Rio+20 Lacking on Energy

The secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon has called energy the “’golden thread’ that connects the dots to a sustainable future”. He has called for a ‘global clean energy revolution’ in order to provide electricity to everyone by 2030, while also doubling the share of clean energy sources in the global energy mix and doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency.

These ambitious and necessary targets, part of the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative, have not yet been matched by negotiators at the Rio+20 conference and the 6 paragraphs of the current negotiating text at Rio+20 regarding energy show an unacceptably low level of commitment to fixing the world’s energy woes.

1.3 billion people worldwide lack any access to energy, while a billion or so more do not have a clean, reliable and secure energy supply. Despite the pressing need to bring energy access and clean energy to the world’s poorest, the current text, full of ‘recognition’ and ‘reaffirmation’, is staggeringly low on concrete commitments to actually do anything new or commit additional financial resources.

For a start, the text only notes the existence of the SE4All initiative, but does not endorse it. There is however some hope that the SE4All goals could later be adopted as part of a package of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDGs are a key part of the negotiations in Rio, and could see the adoption of a set of goals similar to the Millennium Development Goals, which expire in 2015.

The secretary-general has been pressing for donor nations to increase funding for energy access. However, concrete financial commitments have not been forthcoming. Donor fatigue in times of austerity and economic crises in many developed nations is a significant part of the problem.

Even if the money is handed over, there are issues with how it will be used: the G77 supports the SE4Alll initiative and its goals, but is reluctant to allow rich nations to prescribe how finance is spent through environmental conditions placed on the cash.

While some money is already on the table, the figures are in the millions: minuscule in relation to what is needed. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that annual investments of $48 billion worldwide are needed over the next 20 years to provide energy access to those off the grid.

This figure itself pales into insignificance when compared to the $409 billion that the IEA estimates governments spend annually subsidising fossil fuels. The phasing out of such subsidies is also on the agenda at Rio+20, though little encouragement can be found in the negotiating text on this issue either.

The text currently states:

“We recognize the need for further action to rationalize and phase out harmful and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and undermine sustainable development”.

Just yesterday Venezuela and Saudi Arabia were given a ‘Fossil of the Day’ award for their attempts to derail agreement on fossil fuel subsidies, and agreement on this crucial issue is not progressing as quickly as many had hoped.

Endless recognition and reaffirmation is not going to be enough. There is no use recognising the need to phase out regressive and archaic subsidies, or the need to increase renewables, if there is no comment to act on this recognition.

The future we want is one powered by clean, reliable and secure energy. The challenge now for Brazil, now leading the negotiations, is to secure strong commitments on energy, increasing financing provision and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

ANU delegation condemns Opposition party from preventing Environment Minister from Attending Rio+20

By Julie Melrose 

The ANU Rio+20 delegation is outraged at the news from home that the Coalition party in opposition has prevented our Environment Minister Tony Burke from attending the historic Rio+20 conference in which Ministers and world leaders from around the world are meeting to discuss a way forward for humanity. 

The Coalition has refused to grant Burke leave from Parliament until after Question Time on Tuesday, demanding that he stays in Australia to explain his expansion of marine parks plan - which, by the way, has been hailed in Rio+20 as a major mark of leadership on global oceans policy and is being used as an example of decisive national leadership. Oceans make up 71% of the earth. We are planet ocean. This is a crucial global issue that requires the sort of action announced by Burke. 

I attended a side event by the Global Alliance on Marine Protection yesterday at the Rio+20 Conference - where the Zoological Society of London and the Pew Environment Institute presented an overview of the state of the oceans, and why marine protected areas are so important. There will be more on oceans from me to come, but the scientific evidence and research is resoundingly clear on two things. First, that over 80% of the world's oceans are exploited, depleted or depleting, and this has happened in the last 80 years - one lifetime. Second, marine protected areas are scientifically proven as effective in boosting environmental wellbeing of the oceans as well as boosting fish stocks and thus contributing to the economy and the production of food. There's a short explanation for you, Tony. 

