Did you notice the paucity of news and comments about last week’s United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, or Rio+20, the biggest event the UN has ever organised? Oh, you had not even realised that this event had taken place? Don’t agonise about that; you did not miss much. There may have been 188 countries represented in Rio, 100 heads of state and prime ministers, and thousands of representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), with months of arduous preparation, but at the end the mountain gave birth to a mouse.
What was supposed to introduce a global action plan for sustainable development, with supporting policies and measures to help the poorest countries achieve that goal, ended up with a 53-page document, “The Future We Want”, full of vague commitments and empty promises — with all the contentious issues either removed or addressed through pious and useless generalities. No progress was made either on the promotion of a green economy or on poverty eradication in the context of sustainable development, the two central themes of the conference.
Was that so surprising? A few weeks before the Rio+20, a Report from the UN Environment Programme had concluded that there had been significant progress on only four of the 90 goals set as one outcome of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, with no improvement to speak of on issues such as climate change. However, the 1992 summit had ended with some important agreements such as the one on biological diversity, to limit the extinction of species. Does that mean that the diplomats and officials who prepared or who participated in last week’s conference were less competent or less motivated or more inept than their predecessors of 20 years ago? Most probably not. The truth is that over the last 20 years, the world has changed so much that big jamborees like Rio have become obsolete as a means of achieving any significant agreement on any issue of global relevance.
In some ways, we have entered an era that could be labelled as “Globalisation: Part II”. In “Globalisation: Part I”, we had a kind of one-way process in which technology, financial flows and, to some extent, cultural trends were moving from the advanced economies towards emerging-market economies; an era when globalisation was seen as synonymous with westernisation or Americanisation.
With “Globalisation: Part II” we have moved into a phase of multi-faceted globalisation in which the US or European models have to coexist with a Chinese model, or a Russian version – if Mr Putin has his way – and why not an Indian model? Nobody is strong enough any more to monopolise power and dictate, and no group of countries can be considered weak enough to be just ignored. “Globalisation: Part II” is truly a two-way street, and the rules of this new game are not yet stabilised or even set. We are still seeing the difficulties and obstacles to having existing global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organisation adjust to the realities created by the rise of emerging-market economies and integrating them in a way that would reflect their new weight. Add to this the fact that a number of emerging-market economies are now close to being full-fledged developed ones, and so some of their interests or priorities are now diverging from those of the group of poorer countries, while not being similar to those of the developed economies.
There has been a lot of talk about the emergence of a multipolar world — from an economic as well as from a geopolitical standpoint. The realities and implications of this new world are becoming increasingly clear and, as the number of players has increased, there will have to be new rules and structures of governance — or amended ones. A new mindset will be needed to grasp and manage the realities of this new multipolar world. And we are not there yet.
In that context, we have enough examples to show that huge international conferences or processes of negotiation on global issues – the big white elephants of international diplomacy – are doomed to insignificance, because they cannot go beyond the lowest common denominator. Often they end in failure and unceremonious burial (think of the Doha Round of international trade negotiations). At best, they are platforms for discussing and exchanging views, with no tangible outcome commensurate with the time, effort, money and hype involved; at worst, they may end up polarising positions.
This does not mean that the global challenges we are confronting cannot or should not be addressed until some ideal framework and some magic formula of international negotiation have been devised. On the contrary, this highlights the need to focus on approaches, progress, solutions achievable at the national and regional levels and that create efficient webs of solutions that can be expanded. While the US Congress is completely paralysed with respect to legislation on climate change, a number of states are now moving ahead with innovative policies to promote energy efficiency and alternatives to fossil fuels. We all know that while China and India will continue to resist any international framework that would be seen as unfair constraints on their development, they have high on their agenda the issues of energy efficiency, environment conservation and sustainability. We can see how many international companies are now moving ahead to reduce their environmental footprint, while the notion of assessing and quantifying environmental performance in accounting systems is gaining ground. The US has agreed to partner 400 companies in their effort to fight or eliminate deforestation from their supply chain. The UK is engaged in a similar initiative.
This might sound as too little and too slow in view of the urgency of the challenges involved in moving towards economic and social sustainability. This might also look messy, uncertain and frustrating: all NGOs and many government officials vented their frustration abundantly about the meagre results of the Rio+20 exercise. However, this is the only credible way we realistically have to achieve some tangible progress in the present period of transition. And this is also what makes such a period a most demanding – but also fascinating – challenge for every single business, political or civil society leader in the world.
The writer is president of Smadja & Smadja, a strategic advisory firm
