Preparatory Committee for UN Conference

 on Sustainable Development

1^st & 2^nd Meetings (AM & PM)

2012 United Nations Conference Called ‘Historic Opportunity’ to Define

 

‘Green Economy’ as Preparatory Committee Begins Second Session

 

Under-Secretary-General Stresses Need for ‘Meaningful Outcome’

From ‘ Rio+20’ as Delegate Warns against Holding Review for Its Own Sake

With the fate of the world’s nearly 7 billion people hanging in the balance, the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development would offer an historic opportunity to define the contours of a “green economy” and consider whether the existing institutional framework could adequately address all the cross-cutting issues affecting human well-being, speakers said today as they kicked off the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference.

The session, which concludes tomorrow, is one of three intended to refine the objectives of the forthcoming Conference, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, as a follow-up to the historic United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, or “Earth Summit”, held in the same city 20 years ago.  The two themes of the so-called “ Rio+20” Conference will focus on the creation of a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and on the related institutional framework.

“We are striving for a meaningful outcome of the Conference,” Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, told the Preparatory Committee, stressing that the outcome should be forward-looking, action-oriented and able to galvanize political will among States and other partners.  It must also build on Agenda 21 — the outcome adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit — and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, adopted 10 years later at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Mr. Sha, who is also the Secretary-General of “Rio+20”, said efforts were under way to deliver coordinated and integrated support to the preparatory process, with many agencies already engaged in a range of initiatives.  Support for regional and national preparations had intensified, and improvements had been made to the United Nations Trust Fund so that more support could be extended to developing-country representatives in the Preparatory Committee.  Importantly, he noted, many countries had announced plans to organize preparatory meetings on issues related to Conference themes.

Speaking for the host nation, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, Director of Environment and Special Themes in Brazil’s Ministry of External Affairs, said his country shared all the high expectations expressed by other Member States as well as civil society as a whole.  Pledging Brazil’s support for a significant outcome in Rio, he said the Conference would take place from 4-6 June 2012, with the Preparatory Committee holding its third and final session the preceding week, from 28-30 May.

Throughout today, delegates took the floor to evaluate progress and point out stubborn obstacles hindering the implementation of outcomes from the major summits in the area of sustainable development.  “We do not need another review for the sake of having one,” Fiji’s representative said on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), wondering how progress would be measured without baselines and benchmarks.  Well-developed data sets in capitals were often lost in international translations and oversized global standards, when they should instead be “in hand” to inform political decisions, he added, pointing out further that the green economy strategy was replete with foundational flaws and structural gaps.  As a matter of urgency, it should stress the conservation of oceans and marine resources, upon which island peoples depended.  “We must stop applying old coats of paint to an aging development vehicle,” he declared.

On a similar note, Argentina’s representative, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, argued that there was no common understanding of what a “green economy” approach entailed, including its potential risks, costs and benefits.  A definition was needed before the goals articulated at the Earth Summit could be advanced, he emphasized.  Furthermore, issues such as decent jobs, trade-related concerns and ways to avoid “green protectionism” should be seriously addressed, as should new and emerging issues in the areas of climate change, biological diversity, and desertification and water scarcity.

The day also featured two interactive discussions, moderated, respectively, by Preparatory Committee Co-Chairs John W. Ashe ( Antigua and Barbuda) and Park In-Kook ( Republic of Korea).  The first, entitled “Securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development; assessing the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development; and addressing new and emerging challenges” focused on the manner in which Rio+20 would speed progress on sustainable development.

Echoing the concerns of others during that debate, Algeria’s representative said Rio+20 must not renegotiate the principles of the original Earth Summit, but review what had gone wrong over the last 20 years to create “such poor results” in implementing the 1992 outcomes.  For too many countries, the result had been sustained poverty rather than sustainable development, he suggested.

During the second interactive discussion, entitled “Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”, speakers debated the need to balance consumption and production patterns across the globe, spurring calls for developed countries to shrink their environmental footprints, and for developing nations to raise living standards while minimizing any industrial ripple effects on the environment.

India’s representative warned that models for a green economy risked failure if they required “prescriptions” for developing nations to create a better future.  Those nations needed flexible policy space to pursue their own priorities, he said, emphasizing, on a related point, that South-South cooperation could provide a complement to, but not a substitute for, North-South cooperation.

Also speaking today was the Senior Adviser to the State Secretary for the Environment of Hungary, who delivered a statement on behalf of the European Union.

Other speakers were representatives of Nauru (on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States), Nepal (on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries) and Chile (on behalf of the Rio Group).

The Preparatory Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 8 March, to continue and conclude its second session.

Background

The Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (“Rio+20”) began its second two-daysession today to refine expectations for the Conference, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 2012.  It will continue to focus on two main themes:  a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and the institutional framework for sustainable development.  The Preparatory Committee is also expected to discuss a timetable for the drafting of a negotiating document.  (For more information, please see Press Release ENV/DEV/1198 of 4 March 2011)

Opening Remarks

JOHN W. ASHE (Antigua and Barbuda), Co-Chair of the Preparatory Committee, said the second session should aim to hold further substantive discussions on the objectives and themes of the Conference, with a focus on the deliverables relating to each theme.  Rich discussion on those objectives had taken place during the first preparatory session and the intersessional meeting, he said, recalling that delegations had identified critical gaps and raised further questions.

He said that, in a departure from past tradition, no expert panellists had been invited for the present session.  Each meeting would start with remarks by the Co-Chair before discussion by major groups, delegations, and other stakeholders.  A list of prepared questions would serve as a framework for the meetings.  The recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) meeting in Nairobi had provided the opportunity for a meeting with a wide range of stakeholders, who had shared their ideas for the Conference, he said.  The Bureau would continue to meet with members of the private sector and other actors in order to reach out to the major groups and constituencies so as to gain a better understanding.

Although the situation of the United Nations Trust Fund had improved slightly, it was far from sufficient to support the preparatory process, he continued, urging donor countries to contribute.  With the world looking forward to the Conference with great enthusiasm, it was important to ask how it would be different from pervious meetings on sustainable development and what it would deliver, he said, emphasizing the importance of building on lessons already learned and experiences gained.  He stressed also that the process for developing an outcome document would be open, transparent, inclusive and led by Member States, adding that an early draft would be shared in early January 2012.  Meanwhile, the Co-Chair’s summary would serve as the outcome document of the second Preparatory Committee.

SHA ZUKANG, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, introduced two reports of the Secretary-General, saying that the first, on the Objectives and Themes of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (document A/CONF.216/PC/7) highlighted several key points in the area of the “green economy”.  In the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, he said, a green economy must be built “from the bottom up”, responding to national and local priorities and challenges.

While increased efforts to pursue green growth strategies did not yet add up to a level of ambition equal to the global challenges, “it’s a start”, he said.  While related strategies and policies must consider the impacts on poverty and human development, that did not replace the need for increased social investment, including in education and health.  Countries were concerned about the near-term transition costs arising from loss of competitiveness, economic dislocations, unemployment and worsening terms-of-trade, he noted.  In the area of sustainable development, the report stressed the need to consider institutional framework at the local national, regional and international levels.  Indeed, institutional governance on sustainable development was becoming increasingly fragmented and the question was whether the existing framework could address all cross-cutting issues.

He said the second report of the Secretary-General, Synthesis Report on Best Practices and Lessons Learned on the Objective and Themes of the Conference (document A/CONF.216/PC/8), was a revision of the report circulated during the first intersessional meeting in January.  It took two new items into account:  responses from seven additional countries, and statements delivered by stakeholders at the first intersessional meeting.  Further, the “Way Forward” section had been updated to reflect emerging areas of convergences and those requiring more discussion.  Additionally, an expert report titled “Transition to a Green Economy:  Benefits, Challenges and Risks from a Sustainable Development Perspective” reviewed the macroeconomic policy implications of the transition to a green economy, the interlinked issues of trade, investment and technology, as well as the challenges that green economies posed for developing countries.

Regarding other preparations for Rio, Mr. Sha, who is also the Secretary-General of the Conference, said efforts were under way to deliver coordinated and integrated support to the preparatory process, with many agencies already engaged in a wide range of initiatives.  Support for regional and national preparations had been intensified, while slight improvements to the Trust Fund now allowed for support to the participation of developing-country representatives in the Preparatory Committee.  Importantly, he noted, many countries had announced an intention to organize preparatory meetings on issues related to Conference themes.  “We are striving for a meaningful outcome of the Conference,” he stressed, one that would galvanize political will among States and other partners.  “To address the challenges we face, we need a forward-looking, action-oriented outcome document,” he said.  It must build on Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

LUIZ ALBERTO FIGUEIREDO, Director, Department of the Environment and Special Themes, Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, provided an update on the host country’s preparations, saying it shared all the high expectations expressed by other Member States as well as civil society as a whole.  Pledging Brazil’s support for a significant outcome in Rio, he said the Government would host the Conference from 4 to 6 June 2012, with the Preparatory Committee holding its third meeting on 28 to 30 May.  Tomorrow morning, participants would hear a briefing on the details of the current preparations for Rio+20, he added.

Statements

JORGE ARGÜELLO (Argentina), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, reaffirmed the Bureau’s role in leading and managing the preparatory process, which would benefit from an early start to the drafting of an outcome document.  Noting that diverging views remained on how to enhance the efficiency of the current United Nations system in the area of sustainable development, he said Rio+20 should aim to renew and enhance political commitment, and to ensure that relevant institutions became more effective.  The institutional framework for sustainable development at all levels must be strengthened to accelerate the sustainable development agenda in all three dimensions, he said.

“There is not, at this moment, a common understanding of what a ‘green economy’ approach entails, as well as its potential risks, costs and benefits,” he said, noting that a definition would be necessary in order to move towards implementing the goals articulated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the “Earth Summit”) in Rio 20 years ago.  If the benefits of applying “green economy” as a concept were to outweigh the risks, the concept must be firmly rooted in the sustainable development paradigm, he emphasized, adding that each country’s policy space to define its own path must be respected.  Social inclusion and decent jobs, trade-related concerns, transition costs and impacts and avoiding “green protectionism” should be seriously addressed.

He went on to emphasize that new and emerging sustainable development issues must also be addressed, including those arising from current global crises and challenges and those that would arise in the future.  They included the financial, economic, food and energy crises, as well as challenges relating to climate change, biological diversity, desertification, water scarcity, the frequency of disasters and the need to prepare for them.  The focus must be on preventing new crises, achieving sustainable development, eradicating poverty and addressing inequalities.  The discussions must be based on the sovereign right of countries to employ their own resources, pursuant to their own environmental and development policies and the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities.

ISTVAN TEPLAN, Senior Adviser to the State Secretary for the Environment of Hungary, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Conference was expected to become a cornerstone for all States and stakeholders on the road to realizing sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals.  Hopefully its outcome would set the foundation for orienting the global economy and markets towards sustainable patterns that would maintain the planet’s natural resources and guarantee a better quality of life for all.

In that context, it was crucial to enhance the engagement of civil society and the private sector, he said, stressing that the European Union would work to define improved governance architecture for sustainable development.  Underlining that all relevant United Nations bodies must be involved in the preparations for Rio+20, he said:  “The next two days are crucial to lay the ground for open and frank discussions.”  As for the Conference outcome, the European Union wished to see a global commitment to a green economy, accompanied by a road map defining national and international steps.  Regarding the institutional framework, he recommended the transformation of UNEP into a specialized agency, as part of a renewed governance structure for sustainable development.

PETER THOMSON (Fiji), speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), said truly sustainable global development was needed so that the future of island peoples, who depended on limited resources, was not compromised.  In devising priorities, a central pillar of the Rio Process must not focus only on a green economy, but also on a “blue economy”, he emphasized, adding that its outcome must stress conservation and related aspirations for ocean and marine resources, including the protection of coral reefs.  “Global oceans have slipped backwards into deeper crisis,” he noted, calling for measurable commitments while noting that the green economy strategy was replete with foundational flaws and structural gaps.

As such, the Alliance expected the Secretary-General’s forthcoming recommendations to pinpoint the way forward, he said, urging the fulfilment of commitments, especially those relating to financial support and capacity-building.  “We do not need another review for the sake of having one,” he emphasized, noting that States had been “missing the mark”.  Analytical power was needed to build the necessary goals.  How, without the basic tools of baselines and benchmarks, would progress be measured? he asked.  “We must stop applying old coats of paint to an ageing development vehicle.”  Well-developed data sets in capitals were often lost in international translations and oversized global standards, he noted, urging that data be “in hand” to inform political decisions.  In the area of climate change, he underlined the importance of common but different responsibilities and respective capabilities.

MARLENE MOSES ( Nauru), speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, said that for that group of countries, the green economy was in fact a “blue economy”.  She said Pacific small islands had shown leadership in a number of areas, including the establishment of marine protected areas, but those efforts would not succeed without the support and cooperation of the international community.  Rio+20 should be a turning point for nations and peoples relying on oceans as their main resources, she stressed, adding that a sober assessment of why existing agreements were failing to protect ocean resources must be made.

The way forward must include specific and measurable steps, she continued.  Priorities should include addressing fishing over capacity, establishing protected areas and ending the use of oceans as global dumping grounds.  In addition to calling for a blue economy, Pacific small islands were also looking to Rio+20 to provide a framework for their sustainable development, and hoped the Conference would be the next step in ensuring that those nations were part of sustainable development.  “Let us go to Rio not exhausted by debates about definitions, but ready to go to the next step,” she said.

MANI RATNA SHARMA (Nepal), speaking on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries and associating himself with the Group of 77 and China, said the least developed countries faced a number of problems and challenges in all three pillars of sustainable development due to inner structural constraints, vulnerabilities and lack of capacities, as well as external shocks.  They faced disproportionate impacts from extreme weather events, desertification and biodiversity loss, as well as the fragility of mountainous ecosystems, melting glaciers, floods, sinking coastal areas and rising sea levels.  Not only were those phenomena more regular than they had been in the past, they were also more devastating.  Against such a backdrop, a clear and acceptable definition of “green economy” was needed, he said, adding that it should establish its beneficial linkages with sustainable development and poverty eradication.  Yet, the green economy may not be an objective in itself, but a means to the end of sustainable development and poverty alleviation, he noted.

He went on to stress that a green economy must not be interpreted as a conditionality or burden on the least developed countries, but should be used to promote their capacities without constraining their policy space.  Substantial environmental technology transfer should be a high priority, he said, adding that, due to their lack of capacity and resources, the least developed countries should also be given due priority in the allocation of necessary funds and in devising programmes.  It was critical that developed countries fulfil their official development assistance (ODA) commitments and provide least developed countries with additional, substantive and secure funding and technology for adaptation and mitigation with regards to the effects of climate change.  The current piecemeal approach to sustainable development should be replaced by one that was coherent and concerted, he added.

Speaking in his national capacity, he said the 12 per cent of the global population living in mountainous areas was most vulnerable to the vagaries of climate change, and a sustainable mountain agenda must therefore be a priority issue for Rio+20.

OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said the preparatory process for Rio+20 would be crucial in defining concrete outcomes and commitments in 2012.  The focus should be on how to advance the international commitment to sustainable development and poverty eradication, while addressing inequalities and preventing new economic crises.  The success of the Conference would be measured by the extent to which participants addressed issues like access to adequate financing, technology and human capacities development.  Regarding new and emerging issues, he said the effects of the financial, food and fuel crises had brought forward many new problems, including energy security and biodiversity loss, adding that actions must be taken to decouple economic growth and environmental degradation.

Regarding the institutional framework, he urged an “unbiased approach” that would address the three pillars of sustainable development in a balanced manner and recognize advances achieved by existing international institutions and agreements.  Developed countries must provide adequate and predictable financing, including official development assistance (ODA).  Regional and subregional mechanisms should be given “major” support to ensure their effective coordination of the main tasks ahead, with the United Nations taking a central role.  Finally, the institutional framework should support scientific capacity in developing countries, he said.  Indeed, a world that better integrated social and environmental concerns would require the flexibility and consideration of the different levels of economic, social and environmental development.

Interactive Discussion

Mr. ASHE, Committee Co-Chair, then launched an interactive discussion on the theme — “Securing renewed political commitment for sustainable development; assessing the progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development; and addressing new and emerging challenges” — aimed to address the manner in which the Conference’s two themes would accelerate progress on sustainable development.

Participants discussed the emerging issues and challenges that threatened the sustainable development of their countries, and identified ways in which the Conference could improve cooperation, especially through voluntary actions and multi-stakeholder partnerships.  Several speakers urged a holistic approach to sustainable development that would successfully integrate its three pillars:  economic development; social development; and environmental protection.  A test of Rio+20 would be how well that goal was achieved, he said, adding that better data were needed to ensure a solid basis for discussion.  Others underlined the importance of reaching political consensus in Rio, as the fate of the world’s 9 billion inhabitants depended on creating decent, social, ecological and economic conditions.

