.  Those who wish to persist with a multilateral approach: The EU, and the least developed and most vulnerable nations (small island states, the African Union etc.).  In the red corner we have the laggards and in the blue corner the leading progressives with the highest targets and most to lose.   The contrast is telling to say the least…..

                Let’s take a lesson from the birthday convention- the Montreal Protocol, which provided a holistic approach to a complex problem.  Effective compliance mechanisms, skilful political leadership (surprisingly from the US), efficient decision –making procedures (double qualified majority voting), incremental membership (we don’t need to have everyone’s involvement to start with), the support of businesses, clear scientific advice, mass NGO pressure and an adequate financing system are what solve global environmental problems, not by giving in to the laggards by primarily focusing on the lowest levels of governance and promoting ‘flexibility’. 

                I write this defence of the multilateral approach of international treaties not out of a personal or academic endearment.  I don’t even do so on the grounds of procedural justice and international ethics (although there are some valid points here).  I stand by the multilateral approach because it offers us the best hope of managing both our current international environmental crises’ and rectifying the inequality that exists in the world.  The principles of Sustainable Development declare that one cannot be done without the other and I see no evidence to suggest that the flexible, bottom-up approaches can solve either, let alone both.  We live in a globalized and interconnected world.  Multilateralism is not a choice we can turn away from, it is a necessity.  The future lies in persisting with multilateralism and its reform with courage, innovation and political skill.  Perhaps, with that, in another 25 years the Montreal Protocol may not be the only successful treaty with cake at the table. 

References

HARDIN, G. 1968. "The Tragedy of the Commons". Science, 162.

OLSON, M. (ed.) 1971. The Logic of Collective Action, Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

OSTROM, E. (ed.) 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press.

---

[1] I refer to multilateralism as the top-down approach of international governance and frameworks of an essentially globally nature.  Not the classic definition of "the practice of coordinating national policies in groups of three states or more".

From Global to Local: Delegates Going Bush in Australia

From Global to Local: Delegates Going Bush in Australia 

By Julie Melrose

Despite the overwhelmingly negative media coverage about the weak outcome document that came out of the Rio+20 conference, ANU Rio+20 delegates returned home more motivated than ever to work on sustainability projects and initiatives, particularly wishing to get more students involved in local projects. Rio+20 basically highlighted how much the international community had failed to honour its commitments to reduce environmental harm under international environmental law over the last two decades since the first Rio conference in 1992. We all experienced frustration, even tears at the conference in the face of the magnitude of the challenge ahead for our generation. So what does a small group of students from Australia do about this? 

Several forums and discussions have been held at ANU, we have debriefed with the Australian Government and met with academics and public figures to discuss Rio outcomes. But we want to go the extra mile and try something new. Forums, while important and informative, sometimes seem to be "preaching to the converted" and result in no real gain for the environment or in really inspiring young people and students to dedicate their career to working towards sustainable development. 

In a recent meeting with Richard Denniss, CEO of the think-tank the Australia Institute, he reminded us that we are in a battle against rampant consumption, economic growth and environmental destruction on all fronts - and we are on the losing side. He challenged us to do something different in our post Rio activities. 

We talked about the principle that you protect the things you love - but you can't love something unless you know it first. Going bush and getting back to nature, strips away the layers of society that sometimes cloud us from the reality of environmental catastrophe that the world is facing in the present time. 

Reflecting on the process of coming back to Australia after a large international conference, we have decided to get right back down to the local level and embark on a bushwalking expedition to Tasmania in Feb 2013 - where the Australian environmental movement was born. In the hope of finding some grounding, solitude and inspiration for our work ahead, going bush seems like a really good idea.

An Expedition to walk Tasmania's South Coast Track 

Tasmania's South Coast Track is situated in the Southwest National Park and takes you through the heart of over 600, 000 hectares of wild, inspiring country. The track is more remote than other walks in Tasmania, and is 85kms in length running from Malaleuca to Cockle Creek. The trek will take 6-8 days with full packs. 

The team will gather footage from the walk about our personal experiences as young people reflecting on global to local environmentalism, as well as interview leading conservationists and those involved in the birth of the Tasmanian environmental movements. This footage will add to our material and interviews gathered at Rio+20 in Brazil to hopefully lead to a student sustainability documentary! 

