When the Rio+20 United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development ended in Brazil on
Friday, there were winners and losers - mostly
losers. The United Nations and the host country
Brazil along with big business put a positive spin
on the outcome of the conference, a follow-up to
the 1992 Earth Summit, also hosted in Rio de
Janeiro.
It was another historic document
that will change the world, they claimed, but most
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil
society representatives and women activists
expressed disappointment and outrage over the
final blueprint, titled "The Future We Want",
which was approved by world leaders.
The
55-page final statement "reaffirmed that
developing countries
need additional
resources for sustainable development", satisfying
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's concerns in
his address at the summit attended by 125 world
leaders that "many countries could do more if
additional finance and technology were available.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence of support
from the industrialized countries in these areas
[reducing emissions intensity]."
The final
Rio+20 document said "We stress the importance of
access by all countries to environmentally sound
technologies, new knowledge, know-how and
expertise. We further stress the importance of
cooperative action on technology innovation,
research and development. We agree to explore
modalities in the relevant forums for enhanced
access to environmentally sound technologies by
developing countries."
The document, in
respect to a "green economy" in the context of
sustainable development and poverty eradication,
said it should be consistent with international
law, and respect each country's national
sovereignty over their natural resources, while
strengthening international cooperation, the
provision of financial resources, and technology
transfer to developing countries.
But Gro
Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of
Norway and chair of the Brundtland Commission
(named after her) which brought the concept of
sustainable development to global attention 25
years ago, said, "The Rio+20 declaration does not
do enough to set humanity on a sustainable path,
decades after it was agreed that this is essential
for both people and the planet.
"I
understand the frustration in Rio today," she said
in a statement released on Thursday.
Brundtland, who is a member of a group
called The Elders, said, "We can no longer assume
that our collective actions will not trigger
tipping points, as environmental thresholds are
breached, risking irreversible damage to both
ecosystems and human communities. These are the
facts," but they have been lost in the final
document.
"The most important message as
we leave Rio is that the collective task of making
the three pillars of sustainable development a
reality must continue and we don't have any time
to lose."
The reactions from groups at the
grassroots level were mostly negative.
Anil Naidoo, Council of Canadians, the
largest citizens' organization in Canada with over
70 local chapters, lashed out at concept of the
green economy advocated at Rio+20.
"I
haven't seen this much fake green covering since
last St Patrick's Day. The document does not come
close to the future we really want and that's
because it was written with the interests of the
few rather than the many in mind. "
Noelene Nabulivou, Women's Action for
Change, Fiji, told IPS, "As an activist from
Pacific I see clearly the catastrophic impacts of
climate change, biodiversity loss and sea level
rise. Rio+20 does not do justice to the immediacy
and severity of this global problem."
Nicole Bidegain of GEO-ICAE, Uruguay,
said, "The green economy simply reinforces the
current model of development, based on
overconsumption and production. The same financial
mechanisms that caused multiple crises since 2008
are being promoted, but this time to commodify
nature. There is enough evidence on the negative
impacts of the financialization of nature on
women's rights and livelihoods. "
She said
the private sector as a source of finance is
prioritized over public financing. "This is ironic
as the private sector is concerned with maximizing
profit in the short term, not with long-term
investments needed to transition to genuine
people-centered sustainable development."
Monica Novillo, Coordinadora de la Mujer,
Bolivia, said, "I came to Rio+20 with high
expectations that governments would build on the
landmark resolution on sexual and reproductive
health and rights for youth and adolescents
adopted at the 45th Commission on Population
Development."
She said Brazil played a key
role in creating this outcome, "so I expected that
they would strongly defend these fundamental
rights at Rio+20 against a minority of
conservative governments."
While the Cairo
and Beijing agendas (on population and women) were
reaffirmed at Rio+20, it is high time that these
agreements are fully implemented, she added.
Brundtland said "Also regrettable is the
omission of reproductive rights " which is a step
backwards from previous agreements. However " with
this imperfect text, we have to move forward.
There is no alternative," she said.
Comparison with the 1992 Agenda 21 was
inevitable. Anita Nayar of the Manila-based
Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era
(DAWN) told IPS that in the historic agreement
adopted in 1992, there were around 170 references
to gender and an entire chapter on women.
In the latest version of "The Future We
Want", there are only around 50, and these have
been watered down and were used as negotiating
chips by states, she said.
"It is not a
simple matter of gender mentions either, but
rather there is clearly an unwillingness by some
states to agree on concrete actions and an overall
weakening of internationally agreed commitments on
gender equality and women's empowerment," Nayar
said.
She said while human rights is
generally affirmed in the context of sexual and
reproductive health, the specific omission of
reproductive rights is glaring.
DAWN's
Gita Sen regretted that Rio+20 had virtually
buried reproductive rights. She told IPS,
"Reproductive rights has been traded away. It is
very clear in this outcome document that there is
a continuing war on women's human rights launched
by the Holy See [Vatican] along with some very
conservative governments."
How is it
possible, she asked, that states can speak of
"common but differentiated responsibilities" and
equity while ignoring gender equity and gender
justice? We are deeply disappointed that our
friends remained silent," she said. "The attack
that has been launched by the Holy See, along with
its friends and some very conservative
governments, continues and it is very clear that
they intend to keep this war going."
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