Every time I have felt inspired and motivated and moved by the magnitude of the occasion that is Rio+20 (which certainly has its faults/many challenges/political hurdles), I have felt sad to think that we have an opposition that might gain government next year, who just would not fit in here with the international community. Their ideas and policies are backward and negative and lack the vision and inspiration we expect and we DEMAND from our leaders at this point of crisis we now face in the context of environmental degradation. Where is Tony Abbott's vision for our future and our children's future? 

Today I also attended the UNEP World Congress on Law, Governance and Development, at the Supreme Court of Rio de Janeiro, where Chief Justices from around the world have come together to talk about their role in sustainable development and how the judiciary must start to act and implement environmental norms and principles where legislators have failed to do so. It was an incredibly inspiring occasion and a moment where I regained hope for change, seeing so many committed individuals in the one room ready to start an important conversation. 

Then I felt despair and shame once I heard of the coalition preventing Minister Burke from attending Rio. 

The ANU Delegation to Rio+20 condemns this behaviour and calls on the Parliament to grant Minister Burke a pair to attend Rio immediately. This is not a time for partisan politics. This is a time for united leadership and a vision for the future that goes beyond next years election. 

The Future we (Definitely Don’t) Want

The Rio+20 negotiations so far have not been particularly promising. After a week which saw negotiators from developing countries walk out of a key working group, the Brazilian delegation to the Rio+20 Conference, now leading the negotiation process, released an overhauled negotiating text last night that will be the basis for negotiations over the coming days.

The Brazilians certainly seem to have come into their role with a practical mindset, saying that there will be no ‘bracketing’ of text and that the focus will shift from miniscule details to the bigger picture. What is much less clear is whether that is likely to be possible in light of the intense negotiations that have taken place so far, with every little detail being subject to scrutiny.

As 120+ world leaders prepare to arrive (with those of the US, UK and Germany notably absent), many have lamented the emergence of disparate blocs and divides that exist, with the traditional north-south divide being only one piece in a very disparate puzzle.

While the Brazilian’s are keen to show leadership, the draft text itself presents a significantly weaker document than the previous draft. The Brazilian Government said that the text would make all members a little bit happy and a little bit unhappy too”. Anybody concerned with creating a more sustainable future should be very unhappy, and the current text is far below the expectations of civil society groups, youth delegates, and many delegations that see Rio+20 as a historic opportunity to map out a better future.

The key issues with the new text are:

• The concept of creating an Ombudsperson, High Commissioner or High Level Representative for future generations has been completely deleted, in spite of the fact that this had not yet been debated and no strong opposition had yet emerged;
• UNEP has been stripped of its proposed role in coordinating Multilateral Environment Agreements;
• Participation of Civil society has been weakened;
• There is no mention of planetary boundaries, but ‘efficiency’ and economic growth’ feature 14 and 20 times respectively;
• The text is full to the brim with words like ‘encourage’ and ‘promote’, but lacking in strong language like ‘will’ and ‘commit’.

Daniel Mittler, Greenpeace International’s Political Director is reported as saying, “if broadly adopted, the latest text from the Brazilian government would condemn the world to a future of pollution, plunder and destruction. There is no action here, no commitment, no future we want”. In fact, the weak and ineffectual document currently on the table is likely to perpetuate business-as-usual, the future that we definitely don’t want.

Sustainable Development: Being Achieved 1 Coca-Cola at a Time

Post by Federico Davila

Key words: corporations, green economy, interests

I have been attending the Rio+20 Conference at Rio Centro, well described by Stayner (2012, see post below) for 2 days now. The magnitude of the event is impossible to describe in words. Formal negotiations have not yet started, rather delegations are working on a draft text that will be formalised when the conference opens on Wednesday.

The ANU Delegation has been busy going to the Fair Ideas Conference along with numerous side events at Rio Centro. We are all incredibly busy, but are having a fantastic time.

