A Response to Simon Zadek

Simon Zadek has chimed into the Rio+20 debates with a timely piece urging nations to act alone on the green economy, and not wait for Rio to deliver changes.  Zadek, an independent advisor and senior visiting fellow at the Global Green Growth Institute and the Centre for International Governance Innovation, knows his stuff. However I have some problems with his resigned outlook on the pursuit of multilateral actions on transforming the economy.

In the post, Zadek calls on countries to take unilateral action on moving towards a green economy. In doing so, he dismisses the global pursuits of the Rio+20 conference and multilateralism at the UN.

His argument is strong, and he draws upon some excellent examples to push the case. He rightly takes aim at the divergence currently happening in negotiations, one not just occurring at Rio but voiced in many multilateral environmental forums.

But he ignores two important aspects which demand multilateral action at Rio+20: the globalised nature of the economy; and the unequal balance of economic and political strength.

In today’s globalised economy, countries cannot act alone without a global signalling, framework and plan that supports any regional, national or sub-national actions. Patterns of unsustainable consumption and production are becoming global problem with emerging economies replicating the path of progress that has pushed the planet to its brink.  Moves to sustainable production and consumption can thus only be global.

Any such unilateral action would be severely hampered in its ability to ensure economic and environmental sustainability. We can already see unilateral action accelerating, from Europe to Australia to China and from sub-national actors around the world. But despite these moves, our planets carrying capacity is still on the brink: the world continues to warm, biodiversity loss is accelerating, oceans are dying and resources are being depleted faster than ever.

Such fragmented action could also be harmful through its favouring of developed nations. Obviously wealthier nations are more able to adapt their economies and be leaders in this sphere. Unilateral action thus ignores the essential principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and as such promotes inequity. Unilateral action proposed by Zadek may only entrench current economic inequities, and do little for the development aspect being discussed at Rio+20.

Yet Zadek argues that only through unilateral decisions can international collaboration be leveraged to enhance such decisions national effectiveness. Yet Rio+20 should demand something more global to the global problem. International collaboration decisions must be used to promote and lead the way for globally coherent and equitable national actions.

Zadek shows a short term vision in suggesting an abandonment of Rio-style multilateralism. It seems to also be part of a wider sentiment surrounding environmental multilateralism, one of resignation on the ability of nations to work together. Instead it calls for less effective action at a lower level, which is hindered by the lack of global coherence.

A compromise at Rio may be disappointing, but can signal to nations, and provide certainty and strengthen actions at a national and regional level. In the long term, these actions will be more essential for the economic transformation than band-aid unilateral action.

By Tim Hall, photo by Alan Keohane.