Asked by the Chair about the key issues threatening his country, the representative of Australia named the sustainable development of aquatic and marine resources, the effective management of which was vital.  The same was true for the conservation of the oceans, estuaries, sea mounts and coral reefs.  A second challenge hinged on the availability, quality and management of water, and the effects of that on food security, he said.  Many countries shared those challenges and Australia’s knowledge could be put to good use in that area, he emphasized, noting that growing urbanization was a third issue to be tackled.

Several delegates highlighted the perils of unrestrained consumption patterns, stressing that the earth’s regeneration abilities had been surpassed.  It was a mistake, many said, to believe that continuous growth was possible, particularly through new uses of natural resources.  The goal should not be to push nature’s limits, but to live within its resources, they said.

The representative of Ecuador urged a return to the debates of the 1970s on the idea that economic growth was always possible, if not desirable.  The representative of Bolivia said food production must be regulated as a social need, rather than a source of ever-increasing profits, and financial operations should be taxed to create a sustainable development fund for developing countries.

While acknowledging that prosperity could provide additional environmental pressures, a representative of business and industry emphasized that the goals of the sustainable development agenda would be impossible without economic growth.  Moreover, by providing conceptual solutions and concrete means for implementation, business played a critical role in furthering that agenda.

Member States were divided over the relative importance of the three pillars underpinning sustainable development — economic development, social development, and environmental protection.  While some advocated for Rio+20 to place the environmental agenda at the centre of debate, others warned that isolating the environmental thread posed fundamental risks, particularly inaddressing future challenges.

The representative of Brazil also underscored the challenges for the developing world of integrating the three pillars, noting that developed countries had the luxury of dealing with them in phases while their developing counterparts were being asked to tackle all three at once.

As delegates considered new and emerging challenges, several speakers called for developed countries to honour their ODA commitments and pledges to implement the transfer of environmental technology.  Others highlighted the links connecting science, education and policy, with some emphasizing the need to base policies on sound science.  One representative called for a “paradigm shift” to overcome the traditional divide between developing and developed countries.

A representative of women called for the inclusion of women in the sustainable development agenda, and for the application of a rights-based framework.

A handful of speakers argued that the failure to address emerging issues and other gaps in implementing the principles of sustainable development were not due to a lack of tools, but were instead the consequences of less-than-adequate policies.  Underlining desertification and land degradation as the most pressing issues facing his country, the representative of Algeria said Rio+20 must not renegotiate the principles of the original Earth Summit, but review what had gone wrong over the last 20 years to create such “poor results” in implementing the 1992 outcomes.  He suggested further that for too many countries the result had been sustained poverty rather than sustainable development.

In a similar vein, the representative of Pakistan said the means of implementation remained insufficient and unless that gap was addressed, the current debate would “stretch out for decades”.  Other countries cited a “one-size-fits-all” approach, the imposition of timetables, green protectionism and fragmented institutional arrangements, including the Commission, as relevant risks.

The representative of China noted that countries were seriously divided over the principles, modalities and goals of international environmental governance.  Ensuring stable, sufficient and predictable funding sources and advanced, preferential and environmentally friendly technologies for developing countries must be a priority, he emphasized.

Also participating in the discussion were representatives of Hungary (on behalf of the European Union), Argentina (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China), Palau (on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States), Japan, Peru, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, Indonesia, Spain (on behalf of the President of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum convened from 21-24 February in Nairobi), and Mexico.

Representatives of the scientific and technological community and farmers major groups also participated.

Interactive Discussion II

Co-Chair PARK IN-KOOK ( Republic of Korea) launched the second interactive discussion, on “Green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication”, saying many countries faced challenges in the transition to the green economy.  Assistance was needed in the areas of financing, technology and human-capacity development, as well as on the implications of a green economy.  He encouraged those countries that had incorporated the green economy concept into their growth policies to share their experiences.

In the ensuing debate, speakers emphasized that there was no “one-size-fits-all” approach to balancing consumption and production patterns in such a way as to reduce the negative environmental impacts of globalization.  Several speakers voiced their views on what constituted a “green economy”, with the representative of the European Union’s delegation calling it part of a broader concept of sustainable development.  While it could help deliver economic growth and decent jobs, it must, above all, place the management of “natural capital” at its centre, a process that would require the active engagement of a range of actors.

Other speakers outlined ways to tailor strategic and longer-term plans to allow for a smooth transition to a greener, low-carbon economy that, at the same time, kept poverty eradication on the “front burner”.  Some discussed regional frameworks, including environmentally friendly industrial policies, as well as measures on the sustainable exploitation of resources, such as forests.  Still others pressed developed countries to fulfil pledges to assist poor nations, and shrink their environmental footprints as fast and as far as possible.  Developing countries, on the other hand, were encouraged to raise living standards without increasing their own environmental impacts.