Taking this blog as a space to communicate my reflections on the process, I wish to tell you of a particular thing that I have noticed since Day 1.

This post is based on 3 photos taken by myself, and 1 taken and published by the UN. The photos are shown below and commentary follows.

Photo 1: Coca Cola Brazil & Rio+20. Together for a More Sustainable World

Well, apparently Coca-Cola will change the world! The corporation, together with Rio, will work towards a more sustainable world. I cannot grasp why the entire food hall of the conference (you can fit an A380 in there by the way) has tables and chairs with Coca Cola Logos. More concerning, how did a conference that should be all about sustainable development, allow a private corporation that encourages mass-consumption and use of chemical fertilisers to grow corn syrup to sponsor Rio+20?

Every food stall sells Coca-Cola. Numerous Rio+20 posters have a Coca-Cola logo attached to them. The next photo is closely linked to this first one.

This is what the UN showed us on their Facebook Rio+20 site: 

Photo 2: Official UN Photo (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=475482575800065&set=a.475482539133402.125580.215269391821386&type=1&theater)

OK please note the contrast here. The UN chose to show the world this photo on their Facebook page to highlighting the lovely blue messages of the future we want.

They very conveniently, however, disguised and did not upload on their Facebook page the end of that wall, where it turns green and shows this:

Photo 3: The end of the Future we Want wall, showing the Lead Sponsor of the Conference.

Here we have Capstone Turbine Corporation. They are present in car factories, oil rigs, you name it. Now I am not saying I am anti-turbines.We need them. We would not function the way we do without them.My concern with this is that the conference, somehow, has selected private enterprises to sponsor it.

Reading into these things, to me it symbolises the lack of transparency to acknowledge the actual interests that are being portrayed here in Rio+20.

The Green Economy, as outlined by the ETC Group (2011) is the labelling of our business as usual model with a lovely name. A Green Economy will  perpetuate our current means of production and development. It will keep seeking the technocratic solutions to environmental degradation without taking the holistic and non market approach to saving the world.

 A final photo that summarises the interests of Rio+20 is below. Not many words are necessary to describe the issues with these mega billboards spread throughout the Convention Center.  

Photo 4 : Priorities at Rio+20

Look at the order here.

1. Economy
2. Social
3. Environment

Rio+20 is not about environmental health. It is not about preserving the ecosystem services human well being is dependent on.

Rio+20 is, perhaps, a subtle and disguised power play of corporate and political interests to get away with continuing environmental harmful practices.

Am I reading into this too much? No, I am not. I have discussed this with other members of the Delegation. We agree. Rio+20 will create a space for the viscous means of production that have degraded our environment to continue for the endless grow of economies in a world with finite resources.

I am sorry if this blog has been negative, but I think it is the reality of the current state of the world. These realities are kept quiet, no one wants to say what is happening. These things are not said by delegates. They are not said by politicians.

They are, however, loudly said by activists, youth movements, thinkers, academics, and pretty much everyone from the 9 Major Groups who we have been engaging with in various events.

These 9 Major Groups are the ones that offer hope for the world. I will blog about this soon. There are thousands of people in this city, right now, with amazing ideas of how to create change without using the existing, controlling and closed walls of the Rio+20 Process. 

Rio+20 will not create the global governmental top-down change we strive for.

Rio+20 will, however, bring incredibly creative and imaginative people together with ideas that will need to be up-scaled to achieve sustainable development. Rio+20 is allowing these ideas to flow throughout the world, with names, business cards and concepts flying to all corners of the planet. 

Rio+20 offers the necessary platform for communication to happen on positive, fair ideas for sustainable development. These will be shared amongst civil society, and with time, grow and strengthen to contribute towards the future we want.

