- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment