research for a fairer world

Rio+20:What might it mean forinternational development?

Backgrounder

by Kate Higgins and Helen J. Chenard

The views expressed in this research paper are the authors’ alone and are not necessarily the views of The North South Institute or the funders of this research project.

June 2012

i

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. ii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................iii

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

2. The Road(s) to Rio+20 ......................................................................................................... 1

3. Priorities and Process ......................................................................................................... 3

3.1. Priorities .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.2. Process ............................................................................................................................... 4

4. Key Issues and Potential Outcomes ................................................................................... 7

4.1. A common vision and renewed political commitment to sustainable development............... 7

4.2. The green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication ..... 8

4.3. Institutional framework for sustainable development ........................................................... 9

4.4. Specific issue areas of focus ..............................................................................................10

4.5. Sustainable Development Goals: A concrete deliverable that merges the development and environment agendas? ..............................................................................................................10

4.6. Means of implementation ...................................................................................................14

5. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................14

6. References...........................................................................................................................15

ii

Acknowledgements This Backgrounder was written by Kate Higgins, Theme Leader of the Governance for Equitable Growth program at The North-South Institute and Helen J. Chenard, an independent development and sustainability consultant. The North-South Institute thanks the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for its core grant and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) for its program and institutional support grant. This paper does not reflect the views or opinions of The North-South Institute, its Board of Directors, CIDA, IDRC or anyone consulted in its preparation. The authors would like to thank reviewers, in particular Jennifer Salahub and Rodney Schmidt, for useful and insightful comments on earlier drafts, and Michael Olender, for copy editing. Any errors and omissions are our own. The North-South Institute (NSI) is Canada’s oldest independent policy research institution specializing in effective international development. At NSI we focus on identifying policies and practices that reduce poverty and global inequalities and thereby contribute to the creation of a more prosperous and stable global community.

iii

Executive Summary The context: Twenty years since the first historic Earth Summit World leaders will gather in Rio de Janeiro on 20–22 June 2012 for the United Nations (UN) Conference on Sustainable Development, better known as Rio+20. The conference will mark the 20th anniversary of the historic first Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The 1992 summit was attended by over 100 heads of state, including then Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney and then US president George H. W. Bush. It was a significant UN conference that raised expectations about the world’s capacity to solve pressing global issues and build a more sustainable future. Commitments made at the Earth Summit demonstrated broad consensus around the need to integrate action on the environment, the economy, and society to promote sustainable development and tackle global poverty. But the 1990s and 2000s saw the separation, rather than integration, of the international development and environment agendas. On the international development front, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers were implemented and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were established. These processes and goals had a strong focus on poverty reduction and social development, but paid little attention to the environment. On the environment, there was significant progress on a number of key issues, such as ozone through the Montreal Protocol and climate change through the Kyoto Protocol, with limited engagement from the international development community. The lead-up to Rio+20: A distinct lack of urgency The wheels for Rio+20 were formally set in motion with the adoption of Resolution 64/236 on 24 December 2009 at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly. The Government of Canada has been engaged in the preparatory process through a national proposal submitted to the Rio+20 Secretariat and participation in consultations and negotiations. The official Canadian delegation has not yet been announced. Alberta and Quebec, and a number of Canadian civil society organizations, are sending delegations. These organizations have criticized the Canadian government for lack of civil society engagement in the lead-up to the conference. Expectations for Rio+20 are low. Following the suboptimal outcome at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, many governments are approaching the negotiations with caution. The first Preparatory Committee meeting for the conference was in May 2010 and the zero draft of the outcome document was released on 10 January 2012. Due to lack of progress in negotiating the text during the preparatory process, a third round of “informal informal” negotiations was held in New York from 29 May–2 June 2012. Limited progress was made during this round and there is widespread concern about the amount of text left to be negotiated at Rio+20. US President Barack Obama will not attend the conference, which has implications for its status and significance. A number of groups, such as the Elders, have expressed their disappointment with the lack of urgency demonstrated in the lead-up to Rio+20.

iv

Rio+20 priorities: Support for the green economy and an enhanced institutional framework Priorities include securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development, supporting the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and enhancing the institutional framework for sustainable development.

On securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development, contentious issues in preparatory negotiations include the focus on the environment at the expense of poverty eradication, the recognition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a foundational document, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and the importance of reaffirming existing aid commitments.

On the green economy, the European Union has been a strong supporter of the green economy approach, while the Group of 77 and China have stressed that it is only one of several approaches to achieving sustainable development and poverty eradication. The latter have also affirmed states’ sovereign right to exploit their own natural resources and argued that developed countries should take the lead on changing consumption and production patterns.

On the institutional framework for sustainable development, while there is broad agreement around the need for the institutional framework to be strengthened, at this late stage there are a number of outstanding issues, including whether the UN Environment Programme should be strengthened through universal membership of its Governing Council or transformed into a specialized UN agency.

A potential concrete outcome: Sustainable Development Goals as a “tangible win” and a vehicle for bringing the international development and environment agendas back together Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have received considerable attention in the lead-up to Rio+20, not least because they have the potential to be a “tangible win.” These would be measureable targets against which to track global progress on sustainable development – similar to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which are set to expire in 2015. Critical in negotiations are which issues these new goals will cover, which countries will be required to take action, and how the SDGs and post-MDG framework will fit together. From an international development perspective, regardless of how much progress is made on committing to specific agreements and outcomes, Rio+20 has the potential to represent a remerging of the international development and environment agendas. The most concrete way this is happening is through the SDGs. Moving forward, it seems inevitable that environment issues will become more prominent in international development. The environment will again have traction in international development policy and discourse and influence how international development is framed in the years leading up to 2015 and beyond.

1

1. Introduction

World leaders will gather in Rio de Janeiro on 20–22 June 2012 for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), a conference better known as Rio+20. The conference will mark the 20th anniversary of the historic first Earth Summit, formally the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The United Nations (UN) is billing Rio+20 as another “historic opportunity” for leaders, international institutions, civil society, industry, and the scientific community to come together “to define pathways to a safer, more equitable, cleaner, greener and more prosperous world” (UNCSD 2012). United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has stated, “Rio+20 will be one of the most important global meetings on sustainable development in our time” (UNSG 2011). In the lead-up to the conference, this Backgrounder examines the objectives, priorities, and potential outcomes of the conference. The analysis seeks to examine what Rio+20 might mean for international development. The positions of the Government of Canada and Canadian civil society in the Rio+20 processes receive particular attention. Following this introduction, section 2 briefly outlines the road(s) to Rio+20 and highlights key events and junctures in the global politics of sustainable development, the environment, and international development. Section 3 elaborates on the priorities of Rio+20 and the process for generating outcomes. Section 4 analyzes the central issues to be covered at the upcoming conference, including green growth, the institutional framework for sustainable development, and the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Section 5 concludes, arguing that Rio+20 has the potential to represent a remerging of the international development and environment agendas. The intended audience for this Backgrounder is policy, industry, and civil society actors in Canada and across the globe who are not intimately involved in the Rio+20 process but realize its relevance and potential importance in how international development will be framed in the years to come.

2. The Road(s) to Rio+20

The road to Rio+20 has been long. A number of conferences, declarations, and agreements over several decades led to a series of Earth Summits where developed and developing countries debated solutions to pressing international problems. Indeed, there have been at least three connected, roads that have led to Rio+20: sustainable development, environment, and international development. Many observers would argue that the road to Rio+20 started with the UN’s first major environmental conference, the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. Following this was the World Commission on Environment and Development, better known as the Brundtland Commission, established in 1983 by the UN General Assembly as an independent commission to formulate a long-term agenda for action on the environment and international development. In 1987, this commission released Our Common Future, a report that

2

stressed the limits of the ecosystem and the link between the environment and development (IISD 2012a, 2). The Earth Summit in 1992 was attended by over 100 heads of state and government, including Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney, representatives from 178 countries, and some 17,000 participants. It was a significant conference for the UN that raised expectations about the world’s capacity to solve pressing global issues and build a more sustainable future. As Fred Pearce (2012) recalled: “Back in 1992, more than 100 world leaders, including George H. W. Bush, showed up for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It was a two-week mega-event that attracted huge attention, highlighted by the signing of two ground breaking treaties on climate change and biodiversity and grand declarations about creating a future green and equitable world.” Perhaps the most notable outcome of the conference was Agenda 21, a blueprint for rethinking economic growth, advancing social equity, and ensuring environmental protection (UN 1993). It is a 40-chapter program of action, which includes detailed goals, responsibilities, work plans, and funding estimates to implement sustainable development internationally. It also calls for the creation of a Commission on Sustainable Development to support international co-operation, coordinate action within the United Nations system, and assess progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 at local, national, regional, and international levels. Out of the Earth Summit also came the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which comprises the 27 principles that have come to be known as the Rio Principles. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity were also opened for signature (IISD 2012a, 2). Since the first Earth Summit, there have been two international multilateral meetings reviewing its progress, Earth Summit+5 in New York in 1997, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002. These conferences sat squarely on the “sustainable development” road. They demonstrated broad consensus on the need to integrate action on the environment, the economy, and society, which came to be known as the pillars of sustainable development. As Simon Maxwell (2011) argued, while the conferences were “more influential in environment circles than development circles,” they represented international recognition of the intersection and inseparability of the sustainable development pillars, and a recognition that integrated progress on all fronts could result in sustainable growth, environmental protection and poverty reduction. The 1990s and 2000s saw the separation, rather than integration, of the environmental, economic, and social pillars, however, and a divergence of the sustainable development, international development and environment agendas. On the environment, there was significant progress on a number of key issues, such as ozone through the Montreal Protocol and climate change through the Kyoto Protocol, with limited engagement from the international development community.1 On the international development front, International Development Goals were agreed in 1996, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers were implemented across developing countries, and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were established in 2002 following the UN General

1 The Montreal Protocol was opened for signature on 16 September 1987 and entered into force

in 1 January 1989. It was revised at a number of points during the 1990s. The Kyoto Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. 2 See Hulme (2009) for a thorough discussion of the evolution of the International Development

3

Assembly’s adoption of the Millennium Declaration.2 These goals and processes had a strong focus on poverty reduction and social development in developing countries; the environment was largely sidelined. Accompanying the focus on poverty reduction was the financing for development agenda, which was supported by two major conferences, in Monterrey in 2002 and Doha in 2008, and a series of high-level fora on aid effectiveness in Rome, Paris, Accra, and, most recently, Busan. Similarly, the outcomes of these meetings failed to include the environment, or sustainability, as a central pillar. Some observers suggest that Rio+20 represents a revival of the sustainable development agenda, where the environment and international development will come back together.3 Maxwell (2011) gives three reasons for this: (1) environmental issues (particularly climate change, but also energy, water, and biodiversity) are increasingly affecting development; (2) international development is at a crossroads, looking for a new narrative to take account of a raft of global changes and a framework to replace the MDGs after 2015; and (3) Rio+20 represents a political process that could deliver “genuine synergies between development and environment.” Moreover, 2015 is an important year for environmental affairs and international development. According to the Durban Platform, a new climate change treaty must be negotiated by 2015, the same year the MDGs will expire and likely be replaced by a new set of global development goals. Claire Melamed, Andrew Scott, and Tom Mitchell (2012, 1) argue that “[t]he negotiation of both new goals and a new agreement on climate change offer an opportunity to finally reunite the twin tracks of development and environmental policy, which have remained stubbornly separate since the first Rio conference in 1992. Rio+20 will set the stage for the approach to 2015.” So, what is on the Rio+20 agenda? And what might the conference mean for international development?

