Environmental Audit CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Stakeholder Forum

(A) Introduction

1. Stakeholder Forum (SF) welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC) on-going inquiry into the Rio+20 conference. Post-mortem examinations of this sort are essential to ensuring implementation of international commitments. Holding governments to account on their sustainable development-related agreements and performance is key to good governance, and good governance is fundamental to achieving sustainable development.

2. Rio+20 resulted in a universally agreed Outcome Document entitled The Future We Want. At best Rio+20 can be seen as taking a series of small but important steps forward. At worst it can be seen as a painful failure to deliver decisive action on many of the things the world needs most. Either way, it is important to look deeper than simply making a superficial assessment to understand what really happened and why.

(B) Putting Rio+20 into Context

3. Making comparisons with Rio+20 and the original Rio Earth Summit in 1992 are difficult. These conferences took place in very difference circumstances and against very different backdrops. The 1992 Conference was the culmination of the outcomes from the 1987 Brundtland Commission recommendations and three separate multilateral negotiations on climate change, biodiversity and forests which were targeted to be finished by Rio ‘92. The 2012 conference was set up in a totally different way and from the first was largely conceived as being a launching pad for a longer process that would culminate in the MDG Summit in 2015.

4. The balance of power both around and within the United Nations has also changed very significantly over those 20 years with the great expansion of influence of China, India, Brazil and other emerging economies, and the relative decline of influence of Europe (and of the UK within it) and the USA. This new balance of power in the UN was not in general in favour of radical action on sustainable development. The poorer countries of the South were on the whole interested above all in the traditional development agenda of poverty eradication and the help they need from the North to achieve development goals; while the emerging economies are very reluctant to contemplate any binding commitments on restraining unsustainable production and consumption while they regard themselves as having a lot of development still to do, and while for the most part the more fully developed countries have made such modest progress themselves.

5. Against this global background it would have been unrealistic for the UK to set itself vastly more ambitious goals for the Rio negotiations which would never have got off the ground. Stakeholder Forum does believe however that the UK does retain a significant degree of influence on Sustainable Development issues both within Europe and within the UN as a whole, and that it limited its objectives for the Rio process too narrowly too soon. With more determined leadership running across the whole of the UK Government it could and should have achieved more.

6. More importantly for the future, Stakeholder Forum believes that there is much in the Outcome Document which needs to be followed up vigorously at home and abroad. We call for a new drive to advance sustainable development in the UK so as to implement the Rio conclusions domestically, and for co-ordinated action internationally to make sure that the new international initiatives launched at Rio are followed through vigorously and effectively in Europe and in the UN.

(C) Successes

7. There are numerous successes in both the Outcome Document and within the wider Rio+20 process to point to. These include, but are not limited to:

Paragraph 47—The corporate sustainability paragraph encourages interested governments and relevant stakeholders with support of the UN system to develop models for best practice and facilitate action for the integration of sustainability reporting in companies’ reporting cycle. The four countries of Brazil, Denmark, France and South Africa along with partners have established a “Friends of Paragraph 47” to take forward this mandate and improve levels of companies’ reporting on sustainability impacts.

Paragraphs 56–74—The Green Economy section covered a range of issues including developing knowledge sharing mechanisms, participation in decision making related to developing green economy policies, and basing policies on the already agreed Rio Principles. An acknowledgement that the global economy is comprised of numerous national economies and that a variety of approaches need to be pursued to determine and establish the most suitable policies to underpin green economic practices. Significantly it was agreed that green economies are drivers to deliver sustainable development and that green economic growth must be inclusive. There was also agreement to develop a programme of work to develop policies around the “beyond GDP” concept and existing practices.

Paragraphs 84–86—Rio+20 called for the establishment of a universal intergovernmental high-level political forum (HLPF) which builds on the strengths, experiences, resources and inclusive participation modalities of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). The HLPF, which is due to meet for the first time in September 2013, will subsequently replace the CSD, which most stakeholders agree has become ineffectual.

Paragraph 88–90—Governments committed to strengthen the role of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) through reform. Specifically Rio+20 called for establishing universal membership for UNEP within its Governing Council (from the current membership of 58 countries), as well as securing increased and stable funding and enhancing UNEP’s voice to fulfil its coordinating role to across the UN system on environmental issues.

Paragraph 121—While the language in this paragraph reaffirms previous commitments to the human right to water and sanitation; these previous commitments were not universally agreed. However, in the Rio+20 process, the last holdouts against affirming the right to water and sanitation (Canada and the UK respectively) moved forward to come into line of affirmation for these rights. Therefore, Rio+20 accomplished what other intergovernmental process were unable to achieve.

Paragraph 226—Rio+20 has formally adopted the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production (10YFP on SCP) and called on the General Assembly to fully operationalise the framework.

Paragraphs 245–251—This section establishes a further intergovernmental process (but no themes) to develop Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) framework. This is arguably the most significant outcome of Rio+20. However, Rio+20 emphasised the importance of the MDGs, and stated that the SDGs should not divert efforts away from the achievement of the MDGs.

Paragraph 255—Similar to the SDGs, Rio+20 agreed to establish another intergovernmental process to propose options on an effective sustainable development financing strategy to facilitate the mobilisation of resources and their effective use in achieving sustainable development objectives.

Paragraphs 48, 76, 85, 88, 204 and 276—There was a clear call throughout the Rio+20 Outcome Document to strengthen the science-policy interface in order to facilitate better informed policy decision-making based on sound science and a proper evidence base.

Paragraphs 42–55—Throughout the Rio+20 Outcome Document and in the negotiations generally there is good language on the importance of participation and stakeholder engagement. This builds on the outcomes of Rio ‘92, and even the Rio+20 process represents improved access and participation of the nine Major Groups. However, there is still much that can be improved. This now needs to be meaningfully applied to the processes flowing from Rio+20. This includes developing specific architecture and modalities to create formal and informal mechanisms for multi-stakeholder governance.

8. In addition there were numerous informal processes which contributed to the formal Rio+20 negotiations. These include, but are not limited to:

GLOBE International’s World Summit of Legislators—300 Legislators from 86 countries agreed that a formal process should be established to scrutinise and monitor governments on the delivery of the Rio agenda as well as supporting them to advance relevant legislation.

Peoples’ Summit—a parallel event used to provide a space for alternative discussions and ideas on sustainable development.

World Congress on Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability—a symposium with the corpus of environmental law and governance decision-makers to improve the effective implementation of environmental commitments, including MEAs.

Global Network of National Councils for Sustainable Development—a mechanism for the highest national level bodies on sustainable development to share best practice and collaborate on regional programmes.

Natural Capital Accounting—a World Bank project saw over 50 countries and 86 private companies agree to integrate the value of natural assets such as clean air, clean water, forests and other ecosystems into decision making and national accounting processes.

People’s Sustainability Treaties—a series of independent collective agreements produced by people in parallel to the official Rio+20 conference.

Planetary Boundaries—a concept widely adopted by media, stakeholders and the United Nations on the 9 Earth system processes that need to be protected to ensure basic human rights.

Social Foundation—Oxfam has added to the planetary boundaries by adding a social foundation into what is now called the Oxfam Doughnut. And by doing so the Doughnut defines the space between the boundary and the foundation as the safe and just operating space for humanity. The conceptual framework will enable an ongoing discussion and framing for the SDGs. See below for diagram of the Oxfam Doughnut.1

(D) Failures

9. While the successes of Rio+20 are important and numerous, its failures are quite stark. The perennially intractable issues around sustainable development remain unresolved. These include, but are not limited to:

Water and Sanitation—Despite the success noted above, the language on the right to water and sanitation is vague and evasive, and does not highlight the breakthrough achieved. The text reaffirms commitments which are not universally agreed, rather than affirming the right itself.

Population—The right to reproductive health was removed due to effective lobbying from some quarters in the latter stages of the process. Given the known demographic trends for the next 50 years, providing access to family planning services will be more important than ever.

Subsidies—Despite 20 years of talking about perverse subsidies, Rio+20 failed to develop an action plan for eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies (such as fossil fuels). The amount spent on these subsidies would go far in providing the financing needed for the transition to a more sustainable world.

Implementation—The entire section on the means of implementation (Section VI) remains weak and lacks specific measures and actions. This was partially due to a lack of preparation by the EU for the conference.

Environmental Limits—Despite much discussion about environmental limits and planetary boundaries in the Rio+20 negations and related side-events, there is no clear statement on the need to remain within environmental limits, thereby defining new pathways to inclusive growth.

High Commissioner/Ombudsperson for Future Generations—Despite many calls from all quarters (from stakeholders and governments alike) for the establishment of a UN High Commissioner for Future Generations this was not an agreed outcome of Rio+20. A High Commissioner for Future Generations would act as a mechanism to safeguard long-termism and the sustainable development needs of future generations at the global level. Furthermore, it would establish a key precedent to enable the establishment of a similar mechanism at national and local levels to drive long-term thinking in decision-making. However, the Secretary General has already to begin work to explore how to promote “intergenerational solidarity”.

