Rio+20 declaration talks fail almost before they begin

It was the 3?am coup. Early on Tuesday morning, an unlikely coalition of the US and Venezuela, helped by Canada, Russia and Japan, vetoed a plan to launch talks for a UN treaty to protect the international high seas. The plan had been a chance for this week's Earth Summit to salvage some green kudos from a diplomatic quagmire, environmentalists said.

And it proved to be the last chance. Hours later, the Brazilian hosts gave up on reaching further agreements. They called time on talks to agree a Rio+20 declaration, even though the agreed text had been widely derided as hopelessly weak, and ministers were only then arriving in the city for three days of deliberations that might have dramatically improved matters.

Action to save the oceans could have been a highlight of the week, said the High Seas Alliance, a coalition of oceanographers and campaigners from Greenpeace to the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The European Union and many nations had backed their call for the world to start work on a treaty to protect the last huge areas of the planet outside national jurisdictions.

"We came here excited that oceans were going to be a top priority," said Susan Lieberman of the Washington-based Pew Environment Group.

Doused dreams

But in a secret session behind closed doors, the negotiators of Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama scuppered the scheme and forced through wording that would postpone for three years even a decision on whether to draw up a treaty. Both countries have long-standing objections to international oversight of the oceans.

"What I have seen at this summit has utterly appalled me," said Alex Rogers, scientific director of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean. "I have recently been observing seamounts in the southern Indian Ocean devastated by trawlers. These ecosystems take thousands of years to develop. I wish the negotiators here could witness what I have seen."

On Tuesday afternoon, the conference secretary-general Sha Zukang confirmed that "there will be no further negotiations on the text". UN insiders said the plan, although weak, was the best that could be achieved. It had always been intended that ministers would arrive for the high-level talks from Wednesday to Friday with an agreed text ready for them, they said.

Ministers will be invited to approve the declaration on Friday as the conference closes. But they will not be asked to debate it or negotiate improvements during their three days here.

Unless they tear up the rule book, the ministers will be open to the charge that their plans to meet the challenge of sustainable development protecting the planet's ecosystems are half-hearted.

Sha claimed that the declaration "will make a tremendous difference to generating positive global change". But its studied vagueness troubled many people. It includes a commitment to start negotiating a series of "sustainable development goals", but there is no agreement on what those goals might be.

Doomed to ridicule

A disappointed Caroline Spelman, UK environment secretary, said: "We had wanted to get agreement on themes of [access to] food, water and energy, which will now be our next aim."

The anger late on Tuesday extended to non-governmental organisations, which normally find solace in even the most disappointing conference outcomes. "The Brazilians are determined to shut down further debate," said Alison Doig of the Partnership for Clean Indoor Air. The compromise text was "a betrayal of all we were trying to achieve".

Jim Leape, director-general of conservation group WWF International, called the text a "colossal failure of leadership and vision. They've doomed Rio+20 to ridicule."

The European Union environment commissioner Janez Poto?nik looked on the bright side, saying that "a 10-year framework for action on sustainable consumption and production has been adopted". It would include commitments such as "the right to clean water and sanitation, the need to address land degradation, and to achieve healthy oceans and tackle marine litter".

Spelman said: "We now have a global commitment to the green economy as a way to reduce poverty, sustain economic growth and use our natural resources in a more responsible way to protect them for future generations."

But critics said the 49-page document, titled The Future We Want, commits no nations to anything. It calls for "urgent action" against economic activities that are "unsustainable", but says neither what those activities are, nor what such action might involve.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article

Subscribe now to comment.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

hearts roses flower delivery e cards smash kate upton sports illustrated outback