The Australian Environmental Movement - Franklin Dams Case 

According to leading environmental law Barrister Chris McGrath and many others in the Australian legal profession, the Tasmanian Dams Case is the most famous and influential environmental law case in Australian history. It was also a landmark in Australian constitutional law. In this case, the Commonwealth Government prevented the construction of a large hydro-electric dam proposed for the Franklin-Lower Gordon Rivers in South-West Tasmania. They were able to achieve this win by relying on their powers under s 51 (xxix) of the Australian Constitution to make laws in relation to their international obligations under the World Heritage Convention. For more information on the case click here.

Island Bend, Franklin River

Interested in getting involved? 

Other interested students are encouraged to get in touch if interested in the trek, or helping out with the documentary project! Contact Julie.Melrose@anu.edu.au or join "The ANU Rio+20 Project" on Facebook to keep up to date with our planning and other activities. 

Oceans at Rio+20 - article in ANU ILS magazine "The Advocate"

http://www.anuils.com/~anuils/images/International_Advocate/anu%20international%20advocate%20september%202012.pdf

post rio symposium series at ANU

Reviewing Rio: Lessons for the Future

 -   By Luke Kemp

Rio may be considered a failure in terms of the outcomes, but the lessons that can be taken from negotiations mean that the conference could prove to be a success in the long term.

                While I despise the general media portrayal of Rio+20 as a complete and utter failure, I do essentially agree.  The outcomes of the conference fail to put the international community on any kind of track towards a sustainable society and economy within the time-frames needed.   My issue is that the media (who may I add didn’t help at all by providing little coverage and failing to catalyse any public pressure) loves to paint Rio+20 as a failure but doesn’t give any analysis as to why or how we can move forward.

                Of course, this was expected.   The mainstream media is a shallow and profit driven always opting for controversy over useful commentary.  So, I’ll attempt to do provide some such commentary now, because there is much to learn from Rio.

                The negotiations display some of the key actors and leverage points in the international system.  The first lesson is one that is not unique to Rio, it is a problem that has plagued many international treaties- the US.

                One of the main points of discussion at Rio+20 was whether to transform the United Nations Environment Programme (an out-dated, under-funded UN programme with little international authority) into a World Environment Organisation (WEO).  The idea was consistently rejected by the US on the basis that the creation of a WEO would require ratification by the US- something they cannot do.  Long story short, the US requires a three-quarters majority vote in the senate to ratify any international convention or treaty.  As one can imagine, with the republican presence in the senate, this is basically impossible, hence why the Kyoto Protocol was never ratified.

                We have to finally address the elephant in the room.  We need to leave the US behind and forge ahead with progressive international treaties and conventions.   It is pointless to continuously water down international agreements to suit a failing superpower who probably won’t ratify them anyway (ahem, Kyoto).  A- to borrow an American term- ‘coalition of the willing’ would be better advised to go ahead and create innovative and ambitious agreements and institutions without the US.  Once they have their domestic politics in order (hopefully soon) they can ratify and jump on the bandwagon.

                The second issue is another powerful actor (or group of actors) that are increasingly becoming a blockade to progressive outcomes.  The G-77, a group of developing countries around the world, was a hindrance to many issues at Rio+20 including the establishment of a WEO, a global ombudsman, and basically anything to do with the Green Economy.

                The problem is that this massive group of over 130 countries functions on the basis of consensus.   This means to get agreement they almost always take the lowest common denominator- the least ambitious position.  It is a somewhat morbid system where small island states like the Maldives will often be forced to take the same negotiating lines as Saudi Arabia.  This makes lobbying and pressuring nations difficult, since it can be unclear who within the G-77 is acting as a blocker.  The group also serves to entrench the antagonism of the developing-developed country split, a divide which is no longer as clear as it used to be. 

                The solution here is simple.  We break the G-77.  While doing so may not be straight forward the benefits are clear.  It will be easier to isolate blocker nations and leverage international and public pressure against them.  The break-up of the G-77 will also allow for the emergence of useful, regional forms of governance, like the African Union, to further prosper and move the world beyond the now defunct developing-developed divide.   Granted, this would not be as necessary if the group abandoned the ridiculous notion of consensus, something that the entire international system should do. 