Green Economy—Overall the green economy concept did not fare well at Rio+20. Many developing countries and Southern NGOs were distrustful of the concept as an initiative of the Global North put forward for reasons of environmental protection. Specifically, the perception was that the green economy was a concept to safeguard the development of the North from environmental crises that would arise from Southern countries developing in traditional ways. Furthermore, the ideal of a singular, global green economy also caused concern. The idea of one type of a prescriptive economy was felt to be condescending and instead the concepts should be termed “green economies”. This would allow for different local contexts to be taken into account in transitioning economies to a more sustainable footing.

10. Overall, there is a severe lack of specifics in the Outcome Document about how exactly we are going to deliver sustainable development, how it will be funded, what green economies actually are and what are their underpinning principles. Difficult though these discussions were it was an important step forward to recognise that management of national and global economies are a central part of managing the sustainability transition, and that in future this challenge will have to be taken up by Ministries of Finance and Economics, banks and other financial interests and not just left to environmentalists.

(E) The Role of the UK Government in Rio+20

11. Opportunities for the UK Government to promote sustainable development—In international negotiations of this kind the EU adopts common positions and speaks and negotiates as a bloc. Individual European countries such as the UK play their part by participating in the co-ordination of EU positions, and from time to time by promoting particular issues or policy ideas in side events or other ways. Much of this activity takes place behind closed doors so it is always difficult to be certain what part the UK does play in the formation and modification of EU positions or in the final last ditch negotiations. But to outside observers the UK did not appear on this occasion to be playing a very active or positive role, except on the two or three issues it had identified as key priorities.

12. Senior Leadership—Despite rhetoric of being a leader on sustainable development and professing the importance of the agenda, the UK never seemed to seriously consider that the Prime Minster himself should attend Rio+20 as John Major did in 1992, even though the Brazilian Government had very courteously altered the timetable of the whole event in order to make it possible for him to attend. In spite of the welcome presence of the Deputy Prime Minister this lack of leadership from the highest levels of the UK Government undoubtedly had a negative impact on the outcomes of Rio, as it undermined the importance and significance of the conference and set the tone for other senior leaders to also give Rio+20 a miss.

13. Cross-Whitehall coordination—Despite claims of cross-Whitehall coordination mechanisms for Rio+20, these mechanics were not transparent and did not appear to achieve the whole-Government commitment to advancing sustainable development that is crucial. DEFRA appeared to be largely left on its own to handle the process. This was particularly unhelpful in relation to the development aspects of the agenda where DFID appeared to wilfully cold shoulder the process, and to focus more on defending the existing MDG process rather than embracing the more forward-looking agenda of universal Sustainable Development Goals which Rio has now launched. Similarly the Treasury does not appear to have played a very active part in the development of the green economy agenda and the practical implications of this for the management of the UK economy as well as the development agenda. Neither Treasury nor DFID even attended the negotiations, though DFID was represented in Rio itself.

14. Engagement with UK stakeholders—The UK Government was helpful in scheduling a number of meetings with stakeholders at both official and Ministerial level. But it became clear from quite an early stage that the level of ambition for the process amongst governments around the world was not very high, and although UK stakeholders put forward a number of innovative ideas in the fields both of the green economy and on governance it soon became clear that the Government was merely listening politely to many of them rather than actively taking on board these proposals. Its negotiating energy remained confined to a few key issues, principally Sustainable Development Goals and corporate sustainability reporting.

15. Sustainability Reporting—The role of the UK Government has been inconsistent around this agenda. It has expressed support for corporate sustainability reporting in principle at some meetings with stakeholders, but it appeared to oppose regulation to advance this (as expressed in the proposal to have a report or explain approach) which rather undermined their support since the idea of establishing an international framework for reporting was the leading idea under discussion.

(G) Next Steps

16. To follow up the Rio+20 Conference the UN will set up an inter-governmental Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in late September 2012, comprised of 30 members. Member States will nominate these members from the five United Nations regional groups, with the aim of achieving fair, equitable, and balanced geographic representation. These proposed SDGs will be global in nature and universal in application (therefore covering both developing and developed countries alike). They will have set a framework for the next 15 years from 2015–30 in moving towards a more just, fair and sustainable world.

