by Kennedy Graham
The fat draft has come out of the final Prepcom and is going before the Conference. It runs to 287 paragraphs. Most brackets are removed, with paragraphs approved ad referendum. Yet there remains work still to be done.
I shall assist by scrutinising some of the objections advanced by the United States of America, as outlined in the penultimate draft of 2 June. Most of these appear to be resolved, but it is worth noting since it depicts the nature of UN negotiating. I shall do the same later for New Zealand. Just that, the US has a slightly higher profile…
The conceptual framework of the draft declaration is clear enough. We have a common vision. We are renewing our commitment (from ’92). We contemplate (= argue over) the green economy. We consider ways of strengthening institutional capacity. And we adopt a framework of action and its means of implementation. At least, that’s the flow of logic.
A number of new proposals were incorporated in the 2 June draft, mainly by the global South. The US opposed many and proposed their deletion. These included the following:
1. Sustainable development principles: The 2012 declaration would recall the 27 principles contained in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. All countries signed up in ’92, including the US. The US opposed the suggestion of recalling those principles.
2. Equity: In particular, the declaration would recall the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ and the principle of equity. The US opposed this.
3. Non-regression: The declaration acknowledges that since 1992 there have been areas of insufficient progress and setbacks that have threatened our ability to achieve sustainable development”. A new insertion would regard it as ‘critical’ that we “observe the principle of non-regression”. The US opposed this and wanted it deleted.
4. Financial reform: A new suggestion was to recognise that the current major challenge for developing countries is the impact of multiple crises, particularly the on-going economic and financial crisis, as a result of the deficiency of the international financial system. States would reaffirm the urgent need to deepen the reform of the global financial system. The US wanted that deleted.
5. Climate change; The draft would now acknowledge that climate change is a cross-cutting and persistent crisis and express the concern that the scale and gravity of the negative impacts of climate change affect all countries. This was proposed by the EU. The US wanted it deleted.
6. Civil society: The draft would enhance the participation and effective engagement of civil society. The US accepted that. There was an EU proposal to ensure this by “granting civil society representatives an enhanced consultative status in order to secure effective consultative processes and better use of their expertise”. The US opposed that.
7. Migration: The text acknowledges the link between international migration and development. It calls for protection of human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status. The US wanted this deleted.
8. Small island states: The text calls for a 3rd International Conference for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States in 2014. It asks the UN General Assembly to proceed with this. The US opposed and wanted deletion of any reference to that.
9. Sustainable consumption and production: The text reaffirms that this is one of the overarching objectives of sustainable development. The EU proposed that “we therefore commit to change unsustainable consumption and production patterns and eventually reach an absolute decoupling of economic growth from natural resource use”. The US opposed that addition.
10. Technology: The text would have UN agencies disseminate clean technologies while bearing in mind consistency with the intellectual property rights regime. The US opposed.
This is not a beat-up on the US. Other countries opposed insertions. Often Japan, South Korea and others joined the US. But it is to critique of the US in particular, which consistently led opposition to global proposals of the kind above, often standing alone.
It is easy to be obstructive at UN conferences, even destructive. When 190+ ‘sovereign states’ assemble in a diplomatic gaggle to critically scrutinise a global draft addressing global problems, and advance that criticism from an obsolescent mind-set reflecting competitive and narrow national self-interest, it is easy to bring the tent-pole down. One entrenched objective from a major player is usually sufficient for a proposal to be deleted.
We need a better system of global governance than this.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Kennedy Graham on Tue, June 19th, 2012
Tags: 2 june draft, civil society, climate change, equity, financial reform, migration, non-regression, rio+20, small-island states, sustainable consumption, sustainable development principles, sustainable production, technology, zero draft
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Didn’t you know that AGW is not happening? The US Government has legislated against it!
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
When we see the word “Global Governance” we need to ask ourselves just what that means.
Is that a democratic governance system? Or are we talking global taxation without representation?
The future we want to avoid is global governance and global taxation.
For one is to provide the other and shackle individual freedoms even futher.
Please Greens explain how we get a vote in the “Global Governance” alliance that wants to tax and tax and tax.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300537/call-global-tax-jacob-mchangama
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/4/taxation-goes-global/
Just what exactly are the Greens on about when raising the issue of “Global Governance”?
Care to explain? anyone?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Do these two wingnuts have nothing better to do than put crackpot comments on Kennedy’s posts?
No wonder Barack Obama is not going to Rio. He would end up looking far more compromised than George Bush the senior.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Thanks for keeping us informed, Kennedy. It certainly sheds a different light on the US status as “defender of the free world”. It obviously is no reference to human rights but free and open markets for American corporates and the maintenance of the consumer society. The protection of our global environment is an impediment and barrier to all that feeds and sustains the American way of life.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Gerrit
Please CLOSELY parse the difference between “global governance” which is whatever we happen to be using for controlling ourselves on a planet wide basis, and “global government” which would be a particular way of accomplishing that governance.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
BJ,
While I recognise the difference, governance leads to government.