                Rio+20, like most international conferences in the last decade, has highlighted the need to change away from the regressive method of decision-making known as consensus.  A case in point was the issue of reproductive rights at Rio+20.  The inclusion of a reference to reproductive rights was strongly supported by civil society and the vast majority of states. Except for one:  a non-secular ‘state’ of roughly 800 people, also known as “The Vatican”.   The Holy See despite widespread opposition was successful in deleting any reference to “reproductive rights”.  The main reason was consensus, which effectively gives every party, including the Vatican, a veto. 

This has been an Achilles heel in climate change negotiations which has led to many nations calling for a change to majority voting.    Mexico has become a leader in pushing for this both in the UNFCCC and even the recent international arms controls negotiations.   And why not? The Vienna Convention on O-Zone protection, the poster-child of environmental agreements, operated on three quarters majority voting, not consensus. 

             I shall briefly mention one last topic, which my next (and final) article will centre upon- the role of civil society.  Civil society, particularly the youth, have a vast potential to influence negotiations in a myriad number of ways from providing political pressure through to helping to facilitate creative compromise.  Despite many successes , the missed opportunities and fragmentation of the youth group at the end Rio+20 show that there is some to go before the youth within civil society becomes the unified, strategic force that is needed.

              While Rio+20 may not have given us the future we want, a closer look gives us some hints on how to achieve that future.  As in everyday life every setback represents a learning experience.  Either we learn from our mistakes and adapt or are doomed to repeat them.  The current track record of negotiations would suggest little has been learnt from the past.   Let us no longer lament on outcomes but focus on perfecting our strategies for the future.   Let the environmental movement take heed of these lessons and rise from Rio.

Thank you to our supporters!

The ANU Rio+20 Delegation would like to officially thank all that made the project possible, including;

The Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, for spending half an hour with the ANU delegates during Rio+20 and giving us her personal perspective on the negotiations. Thank you to Jeremy Hillman from the Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for his help in organising this meeting.

The Australian Government Rio+20 Taskforce for involving the ANU delegation in their many stakeholder consultations and daily briefings during Rio+20.

The Australian Centre for Environmental Law (ACEL) for assisting with the formation of the project and assisting with the interviewing of potential delegates, in particular, Professor Tim Bonyhady.

The Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) who accredited all 18 members of our delegation with the UN. In particular we would like to thank Nic Nelson from ACFID for his support of the ANU delegation project.

The ANU Students' Association (ANUSA) and Postgraduate and Research Students' Association (PARSA) for their generous financial support through the Grants and Affiliations Committee (GAC).

The ANU Student Extra Curricular Enrichment Fund (SEEF) for the generous financial support.

ACT Government Youth InterACT Grants for providing two small grants to two delegates.

ANUgreen and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for enabling ANUgreen Sustainability Officer Teifi Caron to attend Rio+20 and assist us with our IARU engagement opportunities.

The ANU College of Asia and the Pacific (CAP) for its generous financial support for those students within that College.

The ANU College of Law, and Professor Michael Coper (Dean) and Professor Fiona Wheeler, for their generous financial support and insurance support for the law students who attended.

Woroni - the ANU Student Newspaper for publishing several articles on the Rio+20 Delegation.

The ANU Media Office for publishing 2 stories on the delegation in the publication On Campus.

The ANU Food Co-op for letting us borrow their kitchen and venue for our fundraiser event.

The ANU Climate Change Institute and Professor Janette Lindsay for her contribution of ideas and advice on logistics for the delegation.

Thank you to the following individuals who provided personal briefings to the delegation before we left/while we were there:

Professor Will Steffen, ANU Climate Change Institute

Associate Professor Don Anton, ANU College of Law

Professor Tim Bonyhady, Australian Centre for Environmental Law (ACEL)

Professor Mick Dodson, National Centre for Indigenous Studies (NCIS)

Dr James Prest, ANU College of Law (Climate Law)

Gregory Andrews, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency


THANK YOU!

The Brazilian Black hole (Part I)- A BRIC through the Window

-      By Luke Kemp

The largest failure of Rio+20 was the actual process of negotiations under the Brazilian chairmanship and many of the disappointing outcomes are largely a result of this problematic process and the excessive power of the chairmanship. 

My biggest issue with the outcome of Rio+20 is not so much based upon the tangible (or often non-committal, intangible) results, but the actual process.   To be honest, I had (slightly) higher hopes for Rio+20 early on during the third preparatory committee prior to the actual conference (the high level segment that involved heads of states).  That was until the Brazilians took over the chairmanship.   One BRIC (emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China) state threw itself through the window of opportunity in the lead up to the high level segment, shattering any notions of transparency, inclusivity or fairness. 