3. Priorities and Process

3.1. Priorities The wheels for Rio+20 were formally set in motion with the adoption of Resolution 64/236 on 24 December 2009 at the 64th session of the UN General Assembly. This resolution resolved that a conference on sustainable development would be held in 2012 at the highest possible level and hosted by the Brazilian government (UNGA 2010). The resolution states that “the objective of the Conference will be to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development.” The two priorities identified for the conference are a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development. A sense of urgency regarding the renewal of global commitment to the integration of the three pillars of sustainable development articulated in Agenda 21—economic development, social development, and environmental protection—is apparent in the text (UNGA 2010). UN documentation on Rio+20 cites a number of reasons “why we need Rio+20” (Box 1).

2 See Hulme (2009) for a thorough discussion of the evolution of the International Development

Goals and MDGs. 3 For instance, see Brookings Institution (2012); Evans and Steven (2012); Maxwell (2011); and

Melamed, Scott, and Mitchell (2012).

4

Box 1. “Why we need Rio+20”

The world currently has approximately seven billion people. It will have nine billion by 2050. One out of every five people, or 1.4 billion, currently lives on US$1.25 a day or less. One and a half billion people do not have access to electricity, two and a half billion do not

have a toilet, and almost one billion go hungry every day. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and more than a third of all known species could

go extinct if climate change continues to go unchecked. If our children and grandchildren are to have a liveable world, the challenges of widespread

poverty and environmental destruction need to be tackled now. We will incur far greater costs in the future—including more poverty and instability and a

degraded planet—if we fail to adequately address these critical challenges now. Rio+20 provides an opportunity to think globally, after which we can all act locally to secure

our common future.

Source: UNCSD (2012)

3.2. Process 3.2.1. Preparatory process Rio+20 is a joint endeavour by the whole UN system. The Rio+20 Secretariat is based in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and headed by Conference Secretary-General Sha Zukang. He is supported by two executive coordinators: Brice Lalonde (former French minister for the environment and French Ambassador for climate change negotiations) and Elizabeth Thompson (former minister of energy and environment of Barbados) (UNCSD 2012). A detailed preparatory process is underway to facilitate as much pre-conference agreement on the outcome document as possible (Box 2). Box 2. Preparatory process for Rio+20

UNGA 64 (24 December 2009): Adopts Resolution 64/236. The resolution calls for holding three Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings prior to the UNCSD.

UNCSD Prepcom (17–19 May 2010): Assesses progress to date, remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of major sustainable development summits, and emerging challenges (e.g., the green economy and institutional framework for sustainable development). Organizes work schedule in lead-up to Rio+20.

First Intersessional Meeting (10–11 January 2011): Summary of the findings of a synthesis report on securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development is presented. Panel discussions on the green economy and institutional framework for sustainable development.

UNCSD Prepcom II (7–8 March 2011): Assesses progress to date, remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of major sustainable development summits, and new challenges (e.g., the idea of a “blue economy”). Agrees on process for preparing draft outcome document.

UNCSD Regional and Sub-Regional Meetings (second half of 2011): Held in Africa; Asia; Europe and North America; Latin America and the Caribbean; and Middle East.

Second Intersessional Meeting (15–16 December 2011): Discusses submissions from states, UN bodies, intergovernmental organizations, and major groups, and provides comments on the zero draft of the outcome document.

Initial Discussions on the Zero Draft (25–27 January 2012): Negotiations begin on the first two sections, Preamble/Stage setting and Renewing Political Commitment.

5

First “Informal Informal” Consultations and Third Intersessional Meeting (19–27 March 2012): Lengthy discussions on zero draft text. At conclusion of meeting, text has expanded to more than 200 pages.

Second “Informal Informal” Consultations (23 April–4 May 2012): Delegates engage in paragraph-by-paragraph negotiation of zero draft text. At end of session, agreement on 21 paragraphs ad referendum, but text is 171 pages long, with approximately 400 paragraphs of bracketed text.

Third “Informal Informal’ Consultations (29 May–2 June 2012): Co-chairs produce 80-page revised draft text. Agreement on 70 paragraphs ad referendum, while 259 paragraphs contain bracketed text.

UNCSD Prepcom III (13–15 June 2012).

Source: IISD (2012a: 2-3) 3.2.2. Zero draft of the outcome document

The zero draft of the outcome document was released on 10 January 2012. Titled “The Future We Want,” the draft incorporated input received by the Rio+20 Secretariat from states and stakeholders and was 19 pages in length (UN 2012a) (Box 3). Box 3. Key points from the zero draft of the outcome document

I. Preamble/Stage setting: Outlines the vision for Rio+20, stating that heads of state and government “resolve to work together for a prosperous, secure and sustainable future for our people and our planet.”

II. Renewing Political Commitment: Reaffirms Rio principles and past action plans; assesses progress to date, remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of major summits on sustainable development, and new and emerging challenges; engages major groups; and commits to a framework for action.

III. Green Economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication: Frames the context of the green economy, challenges, and opportunities; supports the development of toolkits, experience sharing, and frameworks for action.

IV. Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development: Recognizes the importance of strengthening/reforming/integrating the three pillars and outlines governance options—Commission on Sustainable Development or Sustainable Development Council, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and regional/national/local governance.

V. Framework for action and follow-up: Outlines priority issues and areas, which include food security, water, energy, cities, green jobs and social inclusion, oceans and seas, natural disasters, climate change, forests and biodiversity, land degradation and desertification, mountains, chemicals and waste, sustainable consumption and production, and education and gender equality; recognizes the need to accelerate and measure progress; proposes a set of global Sustainable Development Goals; and outlines means of implications, which include finance, science and technology, capacity building, trade, and a registry of commitments.

Source: UN (2012a) At the end of the second “informal informal” consultations, the draft text had expanded to more than 170 pages, with only 21 paragraphs agreed ad referendum (IISD 2012a).4 Sha noted that

4 This means that the text is agreed in principle by negotiators, but must be cleared by the capital

or relevant ministry for final approval.