17. Related to this process, is the post-2015 development agenda process. As a part of the outcome of the 2010 MDG Summit it was agreed that work needed to be undertaken to inform the inter-governmental debate on the post-2015 UN development agenda. To undertake this task, the Secretary-General established a UN System Task Team on the post-2015 Development Agenda. The Task Team is led jointly by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and has been requested to lead system-wide preparations for the post-2015 UN development agenda with support from all UN agencies and in consultation with relevant stakeholders. A key component of this work will be an examination of the successes and shortcomings of the MDGs and how to build on this framework going forward after 2015.

18. The SDGs can offer a coherent vision for sustainable development and be an effective tool for addressing wider development challenges in a comprehensive manner. They can ultimately do so by capitalising on the successes and learning from the shortcomings of the entire MDGs process and integrating efforts with the ongoing process to develop a post-2015 development framework.

19. Determining a new development agenda must be an urgent priority for the international community. The key challenge in moving from post-Rio to post-2015 will be the further integration of the development and environment agendas; this is a challenge that has been formally recognised for over forty years beginning with the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972. The full and proper integration of the development agenda and the environment agenda is essentially sustainable development.

20. The ultimate aim over the next two and half years for the post-2015 and SDGs process must be to ensure that a single set of global goals which are action-oriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global in nature and universal in application are agreed in the year 2015. These goals must be based on principles of sustainable development, and they must integrate the SDG process with the post-2015 process. At the moment, there is a small but real risk that the next two years will cause a widening division between these two camps as issues of protectionism come to the fore.

21. As part of the post-2015 process, the Secretary-General has appointed a High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise him on the post-2015 UN development agenda. Prime Minister David Cameron has been asked to Co-Chair this High-Level Panel (along with President Yudhoyono of Indonesia and President Sirleaf of Liberia). This should mean that the UK is in an excellent position to shape the post-2015 development agenda. However, given the current UK Government’s attitude towards sustainable development goals, it remains to be seen whether or not this is a positive situation.

22. To enable governments to make the best informed decisions it is critical that stakeholder views are taken into account. As the SDGs OWG and the post-2015 High-Level Panel undertake their deliberations, steps must also be taken to ensure the effective involvement and engagement of stakeholders. Inclusive participation will mean that all concerned constituencies will be enabled to make substantive input to the UN processes starting in October 2012. Currently there is a lack of formal or informal mechanisms for stakeholder engagement directly with either the OWG or the High-Level Panel.

23. Similarly, the new High-Level Political Forum announced at Rio+20 (Paragraphs 84–86) also needs a governance architecture which will include the right participants (eg Ministries of Finance and Economics and well as Ministries of the Environment), and the right modalities for stakeholder participation.

(E) Implementation

24. Countries must “take Rio home” with them and focus on national delivery plans. That is the level that implementation will actually happen. But there must be alignment between global goals and local action. As resources for sustainable development are scarce, the need to be both effective and efficient is greater than ever. Each country will want to approach this task in its own way. But some key elements will need to be addressed everywhere. At the national and local levels we must now:

Improve government and legislative machinery for sustainable development;

Model new and better processes for engaging civil society and Major Groups in the sustainability transition;

Create or renew national sustainable development strategies or frameworks in the light of the Rio outcomes, including in particular the new global SDGs;

Review policies and programmes in the light of the Rio outcomes, including the application of green economy principles and instruments; and

Deliver formal and informal education and training for sustainable development.

25. These will be key challenges for the UK, which currently has neither a full and up to date sustainable development strategy nor a national sustainable development council. There have so far been no indications in Rio or in follow-up meetings that the UK Government will pursue either initiative despite the clear call in the Rio+20 Outcome Document for both (Paragraphs 98 and 101 respectively).

(H) Conclusion

26. Ultimately, Rio+20 has delivered a series of loosely connected small steps. It has not delivered the giant, coordinated leap to the future that was called for, nor the one that was needed.

27. While Rio+20 has given sustainable development new hooks from which to hang future work, it is more clear than ever that time is not on our side. We are sitting on an ecological and social time bomb, and many opportunities to progress sustainability were missed in Rio.

28. The post-Rio to post-2015 period will require many substantial decisions to be made in a short space of time. Decisions taken under a multi-stakeholder approach will both draw on as large a pool of expertise as possible and will have buy-in from stakeholders in the outcomes. Furthermore, all outcomes from the next two years need to work to integrate the development and environment agendas into a cohesive narrative. From this a single set of clearly defined global goals and ambitions can outline the key priorities in moving toward a common, equitable and sustainable future.

29. The UK and the UK Government ought to have a key role to play in these future processes relating to sustainable development at the national and international level. But they will need strong encouragement and pressure from stakeholders and strong scrutiny from Parliament to help them make the most of these opportunities.

28 August 2012