With UN proposed global taxation regimes, how long before governance becomes government?
mrfebruary,
Care to address the issues or just a crackpot wingnut yourself?.
You sound perfectly happy with global governance, I’m not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
As for a global “financial transaction tax” I reckon it unnecessary IF countries were to adopt actual money as their currency. In the current environment, it appears to be a good idea. Every other thing in the world moves at the speed of an Aircraft, or a Ship or a Truck or people trudging miserably to and fro. The monetary system moves at lightspeed to manage money, maximizing profits – and misery – around the world. There is a need for some impedance , a requirement for some COST to the practices of high-speed trading, front-running by fractions of a second and making money in that arbitrage. Investors need to be investing, not gambling, and right now they are gambling with the house odds strongly biased in their favor.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
How long before the European union becomes the European UNION?
Gerrit… I accept your point, that governance will eventually evolve into government of some sort. The loosely knit arrangement existing at present permits and encourages a wide range of inequalities and exploitations… with the UN protesting vociferously – and futilely – all the way.
When however, we get ourselves wedged into a planet sized crack as we have with climate change, we need something that is just a wee bit more potent than that coffee klatsch and debate society… better governance.
That it wouldn’t hurt in the area of nuclear non-proliferation isn’t a lost notion either.
Worse I think, from your perspective, is that it is almost an inevitable consequence (or requirement) for more long-term human survival. Not sure on that last.
Maybe our survival is best managed by strengthening our Navy and getting a reputation for being EXTREMELY mean and sinking refugees at sea. We’re headed in the direction of needing THAT I fear, and that is not going to be something we can accept at all. We’ll in all probability, die instead. That IS the place where a lack of governance leads us.
You sure you want to choose that path?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
It is no wonder the US opposed many of the taxts.
What in the heck is
all about.
Talk about vague.
Would be interesting to see a list of texts the US did agree to.
And even more interesting would be to see the texts relating to population decrease initiatives.
For to stop natural resource depletion requires limiting the human load bearing capacity of the ecosystem.
Any talk on that scale??
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
BJ,
Humans will survive, just not on the scale currently enjoyed (as in numbers not economic or environmental enjoyment).
Problem I see for world governance is lack of democracy. You will end up with a UN with infinte power over the people.
Do you want that?
Now the UN in the past has done many good things (SOLAS for one) but those were gained through common sense, logic and everyones voluntery agreement.
All saw a problem and fixed it.
When I read the report above I look at wishy washy rhetoric without any common sense logic.
If the UN were to say ban coal burning as a way to
How will that be enforced if China gives it the single digit salute?
How will it stop a cold Invercargil pensioner putting a lump of coal on the fire?
The UN cant do it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Some form of global agreement/Governance is required to mitigate AGW.
And we cannot have a sustainable world without a finance system that does not depend on constant growth.
It is obvious that the ability for a couple of countries, to veto any attempts at effective response, may yet kill us all.
This is more serious than the world financial system, but, the same people who oppose global rules and responses to AGW are the ones who support the global Governance of the IMF and the “free trade” lobby.
TPP, IMF and other international agreements have far more adverse effects on our democratic sovereignty, and social health, than an agreement to take necessary steps towards a sustainable world.
I was being sarcastic above, but, it is true that, the official US response to AGW is the same as King Canute’s courtiers.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Gerrit.
SOLAS is not always voluntary. It becomes international law when a set proportion of signatories sign up. Majority rule.
NZ was one of the countries that opposed the new IMO rest hour requirements, for example, (Shows how serious the NZ Government really is about shipping safety) and very reluctantly signed up at the last minute.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The problem with many other international responses is that a few powerful rogue nations, like the US, have the power of veto.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Kerry,
SOLAS came about after the Titanic disaster and while voluntary, you cannot get shipping insurance without using compliant ships.
Not majority rule as such but more the commercially imperative option.
Totally agree the IMF is a waste of space and most right wingers are not actually supporters of the organisation.
Finance and the financial traders are a cabal not even close to right wing ideologies. Useful tools for those who want global government control.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Kerry
We have that (“a finance system that does not depend on constant growth”) but it is still stuffed.
What is wrong with our finance system is incentives and regulatory environments that lead to concentration of wealth.
The fact that the extra costs incurred by financial engineering actually do *nothing* to increase productivity (which decouples growth and resource usage) is part of the problem. If the financial system did depend on growth and generated it then we would not have the problems we have, now. We would have different problems tomorrow.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
I think that the future looks a little darker when it comes to youth and the change to get a secure job and have to posibility to pay for a house. I think things will change in the next years but I`m curios how this will change
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)