6

there remained too much unagreed text, stating that “currently, the negotiating text is a far cry from the ‘focused political document’ called for by the General Assembly” (UNDPI 2012). During the third “informal informal” consultations, negotiators discussed an 80 page revised draft text produced by the co-chairs. At this session, 70 paragraphs were agreed ad referendum, with 259 containing bracketed text (IISD 2012b). This draft was leaked to the Guardian newspaper and published on 8 June 2012. There is well-founded concern that too much text has been left to be negotiated at the conference. Indeed, World Wildlife Foundation director general Jim Leape has stated that he is deeply concerned that the talks may collapse under the pressure of having to negotiate so much in such a short period of time (Vidal 2012a). 3.2.3. Canada’s engagement in the Rio+20 process The Government of Canada submitted its national proposal on 25 October 2011 (Government of Canada 2011). The proposal outlines the contributions that Canada has made to sustainable development, clarifies the government’s stance on the institutional development of UN organizations, and provides Canadian examples of best practice relating to a green economy. Specifically, the submission expresses support for:

1. identifying policy tools and best practices to facilitate the transition to a green economy; 2. identifying a balanced suite of voluntary indicators for measuring progress toward a

green economy; and 3. improving the existing institutional framework for sustainable development.

In addition, the Government of Canada (2011, 4) is clear that it would like to see a concise outcome document that on the green economy, “fosters the sharing of best practices, encourages the exchange of information, improves the capacity to measure progress and provides support for the active engagement of the private sector,” and, on the institutional framework for sustainable development, “promotes better coherence and coordination of existing mechanisms and structures for addressing sustainable development issues in the United Nations system, in particular at the country level where the impact in people’s lives is greatest.” Historically, Canada has played a significant role in UN sustainable development conferences. Maurice Strong, a Canadian, was the conference Secretary-General for the 1992 Earth Summit. The Government of Canada facilitated civil society engagement across Canada in the lead-up to that conference. This time around, the Canadian Environmental Network (RCEN) was responsible for facilitating civil society consultations across the country. Running from May to November 2011 in 11 cities, the consultations sought to brief Canadians on the Rio+20 themes and the issues under discussion and to inform and make recommendations to the Canadian delegation to Rio+20, UNEP, and the Rio+20 Secretariat on behalf of Canadian civil society groups and stakeholders. Given the timeline for submissions—from member states and other interested parties—for the draft outcome document (the deadline was 1 November 2011) and the finalization of civil society consultations (which finished in November 2011 and were published in February 2012), RCEN (2012, 3) notes that “Canada’s formal negotiating position for Rio+20 was established without having received any significant input from Canadian civil society.” Disappointed by the lack of consultation, We Canada, a self-organized, informal, and independent civil society network seeking to provide and support Canadian civil society leadership at Rio+20, presented its own submission for consideration in the zero draft

7

development process (Canadian Earth Summit Coalition 2011). It called for the inclusion of five issues:

1. Committing states and the UN to Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on access to information, transparency, public participation, and access to justice.

2. Stating that the overarching goal of a green economy should be defined in the context of sustainable patterns of consumption and production that are built on a fair and socially just economic system that meets the needs of all people and respects animal welfare within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet.

3. Measuring what matters by moving beyond gross domestic product to measure progress.

4. Getting the prices right by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and pricing carbon. 5. Making trade fair by committing to public procurement of fair trade certified products.

In addition, the One Earth Initiative Society, as a partner of the Canadian Earth Summit Coalition, submitted an environmental petition to the Auditor General of Canada to elicit more information from the Government of Canada on its plans for Rio+20. As stated in its petition: “In our submission to the UNCSD 2012 Zero Draft, we expressed deep disappointment for not having been consulted by the federal government of Canada on the development of its own submission to the Draft ... The lack of Canadian consultation goes against a long-standing Canadian tradition dating back prior to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 of engaging with civil society on important issues, including sustainable development” (One Earth Initiative Society 2011). The official Canadian delegation to Rio+20 has not yet been announced. The provinces of Alberta and Quebec are set to send delegations. A number of Canadian civil society organizations, such as We Canada, also plan to attend the conference.

4. Key Issues and Potential Outcomes

4.1. A common vision and renewed political commitment to sustainable development

The UN has sought to frame Rio+20 as a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to secure “the future we want” (UNCSD 2012).5 As of May 2012, more than 130 heads of state and government are registered to speak at the Rio+20 plenary and some 50,000 people, including business executives, mayors, representatives of non-governmental organizations, youth, and indigenous people, are expected to participate in official and informal events during the conference (UNDPI 2012). Overall, however, the response from the international community has been lukewarm. Following the suboptimal outcome at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen, governments’ expectations are low and many leaders are approaching the negotiations with caution. While Ban Ki-moon has made a personal appeal to US President Barack Obama to attend the conference—Rio+20 is purposely scheduled immediately following the Group of Twenty summit in Los Cabos to encourage leaders to attend—he has confirmed that he will not attend, which has implications for the conference’s status and significance (Goldenberg 2012).

5 “The Future We Want” is the official UN tagline for Rio+20.

