It is a matter of opinion whether the gigantic Rio+20 conference in Brazil was a success or a squib. But it is a fact that it lacked physical achievements. Some world leaders went to Brazil and. along with UN bigwigs and activists, they agreed the world needs a lot of work on the environment, economic fairness and climate.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the start that sustainable development is "the only viable development". In fact, the Earth summit proved, again, that there are many other possibilities, including failure.
The summit at Rio turned once again into a confab, with lofty speeches and minuscule achievement _ if that. Not a goal was set, not a commitment was made. The number of agreements on slashing carbon dioxide and methane outputs was equal to the number of promises by the rich countries to set up a fund to back sustainable initiatives and green jobs. And all this happened with no disagreements about the need for goals and action.
The groundbreaking 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development took place in Rio. Apart from the 172 national delegations, some 2,400 people from the business sector, local governments and NGOs attended. Last week, there were 192 governments at Rio+20, and 50,000 "others". The sad truth is that while governments were often deaf to each other, those in the non-government groups were there to defend and to try to further their own narrow interests. There was plenty of lip service towards global needs. Almost all action, however, was centred locally.
Apart from agreeable rhetoric, it is difficult to think of a positive change that ever has come from an Earth summit. Maurice Strong is the Canadian who was the most prominent moving force in organising the summits. He pointed out last week that in 20 years, the number of people in extreme poverty has been more than halved, from 43% to "just" 21%. Mr Strong did not explain how the summits have affected this, except that "Earth summits influenced all UN conferences".
To be charitable, there is little doubt that the literally thousands of UN and UN-friendly summits, meetings, conferences, gatherings and discussions have taken a generally positive view of how to improve life, economy and climate. But then so have all the others. This newspaper never has reported a meeting with the stated aim of increasing poverty, strewing garbage, polluting the seas or pouring carbon into the atmosphere. Speaking of that, however, the 1,400 United Nations staff members sent to run Rio+20 generated an extra 3,600 tonnes of carbon emissions in their travels.
The Earth summit and other such large meetings are not even necessary. Their results can as easily be achieved through teleconferences. Ecuador's chief delegate and secretary of state Ivonne A-Baki spent most of her time at Rio lobbying (unsuccessfully) for protection of a national park from oil companies. A Thailand-based delegation lobbied on Mekong flooding. Taking such narrow goals to a world conference had predictable success.
There will be recriminations this week over Rio. The truth is that the huge summit itself is no longer sustainable. There was a time when large meetings, debate and personal interplay could equal or even better the Agenda 21 set at Rio in 1992.
While world cooperation is necessary, it cannot be achieved on a schedule. The Earth summit only pretends to be able to solve all problems. The environment is best and most effectively improved at national and village levels.