The representative of India said that developing countries, including his own, realized the value of pursuing green growth.  For those nations, poverty eradication and economic growth were the overriding priorities, and to be effective, a “green economy strategy” must capture the underlying differences among nations on the scale and scope of development.  It must respect the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and “stand the test of scrutiny” on the question of equity.  Furthermore, sustainable consumption and production patterns required focus, he added, which, for the business community, meant building environmental stewardship into corporate governance policies.  Models for a green economy might not work for developing nations if they required “prescriptions” for a better future, as those nations needed flexible policy space to pursue their own priorities.

Other signs and characteristics of a green economy, delegates suggested, ranged from:  the promotion of renewable energy to the use of energy efficient appliances and equipment, greater resources efficiency, particularly in production practices, and the development of public transportation.  It must include improvements in water and waste management programmes as well as agricultural practices.

Several delegates underlined the role of Government in encouraging the development of green economies, starting with the creation of policies that both protected the environment and furthered economic growth.  Nevertheless, trade-distorting price supports must be avoided and policies supporting a green economy must be in line with World Trade Organization policies, many said.  One speaker said pro-development initiatives in the context of the green economy must also protect jobs, while another advocated changes in national tax systems to foster environmental growth, including tax breaks to encourage the creation of “green” investment funds and carbon-tax schemes to help curb carbon emissions.

Yet Governments could not lead the transition alone, the representative of the United States said, stressing that the private sector — including businesses of all sizes — must be engaged in that process.  Governments should investigate ways to provide incentives for private sector involvement where market signals were not yet fully effective, he stressed, adding that three key policies would facilitate green growth — getting prices and quantities right, investing in innovative technology research and development, and responsibly managing shared resources.

A number of speakers from island States and countries dependent on marine resources and industries called for greater attention to developing the notion of a “blue economy” alongside a “green economy”.  Major efforts were needed to improve the long-term infrastructure of marine and coastal industries, including shipping, fishing, tourism and water and waste-water management, as well as seemingly non-marine fields such as the pharmaceutical and extractive industries.

The shift to a green economy would only be possible if key international agreements were respected, several speakers emphasized, while others cautioned that a green economy was not a substitute for, but a complement to, sustainable development.  In that vein, one delegate underlined the unique potential of the green economy concept to transform consumption patterns within the sustainable development framework.  Another speaker suggested that while it was right to break with “business as usual”, existing green economies, some of which had done so for decades and centuries, such as artisanal fishing, for example, should not be ignored.

Referring to his country’s recent youth-led revolution, the representative of Tunisia said young people without a job did not care whether their economies grew at a certain rate or if their Governments were pursuing green economies.  Instead, they cared about opportunities for decent work and social justice.  For Tunisia, promoting global justice and decent work should be the primary goal of Rio+20, he said, with the Conference’s eventual outcome document incorporating strategies and targets to promote both of those issues alongside poverty alleviation and sustainable development.

However, the representative of Cuba described the green economy concept as a “paradigm in progress”, saying his main difficulty was that it did not make clear how consumption patterns could be changed.

ACHIM STEINER, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme, invited to respond to the discussion, urged delegations to investigate case studies and papers prepared for Rio+20 online.  In looking towards the Conference and whatever partnership would be fashioned in Rio, it was important to remember that for one reason or another, the world had already begun transitioning to a green economy.  That was true for both developed and developing countries, he said.  “My gravest concern is that we look at least developed countries to ensure that they are not left behind,” he added.  In a world with expensive fossil fuels and dwindling natural resources, countries without the human and natural resources would be the most vulnerable.  As delegations had already said themselves, in the end, it was in everyone’s interest to ensure that even the least able were given the means and opportunity to develop a green economy.

Also participating in the interactive debate were representatives of Argentina (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China), Barbados (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Venezuela, Guatemala, Chile, Cambodia, United Republic of Tanzania, South Africa, Morocco, Kenya, Monaco, Spain, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Egypt, Japan, Ecuador, Italy, Norway, Iceland and Brazil.

A representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See also took part.

Other speakers were representative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Also speaking were representatives of the International Organization for Standardization and the trade unions major group.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record