I look forward to your comments,

Federico Davila

June 17 2012

Reference:

ETC Group (2010). Who will control the green economy? Available at: http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-will-control-green-economy-0

Conferência Gigante

Riocentro is the enormous venue for the Rio+20 conference, located in the suburban sprawl west of the better-known downtown and tourist areas of Rio de Janeiro.  It hosted the Earth Summit in 1992 and will be a major venue for the 2016 Olympics. On Wednesday afternoon I took the 1.5 hour air-conditioned coach shuttle out there with Glen (who´s written an excellent post on expectations and context of the summit), to get accredited and acquainted.

Five pavilions, plus another temporary one for Rio+20

It evoked several things for me: first, Sydney´s own Olympic Park from the 2000 Games, with its freshly printed colour-coded signs, marking lanes for herding serious numbers of buses and tens of thousands of people. In a similar way, it also feels like any airport in the (developed) world, with its full-blast air conditioning and sanitised, overpriced food court. And then in another way, there were hints of the showground across from the house where I grew up, where we´d go over and wander around the day before the show started, feeling the anticipation of the Big Event among the mundane final preparations.

But when we took the shuttle out again the next day, I realised that what it reminded me of most was the Kennedy Space Centre in Cape Canaveral, Florida. A sterile piece of vast infrastructure on a flat expanse of subtropical coastline, designed primarily to accommodate Events, rather than people or nature - only a few trees dotted among the carparks.

Trying to avoid any ´failure to launch´cliches...

Without stretching things too far, I think there´s definitely a connection to be made here. Around Rio+20 there is a sense of anticipation, of counting down to something. The TV trucks, Media Centres and Blogging Rooms are a reminder that the world is watching. That for a moment we´re thinking about stuff on a planetary scale.  And maybe - I´ll stop after this one, I promise - there´s also a sense of being on the edge of something momentous, the frontier of oblivion: in a recent example of the kind of make-or-break warnings we seem to have completely internalised these days, Ban Ki-Moon said of Rio+20,

"If we really do not take firm actions, we may be heading towards the end – the end of our future."

Okay then.

Despite all this, the proceedings have a very human character. On the first night of Prepcom (the last pre-meeting before Rio+20), at a big reception put on at the expense of the Brazilian Government, people in business attire chatted, flirted, joked, networked, got drunk - thanks to the very insistent waiters who did the rounds with bottles of wine - and scanned the crowd for beauties or celebrities. (Nate, an agronomy student from Iowa, thought he spotted Jeffrey Sachs, but it just was a lookalike.) At one point, wondering if everyone else was feeling the uneasy sense of anticlimax, I heard an amplified voice booming from the stage nearby: ´WE. MUST. SUCCEED!´ I recognised the voice as that of Sha Zukang, the Chinese Secretary-General of Rio+20 - he´d said the same thing at Youth Blast a couple of days earlier - but this time most people´s attention was elsewhere.

The slightly surreal vibe only intensified when I sat in on one of the negotiating sessions back at Riocentro the next morning. This was the ´Green Economy splinter group´, where negotiators from different countries were attempting to wrestle the text for the ´Green Economy´ section of the draft outcome document down to something they could all agree on. The morning´s focus was on section L, paragraphs 53 and 54 (I think), and a plodding Canadian chairman facilitated as negotiators from delegations (mainly the USA, South Korea and the G77 bloc of developing nations) proposed amendments, deletions and additions, which were projected on a screen in one corner. There were plenty of long silences as the chair and his colleagues (the ´podium´) attempted to write new text that incorporated the delegates´ concerns.  It was simultaneously an eye-opener and an eye-closer.

This, in large part, seems to be how the UN works, but as I sat on the floor in the corner, I couldn´t help feeling like a bored kid under the dining table, listening as the adults discussed Something Important I didn´t quite understand.  As a friend put it, ´people negotiating on behalf of governments on behalf of countries on behalf of people regarding the future of the planet as we know it. Hard not to get a little lost´. (For a more substantive account of the negotiations, check out the IISD´s daily reports. This blog also has a brief and accessible summary to yesterday, and the official participants´ handbook provides a detailed summary of how the whole shebang fits together.)