8

Further, the zero draft text has been criticized for lack of ambition. For example, Tariq Banuri, director of the Division for Sustainable Development of the Commission on Sustainable Development, suggests that the writing is passive and lacks the substance necessary to deal with big issues such as equity and energy (Zarro 2012). Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, stated that the zero draft “demonstrates lack of urgency in tackling [the big issues]” (Vidal 2012b). Pearce (2012) argued that Rio+20 will pale in comparison to the first Earth Summit in terms of ambition and political commitment. The Elders, an independent and high-profile group of global leaders, have also expressed their disappointment with the lack of urgency demonstrated in the lead-up to Rio+20 (Brundtland and Cardoso 2012). To date, negotiations on the early parts of the outcome document, which set the stage for the conference, have focused on issues related to poverty eradication, human rights definitions, the Rio Principles, good governance, and harmony with nature. The Group of 77 and China (G77+China)6 have been pushing to ensure a focus on poverty eradication, and have cautioned against a disproportionate focus on the environment. Human rights have been a point of contention. The EU, Republic of Korea, and others have cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a foundational document, while, at least in the second round of “informal informal” negotiations, the G77+China opposed its inclusion. Rio Principle 7, on common but differentiated responsibilities, has also caused division. The G77+China have pushed for its recognition, while, again at the second round of “informal informal” negotiations, the United States, EU, Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Canada opposed the singling out of this principle. Development assistance—specifically the UN’s 2002 Monterrey Consensus on International Financing for Development—is another controversial issue. The G77+China are keen to include text on aid commitments, but developed countries have been reluctant (IISD 2012a, 3–4).

4.2. The green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication

The green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication is one of two priority areas for Rio+20. The UN defines a green economy as an approach to achieving sustainable development that requires a move away from resource-intensive growth models, a transformation in production and consumption patterns, and value-added that is created and reinvested in resource-rich supplier communities in the developing world (UNEMG 2011, 8). The debate over the transition to a green economy has been a source of contention between developed and developing countries. The zero draft of the outcome document states that a green economy should “protect and enhance the natural resource base, increase resource efficiency, promote sustainable consumption and production patterns, and move the world towards low-carbon development” (UN 2012a, 6). It emphasizes that a green economy is not a rigid set of rules, but rather an approach to fostering the integration of the three pillars of sustainable development. It acknowledges that developing countries are facing considerable challenges in eradicating poverty and sustaining growth, and the transition to a green economy will require structural adjustments that may involve domestic costs and the support of the international community.

6 The Group of 77 is a coalition of developing countries which seeks to promote its members'

collective interests and create an enhanced joint negotiating capacity in the United Nations. The coalition has 77 founding members, but it has since expanded to include over 130 countries. At Rio+20, the G77+China are a negotiating bloc.

9

The transition to a green economy will continue to be divisive at Rio+20. In negotiations to date, the EU has supported the green economy approach, while the G77+China have stressed that it is only one of several approaches to achieving sustainable development and poverty eradication. Indeed, G77+China support efforts toward “sustainable development” rather than a “green economy,” and an inclusive “future” instead of an inclusive “transition.” They support states’ sovereign right to exploit their own natural resources and their right to choose an appropriate path toward a green economy. Further, they have argued that developed countries should take the lead on changing consumption and production patterns (i.e., should make significant lifestyle changes), which the EU and others have opposed (IISD 2012a, 5). Following the third round of “informal informal” negotiations, only one paragraph of this section of the outcome document had been agreed ad referendum, which highlights the lack of consensus on the green economy (IISD 2012b, 6). The Government of Canada’s national proposal supports the concept of voluntary indicators on a green economy that are adaptable to national circumstances and acknowledge differences in national circumstances. It also emphasizes the important role that the private sector can play in a green economy and highlights the government’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian extractive sector operating abroad, which was launched in 2009 (Government of Canada 2011).

4.3. Institutional framework for sustainable development The institutional framework for sustainable development is the second priority area for Rio+20. This section of the outcome document seeks to establish the framework for sustainable development governance, particularly within the UN system. A major concern is supporting the coordination of UN bodies and member states around sustainable development and ensuring that the sustainable development perspective is at the core of UN decision-making processes (UNCSD 2011). There was broad acceptance from most delegations on the importance of strengthening the three dimensions of sustainable development at the third round of “informal informal” negotiations. Interestingly, however, there was disagreement on the level of civil society participation in the institutional framework for sustainable development: the G77+China and the US asked for an EU amendment on granting civil society representatives “enhanced consultative status” deleted (IISD 2012b, 7). Proposals for institutional strengthening covered in the zero draft of the outcome document include: strengthening and supporting the role of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) as a

coordination mechanism on economic and social issues; reaffirming the Commission on Sustainable Development as the high-level commission for

sustainable development issues in the UN system, or transforming it into a Sustainable Development Council;

strengthening the capacity of UNEP, or forming a specialized UN agency on the environment—potentially a World Environment Organization that is similar to the World Trade Organization; and

establishing a High Commissioner for Future Generations (UNCSD 2012, 10). While there is broad agreement around the need for the institutional framework to be strengthened, at this late stage there are a number of outstanding issues. The idea of

10

establishing a high-level intergovernmental political forum on sustainable development, which builds on the UN Commission on Sustainable Development or some other relevant body, would require major restructuring, leaving many countries wary of this option. The future of UNEP is a key issue, with no consensus on whether it should be upgraded to universal membership of its Governing Council or transformed into a specialized UN agency. The EU is pushing for the latter option, but the US, the Russian Federation, and others are strongly opposed (IISD 2012b, 17). The Government of Canada’s position on the institutional framework for sustainable development is that there is a need for greater integration and coherence among environmental, economic, and social objectives in the existing UN institutional system and member states’ programs. The government does not support the creation of new agencies, such as a World Environment Organization, and would prefer to improve the effectiveness, coherence, and coordination of UNEP and UNDP. It supports the examination of the Commission on Sustainable Development and ECOSOC as more focused agents that implement specific sustainable development goals, and suggests possibilities for UN reform that will enable mainstreaming of the three pillars of sustainable development across the UN system, with emphasis at the country level (Government of Canada 2011).

