Conferencing in crisis: How can conferences like Rio 2012 move the world towards sustainability
International dialogue is vital for developing policy to protect our future planet. But does modern sustainability conferencing really work, and what steps might make it more effective?
In recent times, high level international conferences like Copenhagen have been charged with putting the right elements in the mix to really get sustainability moving.
But the sad truth remains that often such meetings generate perilously few real world changes, with rhetoric and argument sometimes paralysing movement towards future improvements.
It’s tough to see any better way to alter the situation however. Given sustainability’s inherent international context, there’s no way any positive moves can occur without international dialogue and debate at these kind of events.
The trouble is, ask two people to create a solution to an issue, and you may have a chance at a resolution. Ask two hundred, and you’ll receive two hundred viewpoints. And turning all of these into one text or policy document is no mean task.
Developing the debate
As delegates converge on New York from May 17, to plan the 2012 conference marking 20 years since the Rio Earth Summit, certain stakeholders are asking for the way sustainability conferencing works to be altered.
Organisations throwing their weight behind the drive include the WWF, IUCN, Consumers International, the International Trade Union Confederation, UN Environment Programme’s Green Economy Initiative and IIED. The Green Economy Coalition is the partnership they’re all hoping can make a difference.
‘Green, fair and productive: How the 2012 Rio Conference can move the world towards sustainability,’ is the Coalition’s answer to what tomorrow’s conferencing needs to achieve. It lays out some ideas to really get conferencing working. But what does it propose?
The Coalition reckons we have some bitter truths to swallow. ‘While almost a third of the world’s population struggles to survive on less than US $2 per day, the lifestyles of citizens in wealthy industrialised countries result in an ecological footprint 3 to 5 times greater than the earth’s capacity.’ it explains.
This imbalance is damaging both humanity and the planet we rely on. And there’s growing global focus on this, which should in theory be helping policy move faster: ‘A 2009 Globescan survey of 1000 people in each of the 23 countries, revealed that people were most concerned about the unsustainable state of the economy, and ranked poverty and environmental damage as the top two constituent problems.’ continues the document.
The Coalition recommends a much greater focus on ‘accountability’ for modern sustainability conferencing. This, it appears, means implementing existing targets and creating action. The Coalition criticises ‘consensus’ texts, which promise much but actually contain minimal drivers towards actually doing anything.
‘If we are to have any chance of success, Rio 2012 must produce strong and enforceable yet implementable commitments that do not mire countries in endless administration but instead result in real change.’
‘It must challenge countries to make unilateral or shared political commitments to change, and to show how they will be accountable.’
There’s more emphasis on what are known as ‘transformational’ concepts. ‘Rio 2012 must engage directly with the transformation of those governance and economic systems that underlie unsustainability, rather than cherry-picking isolated issues or only tackling symptoms.’
This will mean really getting to grips with the known issues that cause unsustainable behaviours and condemn many global citizens to poverty. Proving that change is necessary and achieveable, and delivering inclusivity, from the likes of NGOs and academia, will be another necessary shift.
Emerging economies
Unsurprisingly, the Coalition suggests a realignment of economic thinking is going to be needed to get sustainability on the forward foot. ‘A vision of environmental governance that restores and protects the resilience of ecosystems, and the biodiversity within them, and thus secures the many services they provide.’ the document goes on.
‘And it is a vision of development that uses natural resources sustainably, allocating environmental benefits and costs fairly to achieve a more just and equitable society.’
Incentives and modern day stockmarkets are blamed for enhancing profit making over protecting ‘nature and livelihoods’. In the real world this might mean halting subsidisation for materials extraction or refining processes, which effectively makes cheaper and hides the true costs of unsustainable practices.
The document points to a whole host of other fiscal drivers that need to be altered, including ‘disinclination to regulate industry’, and ‘financial deregulation’.
‘This prevailing economic paradigm – debt fuelled, fossil fuelled, consumption based growth with insecure jobs is entrenched globally, but we still rely on it to solve the very problems it is creating.’
The Coalition goes on to discuss many other elements which would contribute to the right kind of change; regulating trade and industry, plus better, stronger political leadership and green jobs and green development strategies.
The list of what needs altering seems to be growing, not diminishing, but the news is not all bad: ‘Germany’s 250,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector are expected to triple by 2020 and hit 900,000 by 2030.’
‘China, the world’s largest manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels, had 1.12 million renewable energy related jobs in 2008, a figure increasing by 100,000 a year.’
These are examples of the ‘real world’ actions that are needed, as opposed to ongoing rhetoric or noise that doesn’t actually do any good. Other actions which will help include giving previously unheard people a voice, and involving them in community based initiatives that feed benefits back, rather than siphoning cash into shareholders’ pockets.
‘The Self-Employed Women’s Association in India has put in place a system in which poor women in the informal sector get organised, receive training and earn better wages by providing communities with electricity through renewable energy sources.’ explains the Coalition.
‘The NGO IDE has created a flourishing business in treadle pumps in India and Bangladesh, which has allowed millions of poor farmers to greatly increase their incomes.’
In truth, whether any of the Coalition’s recommendations are actually recognised will depend on how much the international community can learn from what many regarded as Copenhagen’s failure. Time remains short, and whilst bickering continues to dominate compared with measurable action, steps forward will remain limited.
It may indeed be easier for international organisations to call for change than it is for global leaders to hammer out the right agreements. Maybe future political systems that left debate on international policy to experienced advisors from the private sector, or from NGOs, might have more chance of formulating meaningful documents.
Then all Heads of State need do is sign on the dotted line.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!
Resources:
Video’s