Believe it or not, this brings me to an actual point, related to my interest in co-operatives.  I´ve been thinking about decision-making over shared resources, an element which is shared by many different kinds of groups. These include the student housing co-operative with which I´m involved, and this particular arm of the United Nations, although obviously on vastly different scales.  In both cases, there is a consensus decision-making process, through which members attempt to reach decisions regarding issues and resources common to them all.  In the student housing co-op it´s early days yet and we´re figuring it out as we go, but so far I feel it generally works. (Recently I helped chair a meeting in which the 15 current members selected seven new ones from a pool of about 23, shaping the process as we went. We finished within an evening, with lives and good will preserved!) In the United Nations, one could easily argue, it doesn´t work quite as well.  I´m in the early stages of thinking about why this is, and have a bunch of ideas, but would welcome your input!

In fact, this connects to one of the major areas of research for the economist Elinor Ostrom, who passed away this week. She won the Nobel Prize for her work in economics, which showed that ´common property could be successfully managed by groups using it´. This can be seen as a response or amendment to Garrett Hardin´s Tragedy of the Commons, a concept familiar to every student of environmental governance, sustainability and beyond. Just before she died, she wrote this piece on Rio+20, acknowledging the importance of the summit but arguing that top-down governance is not the best or only way to preserve our planet.  (If you´re interested, also check out this very good piece by the ANU´s own Matthew Rimmer for more on Ostrom, her work and legacy.)

Cheeky

Okay, time to get back out there. There´s just so much going on - a bit like the negotiators, I guess I´ve got my own challenge of condensing massive amounts of ideas, thoughts, reactions and questions into something manageable on this blog - and I´m ommitting a great deal. For example, on Thursday I also checked out a side event in one of Rio´s favelas, jointly organised by a local community group and Rio´s British School. On the ride back Lara, one of the organisers, told us a little of the fascinating and violent history of Rio´s estimated 1000 favelas, and the recent ´pacification´ of some of them. Oh, and earlier in the week, I met the creator of Captain Planet. I can show you her business card, which of course prominently features the green-mulleted hero.

Today I´m off (slowly, after a visit to Lapa last night) to the IIED Fair Ideas Conference. I´m also looking forward to checking out the alternative People´s Summit at Flamengo, and generally soaking up more of this amazing city. Thank you for reading this far, and please continue to chime in on the comments!

This photo must have been taken on a week night

Rio+20: crucial summit, hard times

In a few days, world leaders will gather in Rio de Janeiro, 20 years since the 1992 Earth Summit, to discuss and commit to the ever-elusive goal of sustainable development. Occasionally, as in 1992, such conferences produce seminal new treaties, commitments and institutions that shape the future of international cooperation on the global environment. This notion of guiding the future is the driving impetus of Rio+20, but unfortunately, the conference is taking place against a backdrop of discord and difficult economic circumstances. What then are the challenges facing the Rio+20 conference?

Unlike past gatherings, there appears to be little expectation and excitement surrounding Rio+20, and few following the conference have high hopes for concrete outcomes. For a start, there are no plans for the conference to deliver any major new international agreement or binding commitments on governments to take action. In the absence of binding commitments, there is concern that any commitments made during the conference will not significantly contribute to a more sustainable future.

Low expectations are likely a product of an unsupportive surrounding context:

• Negotiations on climate change have been progressing very slowly in recent years;
• The emergence of major new economic powers is redrawing the geopolitical landscape and shaking up discussions about sustainable development and other international environmental issues;
• The original distinction between developed versus developing countries has been blurred and appears to no longer be workable, if it ever was; Most notably, the central concept of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities has become very strained;
• The notion that the sustainable development charge would be led by developed nations, with developing nations following their example has become untenable;, as developing nations seek to rapidly advance without necessary taking the same path of industrialisation of countries before them;
• European governments are currently distracted by the ongoing financial crisis in the Eurozone;
• Slow growth, high unemployment and large budget deficits plague other important players, such as the US;
• Major emerging countries too seem to have little interest in agreeing to new global goals, particular on sustainability and climate change.
• As yet, no new paradigm has materialised to account for the changes in the geopolitical landscape, and a new political order whereby major emerging economies would assume new responsibilities commensurate with their newfound influence and capacity.

