As in Copenhagen, the last weekend before the arrival of Heads of State and Government, the final document for Rio +20, The Future We Want, still had many loopholes and unanswered questions. Brazil then took further negotiations in hand, speeding up the tempo and offering to agree on a less ambitious document.
Now that the final document has been adopted, we can assert that, alas, we will again have to be satisfied with a non-binding text that attempts to satisfy all. Is the green economy then simply the new alibi of a breakneck growth? Or will we, alternatively, develop a more efficient environmental governance to overcome the outdated approach of "common but differentiated responsibility" which in fact allows China and the emerging countries to avoid their responsibility? How do we succeed in achieving a more equitable transfer of technology that is respectful of intellectual property rights? Everyone agrees about the goals: eradicating poverty, increasing the access to clean water, food security, ocean governance, protection of ecosystem resilience (not just resilience as disaster management), etc. Unfortunately, no one agrees about the means to achieve these goals, and for the moment, The Future We Don’t Care About is a more suitable title than the one chosen by the United Nations Organization.
Far from the Rio Centro and the Athletes’ Park – where the national pavilions were welcoming many companies and prestigious guests – there is the heart of Rio’s city, with the tremendous People’s Summit which takes place in Flamengo Park, where the assemblies of NGOs are self-managed. All topics are allowed to be put to the table: dignity of labor, gender equality, education, the fight against deforestation, recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, territories and new technologies of the future, construction of wells, septic tanks, etc. What is striking about this summit is the desire to circulate environmental information, the pedagogy to explain to people the dangers of our ways of consumption and production, and particularly the teaching of existing alternatives. In sum: pragmatism and the refusal of fatality. What's striking is a civil society willing to change, to invent. Who does not see in all these new ways of life a regression or rejection of progress ?
At the botanical garden of Rio, lawyers from around the world held a meeting to reflect upon the possibility of an international environmental court, as well as a World Environment Organization, and the non-regression principle or the inviolability of decisions favorable to the environment. How are we to protect areas beyond national jurisdiction? Many advocate the establishment of a global convention on environmental assessments and impact studies, a legal status for environmental refugees, or a convention on the safety and sustainable use of soil.
The international trade union confederation, too, produced a joint project and recognized the human right to social protection. 105 science academies called for a fight against overconsumption and for the regulation of population growth. "The quality of the natural environment and ecosystem health are essential to human welfare" (Nussbaum, 2012). It is in fact impossible to separate people's capabilities – namely, the freedom to choose, which can lead to a particular functioning; Sen points out that a fasting person and another starving have the same type of functioning but not the same capability – and those of future generations from environmental issues. Yet, despite all these "capabilities", the rise of environmental awareness, and the expertise of civil society from NGOs to scientists through the media, the Rio Summit may have demonstrated even more clearly States’ refusal to invent a new model for sustainable development.
Cynthia Fleury, an author and professor in political philosophy at The American University of Paris, participated in Rio+20, and wrote this opinion for Al-Bia Wal-Tanmia.