As soon as the Brazilians stepped in as chairs civil society participation suffered.  Many of the negotiating sessions became closed to ‘outside’ observers.  There was one night in which negotiations were scheduled to begin at 6pm, but didn’t actually start until 8.30pm.   This wasn’t a big deal since we were already used to ‘Brazilian Time’ (add on 1-3 hours for any schedule, it’s the opposite of German time).  The problem was that we were repeatedly told that we would likely be allowed into the session once the Brazilian chair arrived and clarified things.  Consequently we ended up sitting outside the room for two and a half hours before being informed that we were not welcome inside.  This was not a logistical concern- there was only about six or so NGOs who wanted access (institutions are unfortunately considered very unsexy and attract little attention).  However, it must be said that the disregard for civil society was nothing compared to the disrespect given to the EU.

The negotiations within IFSD under the Brazilian Chairmanship weren’t so much about dialogue- it was more like sign language, and the signs being given to Europe were not kind (they probably would have involved the use of a certain finger).  Almost all of the European proposals going into the drafting text (especially for institutional frameworks) were not seen in the end document.  They were deleted and replaced by text that looked strangely familiar- it appeared to be the position of the Group of 77 (developing countries).  When the EU attempted to complain or request for the text to be reopened the Brazilian chair would treat them as if they were a spoilt four year old.  In a world of over-the-top politeness and etiquette the Brazilian treatment of the EU was surprising to say the least.  This included telling Switzerland at one stage, after a dissenting interjection, that they could either continue to give their bitter little speech or accept the text.   There was no real choice given, Switzerland and the EU’s bluff had been called- the text was not going to be reopened.   

 The text going into the first Brazilian drafting process had a number of points of contention.  Some of these included the form of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the possibility of a high level representative for future generations and the role of ‘Green Jobs’ within the Green Economy framework.  But almost of these issues were glossed over or absent in the end document- there is only one mention of Green Jobs (in paragraph 154), the high level representative has been scrapped and any decision or even discussion on the future form of UNEP is completely gone.  While this allowed for the text to be more easily closed and passed by the heads of state it hinders progress in the long term.  These issues are resolved and relationships built through long-term, deep dialogue on the difficult issues.  Putting these contentions aside for another day is a short-sighted strategy that is ultimately detrimental.

Interestingly, the Brazilians are known to be fantastic negotiators, and some of the best of their diplomats were the ambassadors who became the chairs of the different sessions.  It was not out of inadequacy or poor organising abilities that the text regressed in many areas and transparency was skewed.  To the contrary, this was skilfully intentional and it was successful.    The motive, I believe, was not an underhanded attempt to put in place G-77 positions that reflected interests.  Interestingly, many of the points taken off the table by Brazil were contrary to their own positions.  For example Brazil has been supportive of the notion of transforming UNEP into a World Environment Organisation for a number of years now.  Instead the intentions of Brazil were more focused upon their international image and the city of Rio de Janeiro.

 Rio is set to host both an upcoming World Cup and Olympic Games.  The city is set to be in the center of international attention over the next few years.  It will be a key representative for the emerging power of Brazil and accordingly, Brazil is determined to ensure that the image of Rio is not tarnished.  By no means can the city be related to a failed conference.  The result was a highly skilled chairmanship that was determined to get an outcome at any cost, regardless of the ambition or fairness of the end result.     Although it must be said that this is not a new phenomenon- it is history repeating itself after similar actions in climate change negotiations by the Danish at CoP15 in Copenhagen and the Mexicans at Cancun at CoP16.  The host nation and chairmanship of international environmental conferences has an incredible amount of power over the process and has recurrently distorted proceedings to ensure outcomes that often sacrifice long term progress and ambition for the opportunity to bang the gavel and declare a successful agreement.

So what is the lesson here?   We (and the UN) need to be more aware of the power of the chairmanship and the circumstances and interests of the hosting country.   Restrictions need to be placed upon the power of the host nation and progressive countries need to be willing to walk away from talks and play tough when necessary.  If this were the case then the hardball tactics of Brazil would not have been as successful.  Clearly the first lessons have not been learned considering the upcoming chairmanship of Qatar for CoP18, but hopefully the last lesson can still be of use.