Adding to the more substantive disagreements is general sense of fatigue among both governments and civil society stakeholders alike as a result of multiple and protracted multilateral processes that have often failed to live up to their promise. While the original Rio conference 20 years ago was met with excitement and enthusiasm, many participants in international environmental processes are not able to summon such enthusiasm in the context of a congested and bloated system of international environmental governance and a seemingly endless stream of international meetings that promise much, but deliver little.

The summit will be attended by French President Francois Hollande and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and others, but US President Barack Obama, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be notably absent, owing presumably to their aforementioned domestic concerns.

Despite the absence of some important figureheads, some 50,000 attendants will make the conference the largest UN conference to date. Indeed, the inevitable frenzy of networking, side events and exhibitions taking place before the conference between these delegates may well prove to be more fruitful than the conference itself.

The Rio+20 conference is a crucial summit, with the potential to define a path toward sustainable development, but it takes place at a difficult time, with interest lower than it should be for a summit on such a crucial topic. It can only be hoped that civil society and progressive and proactive governments can whip up the necessary support for strong and considered actions that can deliver a more sustainable future.

www.GlenWright.net

The Australian Government Negotiating Proposal at Rio+20

Mining for Sustainable Development -Like screwing to get virginity

Australia, like other countries, had been asked by the Rio+20 organising committee to come up with tangible suggestions as to how to promote sustainable development around the world. Rio+20 is about putting the UN earth summit of 20 years ago into practice. Australia was being asked to suggest things that are working in their country that other countries could implement as well. So what did the Australian interdepartmental meetings miraculously come up with? Mining for sustainable development.

The department officials I have spoken to so far seem to fairly readily admit that mining is in no way environmentally sustainable. Hence their attempt to emphasize 'mining for sustainable development', rather than 'sustainable mining'. One official attempted to justify this by asserting that Rio+20 is not about the environment. This flies in the face of the three pillars of sustainable development agreed at the first rio earth summit: people, the environment and the economy. Environmental sustainability is very much a part of Rio+20 and the Australian government is entirely missing the boat.

Australia has some of the most efficient solar technology in the world developed in the University of New South Wales. A highly useful and marketable technology. Instead of creating a company in Australia to produce or develop it, funding was only available from overseas. Australia has the opportunity to create baseload solar technology through the model created by operational CSIRO research plants in Newcastle. The Australian government could be sharing these tangible renewable and sustainable technologies at Rio+20 and instead they are shamefully trying to promote the fossilised dinosaur excrement that they are allowing mining companies to dig out of the ground. As a recent report by the Australia Institute has revealed, the Australian government is losing money due to the incredible subsidies that they are providing to the mining industry. Government resources pay for the fuel, the rail lines and the ports. The government gets far less back in revenue from royalties. This is even after the introduction of the superprofits tax. Instead of providing these subsidies to the mining industry Australia could be creating sustainable green ongoing jobs in the solar industry. Such a vision would ensure communities are not exposed to the serious health detriment of the coal mining industry.

The promotion of the mining industry is a false solution for the world. It does not work in Australia and it cannot work for developing countries. Of serious concern regarding the Australian government's significant efforts to get mining put in the Rio+20 document is that it will be a catalyst for further funding being used to promote Australia's mining companies in our region. This would be a shameful diversion of the Australian government's already limited development aid. The Australian government committed in the millennium development goals to putting 0.7% of its budget towards development aid, in the the May 2012 budget it sits at just 0.35%.

So the Australian government could easily change their position, Australian research has developed tangible solar baseload solutions for the world. With the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies to the green economy the government can create a safe Australia and help create an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable world.