Countries fail to agree on draft text for sustainable development goals and definition of key objectives including green economy
The Rio+ 20 Earth summit could collapse after countries failed to agree on acceptable language just two weeks before 120 world leaders arrive at the biggest UN summit ever organised, WWF warned on Wednesday.
An extra week given over to the UN’s preparatory negotiations in New York fell into disarray over the weekend as talks aimed to bring countries together to set a new path for sustainable development splintered into 19 separate dialogues with major internal disagreements on the processes to be followed.
“We are facing two likely scenarios – an agreement so weak it is meaningless, or complete collapse. Neither of these options would give the world what it needs. Country positions are still too entrenched and too far apart to provide a meaningful draft agreement for approval by an expected 120 heads of state”, said WWF director general Jim Leape.
Countries are not being asked by the UN to legally commit themselves to anything, but only to sign up to an aspirational “roadmap” contained in a document called “the future we want” and to a commitment to the so-called ‘green economy’ of jobs generated from industries such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. It is hoped that they will also agree to introduce by 2015 a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) similar in ambition to the millennium development goals which covered areas like HIV reduction and clean water provision. The SDGs could cover areas such as energy, water and food.
However, in a repeat of battles played out in global climate and trade talks, they have fought bitterly over every comma and phrase in the prepartory meetings and in particular are still deeply divided over the definition and scope of the phrase “green economy”. They are now expected to take several years to identify, formulate and agree on the goals.
According to both WWF and Malaysia-based NGO Third World Network, the most recent draft text put forward in New York was a “significant weakening” of previous drafts, particularly in the areas of valuing natural wealth and ocean protection.
One of the first steps in developing *ANY* field of endeavor is to settle on definitions of the basic concepts. Until that is accomplished there can be no useful communication, let alone exchange and development of ideas.
It’s all in the Science of Semantics. Until then the participants only *think* they know what they are talking about, but nobody else can understand them because everyone is working with different ideas that are passing around under the same name. This is the intellectual trap of equivocation.
A study of the works of S.I Hayakawa would be instructional.
Fortunately for the rest of us, the environmentalist “game” has attracted so many participants that the equivocations appear early on, before the horrendously wasteful policies can be implemented.
Speaking of semantics. Do you not warn of impending danger or hazard? The weather man would warn you that a hurricane will hit the beach this weekend; he would not warn you that the beach weather will be warm and sunny. The collapse of the Rio +20 Earth Summit would be a good thing that would benefit all of us. Warning seems to be an inappropriate word here.
The most useful outcome of Rio+20 is total collapse and disarray. Any deal predicated on a lie is no better than the lie itself. It is small wonder that 120 nations can not come to any form of agreement. We cant get representatives within this country to come together and agree on anything.
I totally agree with the concept of being a good steward of the earths resources, but I dont need our government telling me how to do it never mind the entire world.
Even if Rio+20 ends in disarray, Agenda 21 is alive and proceeding apace.