The Phoenix Effect

-  By Luke Kemp

 

                Looking back through history and at the process and outcome of Rio+20 it becomes apparent that international society may have to face a stimulus of crisis or collapse before the necessary progress on sustainable development can be made.   

Rio+20 has drawn to a close, and has inevitably been accompanied by a chorus of media voice.  The majority (even conservative ones) have been singing of failure.   I’d say the outcome is not so clear cut- it really depends upon your criteria for success.  Based upon reasonable expectations it really isn’t all that bad.  Some good progress was made on oceans, Sustainable Development Goals and certain areas of the green economy (e.g. education).  Based upon what science suggests is necessary to avoid ecological catastrophes it was woefully inadequate.  

Although, what did we really expect- a conference that saved the world?  Hasn’t anyone learned from Copenhagen?  A single summit, regardless of how many heads of states it attracts, is unlikely to provide the silver bullet for sustainable development issues.  Any negotiator at Riocentro would be more than happy to remind us that the multilateral process is a slow and incremental one.  I agree and I think that given another a hundred years or so of this snail pace progress we probably could address many of our current problems.  Unfortunately our global environmental problems require urgent and radical action.   The nature of the solutions does not match that of multilateral negotiations currently.  The process needs a metamorphosis.

 Most of the major changes (especially institutionally) to global society have spurred on by a crisis of some form or another.  The Bretton Woods Institutions and current international financial order were catalyzed by the destruction of WWII.  The rise of the UN required the complete collapse of the League of Nations.  On a smaller scale many of the greatest steps forward in climate change negotiations have occurred after failures, like at CoP6 at The Hague.   Transformations away from the status quo often require a stimulus of crisis.    Such a crisis could take three main forms within our current world- environmental, social or political.

Environmental disasters could be effective in creating the necessary political will to move forward negotiations.  The O-zone Hole and subsequent Montreal Protocol showed nations are not pleased and will act quickly when their citizens are threatened by mass deaths.  However, the O-zone issue had immediate impacts, climate change, biodiversity and other problems lack this urgency in impacts.  Secondly, by the time any ecological disaster could occur we would already be past the point of no-return.  Social crisis such as a global (or semi-global) revolution are also unlikely to occur quickly enough.  Occupy World Street will not be the answer unless it gains traction (and unity) fast.   This leaves us with one last form of crisis- political.

What shape or form could such a political crisis take?  The failure of the multilateral process could be one.  I don’t mean perceived failure as in Copenhagen or Rio+20, but an actual complete collapse of negotiations.  The break-up of the Group of 77 of developing countries, who are playing an increasingly regressive role (as in Rio), could be another.  

Common rejections of this could be that the complete collapse of the process could disillusion the public to the extent that they move away from the multilateral process.  Another may be that such a crisis could actually set negotiations back by many years.  Both are partially true, but the progress we need will require some risk- Who Dares Wins.  As John F Kennedy once famously noted ‘crisis’ in Chinese is made up of two characters- danger and opportunity.   More importantly people are already losing faith in the multilateral system.  The sad lack of public interest and media coverage at Rio+20 is ample evidence of this.  

So if we need a political crisis to catalyze the current process we just have to wait and watch the fireworks right?  Not quite.  The problem is that any such incident will likely require some courageous action by certain parties.  It will need the short term sacrifice of the multilateral process and the image of certain states, states that will likely be the most ambitious of international actors.  Yet, the most progressive countries are also those who are least willing to see the multilateral process collapse.   It was apparent in the EU refusing to walk away from signing the Rio+20 text despite Brazil treating the bloc like a spoiled child, deleting many of its proposals and refusing to reopen the text (more on this in my next article).  The EU and others care too dearly for multilateralism to see it injured in any way.   They will need to learn that the best outcome in the long-term for the current system will involve some ‘tough love’.  

We need to take a lesson from the mythical phoenix:  an old and damaged bird may need to be burnt so that a renewed body can rise from the ashes.  We may need to be ready to watch large scale shifts in the multilateral process, it's failure or other catastrophes unfold before we can expect a positive revolution.   We need to be ready that when the crisis takes place we can seize the opportunity and are not be blinded by the flames.  Without such a spark it looks as though our future may face a death by a thousand cuts [or conferences].