The Rio +20 summit came to an end without much suspense in the negotiations. The participating nations agreed on a 52 paged document, which restated the challenge and postponed major decisions into 2015. The past twenty years have made the results of the 1992 summit more significant than they were at the time. During this summit, the world’s nations recognized the sustainable development challenge for the first time, and that they need to tackle this problem collectively. The climate and other conventions were tangible results. The idea of agenda 21 led to numerous local initiatives. However, the collective action problem remains, also in the climate convention. The problem isn’t even close to being solved.
Rio +20 restates that the problem exists. The shift to the green economy rather then sustainable development was already a step backwards. The green economy cuts the social dimension out of the triangle of sustainable development. While the green economy UN summit negotiated far out in Barra, civil society gathered in town at the ‘Cupula dos Povos’, the Summit of the People.
Delegates and guest speakers talked about the problems over and over again at both events. The summit creates an ideal platform for those who like to chat. Numerous side events give more opportunities to talk, besides the negotiations. Some of them are interesting, because they give a better insight to what happens in other countries and some good experts were around, too. However, it’s an opportunity to show off and to present numbers and plans, where it is unclear what’s actually happening. The best example was the International Renewable Energy Agency’s (IRENA) event Sustainable Energy for Africa. The Brazilian minister Marcio Zimmerman points out Brazil’s renewable energy successes followed by Morocco and South Africa. In the case of South Africa’s Minister Dipuo Peters, I happen to know the numbers. She showcases the successes of the roll-out of 250 000 solar water heating systems, the US$ 4.5 Billion she secured for next year to roll out solar water heating systems. She talks about all the different figures in the Integrated Resource Plan in so much detail that if you didn’t know South Africa you’d wonder if that is actual reality. She highlights the ‘not in my backyard’ mentality as a major obstacle to renewable energy technology deployment by the current 47 independent power producers that were allocated in the procurement process. She emphasizes localization as a key to South Africa’s roll out, that will “make it possible that we industrialize. We participate in building green technologies, so that local South Africans can be entrepreneurs in renewable energy”. She wishes for IRENA to be an advocate to help increase the awareness for renewable energy, we wish the same, and before anyone can ask a question she disappears. The WTO and ILO chat about green jobs and intellectual property rights, the Brazilian side events about social security and a ‘bolsa verde’, a green social grant.
In their opening and closing speeches, Ban Ki Moon and President Dilma remain full of hope that sustainable development can be addressed in a format like this. By the time of the closure, according to the rumours, the European delegations had already left. The scariest comment was probably when Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environmental Program, began to talk about Rio +40.
Why did this summit fail? It is impossible to negotiate every aspect of sustainable development in three days. Years of preparation had gone into the summit. But the problem statement remains the same. The summit was supposedly a meeting at the level of the heads of state. However, Barak Obama, David Cameron and Angela Merkel stayed away. Merkel decided to show her face publicly on TV as the summit ended, cheering for the German selection to beat Greece in the European Cup. Priorities lie elsewhere. The format of the conference requires the participation of heads of state. If these heads of state don’t do their jobs at this conference, 47 000 other marginal delegates won’t change much either. The format does not suit it. And they won’t change the format. Therefore we end up with an outcome statement that lists agreements on the basics, or as Emilio La Rovere from the Federal University put it: ‘…the elephant has given birth to a rat’.