Rich countries concede on green economy; stalemate on finance,
technology continue
Ajay K Jha, 17th June,
Rio de Janeiro
United Nations Sustainable
Development Summit, billed as biggest event on environment and sustainable
development in Rio de Janeiro, which was also the venue of historic Earth
Summit in 1992 is witnessing stiff resistance from the developed countries. The
Summit, which began on 13th June with the aspiration of renewing
political commitment to sustainable development is plagued by the differences
between developed and developing countries over a number of issues. With only
few days remaining before the high level forum from 20th to 22nd
June, when more than 150 heads of the state for final declaration on the
outcome of the summit, differences remain not only on language of the outcome
document titled “the future we want” but also on fundamental and major issues
such as reaffirming commitment to Rio principles laid down by the world earth
summit in 1992, vision, finance, technology transfer, and sustainable
development goals. The differences also plague negotiations on green economy
and institutional framework for sustainable development, two themes of the
Summit.
 |
| Rio Centro: Ground Zero of the Negotiations at Rio+20 (Google Images) |
Several rounds of negotiations
leading to the Summit have failed to bring a convergence, and many feel that it
might ultimately prove a damp squib with no real and effective outcome to
support sustainable consumption and production leading to sustainable
development. United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Ban ki Moon, speaking at the
inaugural Plenary termed the Summit as the once in a life time opportunity and
urged the delegates to “make the most of time” in coming to an effective
outcome. He also said that “launching the sustainable development goals and
improving institutional framework on sustainable development” should be two
objectives that the countries should work to achieve.
However, the negotiations till
now do not show the promise of resolution of conflicts, which have become
deeply entrenched on north south lines. While the developing a poor countries
many of them entrenched in poverty, and lacking resources and technology to
devise green development pathways insist that developed countries should lead
the way in providing finance, technology and capacity building on the basis of
common but differentiated responsibility, a key principle for international
development cooperation as laid down in the Rio Earth Summit. They also insist
that developed countries fulfill their previous promise of providing 0.7% of
their GNP to developing and poor countries. However, rich countries say that
Rio+20 is not a “pledging event” and that world has changed dramatically from
1992 and developing countries should “look forward rather than looking
backwards.” Their common refrain is developing countries should take equal
responsibility.
 |
| Discussions in Progress: Rio+20 (Google Images) |
Very little has been achieved in
the initial three days of negotiations in the third prepCom. A breakthrough of
sorts was arrived when developed countries conceded on language of the green
economy and agreed to use the “green economy policies” rather than “a green
economy.” G77 insists that there cannot be universally applicable definition of
“green economy,” which will be subject to circumstances of the particular
country, and therefore, they should be allowed to define it according to their
needs and priorities. However, major differences still remain on provision of
finance and technology transfer, and the sustainable development goals. The US
and the Canada, outrightly refuse to respect previous commitments regarding
increase in the overseas development assistance (ODA), as they never agreed to
it. On new and additional finance, rich countries say that finance has to come
from south south collaboration, FDI, and the markets. Financial support from
IFIs and UN systems is also not an option for rich countries. G77 insists that
“global solutions will have to be supported internationally.” Similarly,
technology transfer is also a much hated word for the developed countries, and
many of them including the US. The EU, Australia, New Zealand and Canada want
to replace technology transfer with “technology development and innovation.” They
also insist that language on technology transfer be changed to “technology
transfer voluntarily or on mutually agreed terms. They also want to remove any
references to IPR, patent rights held by rich countries for green technologies,
are major handicap in transfer and effective use of technology in developing
and poor countries alleges G77.
The delegates are wondering what
will be the form of discussion and negotiation, after the end of the PrepCom.
They also wonder whether the same level of transparency will be maintained
henceforth towards the final negotiation and outcome. All await the new text
that Brazillian govt. chair the Summit
has promised. The lull in the negotiations also reflect that uncertainty about
the future of the planet and the environments.
End of
message
Comments and feedback are welcome
at k.ajay.j@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment