Future We (Don’t) Want

What’s up with the Rio Text?

The “Future We Want” document has now been agreed upon by diplomats, and is currently being reviewed by heads of state in Rio. According to some sources it is expected to receive the approval and become the final outcome. Unfortunately it has also been widely criticised. Jim Leape of the WWF, described it as “a colossal failure of leadership and vision from diplomats.”

What is in (or absent from) this document for it to draw such a strong reaction?

Sustainable Development Goals

One area hailed as a success by many, including UNCSD Secretary-General Sha Zukang, is the commitment to establish Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to drive action on sustainable development in the same way Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) did a decade ago.

The text establishes a process to work towards the goals; meaning that the work to begin the actual necessary work would be undertaken to formulate these goals, whatever they may be.

This is what has drawn criticism from civil society. WWF’s Leape said negotiators should have agreed on the themes of SDGs and a timetable for the process established, fearing the current text is too vague to instigate action. This view was echoed by Venezuela, while Australia pushed for themes to be noted, and many other countries did question the ambition in SDGs.

Positively, it allows for the comprehensive addressing of development and sustainability issues over the next three years in determining the world after 2015 after the current MDGs framework concludes. This will allow for more inclusive and transparent process.

Future of UNEP

The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) is strengthened with further funding, universal membership to its governing council and promotion of coordination with other UN bodies. However, the text does stop short of elevating UNEP’s powers to that of more prominent UN bodies, such as the World Health Organisation. Leaving the environment, at least structurally and symbolically, as a lesser priority within the UN.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

One of the key areas advocated by civil society during Rio+20 has been an end to fossil fuel subsidies. These subsidies currently are at twelve times those of renewable energy, highlighting the discrepancy between the words and actions from governments on their commitment to act on climate change.

Despite the 24 hour ‘Twitter Storm’ and 750,000 strong petition in the UK; negotiators, particularly from oil-rich OPEC nations, had the already-weak text regarding fossil fuels. By simply reaffirming previous commitments around “harmful and inefficient” subsidies rendering the text “simply meaningless” to people and planet, says Greenpeace.

Future Generations

In 1987 sustainable development was put on the map with the Brundtland report. It defined sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The current text acknowledges this, and commits to developing a report on the possibility of a High Commissioner for Future Generations.

This has drawn extensive criticism from groups representing Children and Youth, who argue the time for feasibility reports is over and the establishment of a High Commissioner or Ombudsman for Future Generations is needed now. In a statement to world leaders, a representative of the youth asserted that this was required to protect the voices of the future. But this suggestion was cut from the final text by Brazil, who argued Cuba and Venezuela would never agree to it. Rhoda Robinson, a youth activist from Nigeria said, the removal of the text “relegates youth and future generations to the sidelines to watch – not participate – in deciding on our future.”

Gender

Despite widespread agreement by almost every country, all references to ‘reproductive rights’ were removed from the text. This came after significant pressure from the Vatican, an observer to negotiations, and the select members of the G77.

This has drastic impacts on both the environment, through population growth, and women’s rights. Dr Carmen Barroso, of the International Planned Parenthood Federation said, “Comprehensive family planning is the most effective form of population control.”

Oceans

The oceans text going into the final negotiations were warmly received, in the final draft they were sunk. The text now sets up a process for negotiations towards an agreement on protected marine areas, deferring a decision on ocean governance, and reaffirms but doesn’t commit nations to removal of fishing subsidies.

It does contain a number of commitments, albeit weak, which in the view of some civil society makes it a beacon of light in the text.

But Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International executive director, said it would “empty the oceans” and that any hopes for the oceans were “killed by the US, Canada, Russia and Venezuela who want to mine the seas for private profit with impunity and exploit the resources that belong to all humanity.”

Energy

No new energy targets were set, and nothing was decided over energy equity – leaving this area open to extensive criticism from civil society.

Ultimately, the text came under criticism for the lack of commitments – too many weasel words and not enough commitment. Only a few paragraphs actually “commit” to anything, most “recognises” (147 times), “reaffirms” (59 times) or “encourages” (49 times). When added to the lack of timelines, definitions and finance,  it’s no wonder the text has been widely criticised.

By Tim Hall, photo by Linh Do.