4.4. Specific issue areas of focus

Under the “Framework for action and follow-up” section of the outcome document, a number of specific thematic areas and cross-sectional issues will be covered (Box 4). Box 4. Thematic areas and cross-section issues covered at Rio+20

Biodiversity Chemicals and waste Climate change Desertification Education Energy Food security Forests Gender equality and empowerment of women Health Jobs Mining Mountains Oceans and seas Poverty eradication Small island developing states Sustainable cities Sustainable consumption and production Sustainable tourism Sustainable transport Water

Source: IISD (2012b) This list is long and will probably be refined during the last pre-conference negotiating round. It is unlikely that climate change will be dealt with on any significant scale at Rio+20. As Andre Correa do Lago, lead Brazilian negotiator on Rio+20’s outcome document, argues climate change is too controversial and at this stage framing issues around “sustainable development” is likely to garner more support for and better outcomes on climate change and poverty eradication (Watts 2011).

4.5. Sustainable Development Goals: A concrete deliverable that merges the development and environment agendas?

SDGs are also included in the “Framework for action and follow-up” section of the zero draft. The idea of SDGs has received considerable attention, not least because SDGs have the

11

potential to be a “tangible ‘win’” at a conference where prospects for delivering change seem “gloomy at best” (Leach 2012; Evans and Steven 2012, 3). SDGs were endorsed by the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global Sustainability, which gave the concept weight and influence (United Nations Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability 2012, 72–73). In their final report, the panel recommended that a number of principles should inform the establishment of SDGs (Box 5). Box 5. SDG principles proposed by the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability

Be universal in character, covering challenges of all countries rather than just developing nations.

Express a broadly agreed global strategy for sustainable development. Incorporate a range of key areas that were not fully covered in the MDGs, such as food

security, water, energy, green jobs, decent work and social inclusion, sustainable consumption and production, sustainable cities, climate change, biodiversity and oceans, as well as disaster risk reduction and resilience.

Be comprehensive, reflecting equally the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable development and the interconnections between them.

Incorporate near-term benchmarks while being long-term in scope, looking ahead to a deadline of perhaps 2030.

Engage all stakeholders in the implementation and mobilization of resources, including local communities, civil society, and the private sector, along with governments.

Include progress metrics alongside absolute targets, in order to focus policy attention as a means of driving development outcomes and to reflect various development priorities and conditions across countries and regions.

Provide scope for the review of these goals in view of evolving evidence.

Source: United Nations Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012, x)

The zero draft of the outcome document includes a commitment to establishing SDGs:

We agree that goals, targets and milestones are essential for measuring and accelerating progress towards sustainable development and agree to launch an inclusive process to devise by 2015 a set of global Sustainable Development Goals that reflect an integrated and balanced treatment of the three dimensions of sustainable development, are consistent with the principles of Agenda 21, and are universal and applicable to all countries but allowing for differentiated approaches among countries (UN 2012a, 16).

The SDGs are the most concrete way that the international development and environment agendas could be brought back together through Rio+20. Increasingly prominent is the debate on what will follow the MDGs, which are set to expire in 2015. There is broad recognition that the MDGs do not sufficiently capture environmental concerns. The post-MDG global development framework will likely take the environment more seriously. In addition, stakeholders in the environmental community, such as UNEP, have recognized that numeric time-bound targets like those in the MDGs have helped progress on poverty reduction and therefore environmental issues could benefit from having similar targets (UNEP 2011). How the SDGs and the post-MDG framework will fit together is not yet clear. On 9 May 2012, Ban Ki-moon announced that after Rio+20 he will appoint a High-level Panel of Eminent Persons to advise on the post-MDG framework. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and UK Prime Minister David Cameron

12

have agreed to co-chair the panel. This indicates that a comprehensive post-MDG framework will not be decided at Rio+20. Rather, the establishment of broad principles and a process for developing SDGs—in conjunction with the post-MDG framework—is the most probable outcome. But even in this context, a number of factors will frame the debate on SDGs at Rio+20.

4.5.1. Which countries will SDGs cover? The MDGs are almost exclusively focused on change and development progress in developing countries. Developed countries’ contributions to progress on the MDGs are expected to be through aid and MDG 8, developing a global partnership for development—the goal which has had limited traction and which includes targets on an open and non-discriminatory trading and financial system, debt, and access to affordable drugs and new technologies. Evans and Steven (2012, 3) suggest that the SDGs will probably be universal in their coverage and apply to developing and developed countries alike. But they note that requiring developed countries to go “beyond aid” in the next set of global development goals—for example, in sensitive policy areas such as migration, energy, and intellectual property—will be an ambitious agenda. The issue of common but differentiated responsibilities will surely arise, as will the challenge of framing goals and targets that work for, or can be tailored to, developed, middle-income, and low-income countries alike.

4.5.2. What will SDGs cover?

There is increasing interest and controversy about the issues that the SDGs should cover. Paul Ladd, an advisor to UNDP, suggests that there are at least three potential options: (1) the environment; (2) the nexus between the environment and human dimensions; and (3) a very broad sustainable development agenda, which not only covers sustainability issues but also issues such as health and human rights (All Party Parliamentary Group on Debt, Aid and Trade, All Party Parliamentary Group of Overseas Development, Overseas Development Institute, and Institute of Development Studies 2012). The governments of Colombia and Guatemala have proposed that a set of SDGs be agreed at Rio+20 which are based on Agenda 21 and “provide a logical sequence and structure to the process launched almost 20 years ago.” The issues covered, they suggest, should include: combating poverty; changing consumption patterns; promoting sustainable human settlement development; protecting biodiversity, forests, ocean and water resources; and advancing food security, and energy, including renewable resources (Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, República de Colombia 2011). Civil society organizations have also put forward proposals. For instance, at the 64th Annual UN Department of Public Information/Non-Governmental Organizations conference in 2011, 17 SDGs were proposed, ranging from sustainable livelihoods, youth, and education to environmental justice for the poor and the marginalized (UNDPI 2011). The zero draft also proposes some priority areas for the SDGs, including sustainable consumption and production patterns, oceans, food security, sustainable energy for all, green jobs, and water access and efficiency (UN 2012a, 17). Deciding which issues should be captured by the SDGs will likely be a source of considerable debate and be influenced by states’ decision on how SDGs fit with MDGs and the framework that replaces the MDGs after 2015. One area that will likely be covered is energy, following the launch of the UN Secretary-General’s “Sustainable Energy for All” initiative. Through this initiative, global goals, to be achieved by 2030, have been established. These goals are ensuring universal access to modern energy services, doubling the rate of improvement in

13

energy efficiency, and doubling the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix (UN 2012b).

4.5.3. What will be the process for establishing SDGs? There does not appear to be much consensus on the SDGs, despite them being a potential “key deliverable” at Rio+20. At the third round of “informal informal” negotiations, the United States called for the SDGs to be voluntary and aspirational, while the G77+China emphasised that they should be “universally applicable, but nationally driven.” Some developed countries, including Norway, supported listing specific focus areas for the SDGs, while the G77+China said this was premature, and Rio+20 should launch the SDG process rather than decide the goals (IISD 2012b, 14). At early negotiations, the G77+China expressed concern about the risk of diluting the poverty focus of the MDGs through the establishment of SDGs. The process for developing the SDGs is also contentious. At the third round of “informal informal” negotiations, the EU proposed that the UN Secretary-General should lead the development of the SDGs, while the G77+China favoured establishing an intergovernmental process through the UN General Assembly that is transparent, inclusive and open to all stakeholders (IISD 2012b, 14). The most likely outcome for Rio+20 is that the concept of SDGs is endorsed, broad principles for the SDGs are agreed, and the process for deciding specific goals and targets for the SDGs is established. This will not be easy for at least three reasons. First, the current global economic and political context is not favourable. Evans and Steven (2012) emphasize that there have been few landmark multilateral outcomes on sustainable development in the past five years, it is an election year in the United States, the EU is highly introspective, and economic slowdowns are being experienced in emerging market countries. Second, the process will need to include a range of parties and interests. As Andrew Steer, incoming president of the World Resources Institute, has noted, the world has changed since the MDGs were developed in the early 2000s largely by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development “club.” The establishment of SDGs and the post-MDG framework will likely have substantial input from emerging market and developing countries (Brookings Institution 2012). Third, there are some inherent contradictions in deciding a framework that brings international development and the environment together. Melamed, Scott, and Mitchell (2012) argue that the challenge in agreeing on SDGs is that new goals are being established to solve two different problems simultaneously: increasing the consumption of poor people in poor countries and reducing consumption of natural resources in rich countries, where rich people are overconsuming. The question, then, is: how can the development and environment agendas be reconciled with a single set of goals? There has been progress on international development in the last two decades. For example, there has been a significant reduction in extreme poverty worldwide. On the environment, however, trends have been “almost unreservedly gloomy” (Melamed, Scott, and Mitchell 2012, 2). This apparent contradiction will be one of the many challenges countries face in bringing the development and environment agendas together and agreeing on a new set of global development goals (All Party Parliamentary Group on Debt, Aid and Trade, All Party Parliamentary Group of Overseas Development, Overseas Development Institute, and Institute of Development Studies 2012; Melamed, Scott, and Mitchell 2012).

14

4.6. Means of implementation The final section of the draft outcome document will outline the means for implementing the pledges and commitments. Finance is a critical part of this section, and will surely be a point of contention amongst member states. At the third round of “informal informal” negotiations, the United States and Canada emphasized that Rio+20 was not a pledging conference, and therefore called for references to the official development assistance target of 0.7% of gross national product to be deleted. The G77+China sought commitments from developed countries on aid, proposing that the commitment to double ODA to Africa be reaffirmed and that core resources for the operational activities of the UN development system be increased (IISD 2012b, 15). On technology, a number of developed countries insisted that technology transfer be voluntary and that text on the impact of patent protection and intellectual property rights be deleted. The G77+China sought a more flexible intellectual property rights regime (IISD 2012b, 15).

5. Conclusion The world has changed since the Earth Summit in 1992, and it is unlikely that Rio+20 will result in the same level of excitement and commitment. While the Rio conference in 1992 was held in the wake of the end of the Cold War, in 2012 the world faces economic recession, global uncertainty and a shift away from the West, as well as an election in the United States. In contrast to the optimism of 1992, the expectations for Rio+20 are relatively low. As with all negotiations, the agreements and outcomes reached at Rio+20 will be products of compromise. Developed countries will push for global progress on a green economy and place more emphasis on transparency, human rights, and public participation. The G77+China will emphasize the right of countries to choose their own sustainable development path and the importance of common but differentiated responsibilities. Fractures will likely emerge not only between the global North and the global South but also within these traditional groupings. On matters such as regulation and state intervention, the EU, Norway, Switzerland, and the Republic of Korea will line up against the United States, Canada, and, in some instances, Australia and New Zealand (IISD 2012a). From an international development perspective, regardless of how much progress is made on committing to specific agreements and outcomes, Rio+20 has the potential to represent a remerging of the international development and environment agendas. The most concrete way this is happening is through the SDGs. Moving forward, it seems inevitable that environment issues will become more prominent in international development. The environment will again have traction in international development policy and discourse and influence how international development is framed in the years leading up to 2015 and beyond.

15

6. References All Party Parliamentary Group on Debt, Aid and Trade, All Party Parliamentary Group of

Overseas Development, Overseas Development Institute, and Institute of Development Studies. 2012. "Sustainable Development Goals - Feasible, Desirable or a Leap Too Far?" Panel discussion held at UK Parliament, London, May 8. MP3 audio file, 12:37. http://www.odi.org.uk/events/multimedia/1921.mp3. http://www.odi.org.uk/events/details.asp?id=2933&title=sustainable-development-goals-feasible-desirable-leap-too-far.

Brookings Institution. 2012. "What Should Sustainable Development Goals Look Like?" Event transcript, Washington, DC, May 2. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2012/5/02%20sustainable%20development/20120502_sustainable_development.pdf.

Brundtland, Gro Harlem, and Fernando Henrique Cardoso. 2012. "Rio+20's Opportunity Will Be Squandered without Courage and Vision." Poverty Matters Blog, Guardian, May 28. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/may/28/rio-20-opportunity-courage-vision?intcmp=239.

Canadian Earth Summit Coalition. 2011. "Submission to UN Zero Draft." October 31. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/248Canadian%20Earth%20Summit%20Coalition%20-%20Submission%20to%20UN%20Zero%20Draft%20.pdf.

Evans, Alex, and David Steven. 2012. "Sustainable Development Goals – A Useful Outcome

from Rio+20?" NYU Center on International Cooperation, New York, January. http://www.cic.nyu.edu/staff/docs/alx_evans/cic_evans_steven_rio20_report.pdf.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. 2012. "Ban Ki-moon Calls Obama's Presence 'Crucial' at Rio+20 Earth Summit." Guardian, April 20. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/20/ban-obama-rio-earth-summit.

Government of Canada. 2011. "Canada’s National Submission." October 25. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/National%20Submission%20Canada%20%28EN%29.pdf.

Hulme, David. 2009. "The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs): A Short History of the World's Biggest Promise." BWPI Working Paper 100, Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester. http://www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/resources/Working-Papers/bwpi-wp-10009.pdf.

IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). 2012a. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 27 (35): 1–16. http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2735e.pdf.

———. 2012b. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 27 (40): 1–20. http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2740e.pdf

Leach, Melissa. 2012. "Why Rio+20 Must Not Leave the Politics out of Sustainable Development." Poverty Matters Blog, Guardian, March 5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/mar/05/rio-summit-politics-of-sustainable-development.

Maxwell, Simon. 2011. "Is It Time to Take an Environment Conference Seriously?" Simon Maxwell Blog, January 19. http://www.simonmaxwell.eu/blog/is-it-time-to-take-an-environment-conference-seriously.html.

Melamed, Claire, Andrew Scott, and Tom Mitchell. 2012. "Separated at Birth, Reunited in Rio? A Roadmap to Bring Environment and Development Back Together." ODI Background Note, Overseas Development Institute, London. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/7656.pdf.

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, República de Colombia. 2011. "RIO + 20: Sustainable

16

Development Goals (SDGs); A Proposal from the Governments of Colombia and Guatemala." . http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/colombiasdgs.pdf.

One Earth Initiative Society. 2011. "Government of Canada Actions and Plans for Climate Change, Environmental Accounts, Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Fair Trade Procurement, and Public Consultation in Preparing the Government's Position for Rio+20." Petition submitted to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, December 22. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_329_e_36734.html.

Pearce, Fred. 2012. "Rio+20 Shows Little Sign of Living Up to Original Earth Summit." Guardian, February 9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/09/rio20-original-earth-summit.

RCEN (Réseau Canadien de l'Environnement/Canadian Environmental Network). 2012. "What Do Canadians Think?: Rio+20 National Civil Society Consultations; Final Outcomes Report." February. http://rcen.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/rcen_rio_20_final_outcomes_document_feb_2012.pdf.

UN (United Nations). 1993. Agenda 21: Earth Summit - The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21.

———. 2012a. "The Future We Want." Zero draft of Rio+20 outcome document, January 10. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/370The%20Future%20We%20Want%2010Jan%20clean%20_no%20brackets.pdf.

———. 2012b. "Sustainable Energy for All." Accessed June 4, 2012. http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org.

UNCSD (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development). 2011. "IFSD: Issues Related to an Intergovernmental Body on SD." Rio 2012 Issues Brief No. 3, October. http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/209Issues%20Brief%203%20-%20IFSD%20SD%20Body_final_final_111111.pdf.

———. 2012. The Future We Want. New York: United Nations. http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/189conf_brochure.pdf.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2011. Keeping Track of Our Changing Environment: From Rio to Rio+20 (1992-2012). Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/keeping_track.pdf.

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). 2010. "Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development." A/RES/64/236. http://www.uncsd2012.org/files/OD/ARES64236E.pdf.

UNDPI (United Nations Department of Public Information). 2011. "Declaration of the 64th Annual UN DPI/NGO Conference, Chair's Text: Sustainable Societies; Responsive Citizens." September 15. http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/ngoconference/shared/Documents/Final%20Declaration/Chair%27s%20Text.pdf.

———. 2012. "Countries Seek New Path towards Agreement for Rio+20." May 7. ENV/DEV/1277. May 7. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/envdev1277.doc.htm.

UNEMG (United Nations Environmental Management Group). 2011. Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-Wide Perspective. New York: United Nations.

http://www.unemg.org/Portals/27/Documents/IMG/GreenEconomy/report/GreenEconom

y-Full.pdf UNSG (United Nations Secretary-General). 2011. "As Commission on Sustainable Development

Concludes Session, Secretary-General Says 'Implementation', 'Action' Must Be

17

Watchwords Ahead of Rio+20." May 13. SG/SM/13568-ENV/DEV/1214. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sgsm13568.doc.htm.

United Nations Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability. 2012. Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future worth Choosing. New York: United Nations. http://www.un.org/gsp/sites/default/files/attachments/GSP_Report_web_final.pdf.

Vidal, John. 2012a. "Rio+20 Earth Summit: Leaked Draft Reveals Conflict Among Countries." Guardian, June 8. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/08/rio-earth-summit-draft-text-leaked?INTCMP=SRCH.

———. 2012b. "Leaked Document Reveals Rio+20 Sustainable Development Goals." Guardian, January 10. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/10/leaked-document-rio-goals.

Watts, Jonathan. 2011. "Rio+20 Must ‘Unenvironmentalise’ Green Issues, Says G77 Negotiator." Guardian, September 12. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/12/rio-20-earth-summit-global-climate-talks.

Zarro, Angela. 2012. "Rio Summit 2012: What to Expect? Interview with Tariq Banuri." Development 55 (1): 10–12.