Rio summit offered little for Africa

By Stephen Leahy

World leaders and some 40,000 people converged on Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June in the hope of charting a path towards the “green economy.”

Underlining the urgency, Sha Zukang, secretary-general of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, said more than a year before the summit began: “If we continue on our current path, we will bequeath material and environmental poverty, not prosperity, to our children and grandchildren.”

However, sharp tensions between countries of the North and South and between civil society and governments — amidst general global economic uncertainty — resulted in vague agreements that left few satisfied.

Linkage

The summit ended up being “a glass half-full, glass half-empty situation for Africa,” said Donald Kaberuka, president of the African Development Bank (AfDB), on the final day in Rio. “We’re making progress on thinking about the green economy, and especially the linkage between poverty alleviation and the environment.”

“This is not something we do because the international community is asking us to do it,” Mr. Kaberuka added.

“We do it for Africa because we are closely linked to nature in terms of our livelihoods.” Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (Unep), which has been a driving force in promoting the concept of a green economy, was upbeat.

“World leaders and governments have today agreed that a transition to a green economy — backed by strong social provisions — offers a key pathway towards a sustainable 21st century,” he said at the conclusion.

But South Africa’s Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace International, strongly disagreed.

“All we have witnessed is three days of empty rhetoric and greenwash from world leaders,” he said. The formal outcome of the Rio+20 summit was a document, The Future We Want, reaffirming what had been agreed to years ago, but offering little new. Instead, world leaders simply agreed to more talks to strengthen UN institutions, examine whether to provide developing countries with finance and technology, and establish new sustainable development goals.

Going into the summit, developing countries called on the industrialized nations to provide additional financing of more than $30 billion annually over 2013–17 — and $100 billion per year after that — to help them green their economies.

President Mwai Kibaki of Kenya agreed, arguing that an international sustainable development financing strategy would “facilitate the mobilization of financial and other resources to assist developing countries to make the transition to the green economy more effectively.”

After developed countries failed to agree to new funds — only to future talks on financing — AfDB President Kaberuka expressed disappointment. The Rio summit, he said, did not produce any concrete timetables or establish any mechanism to monitor and verify progress towards greening economies. Some African ministers, like Raymond Tshibanda, foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, pointed to the North’s unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.

Higher impact

Tshibanda noted that industrialized countries’ carbon emissions and water and resource use have a far higher impact on the planet than those of African nations. But beyond this general consensus, the summit did not produce a clear understanding of what the term “green economy” means.

“The green economy is a black box right now,” said Davinder Lamba, director of the Mazingira Institute, a non-governmental organization (NGO) in Nairobi, Kenya. “We don’t know what will make it tick.”More “transparency and agency” will be required to overcome the reluctance and opposition to creating green economies, Lamba added. By “agency,” he means that those at the bottom, the poor and poorest countries, must have a role in shaping what green economies are and how they will work.

The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), an NGO network of more than 155 organizations in 22 African countries, said it was encouraged by the commitment in “The Future We Want” document to improving the livelihoods of the poor and to valuing their needs and concerns.

According to Nigel Crawhall, director of the IPACC Secretariat, many destructive projects have been justified on the basis that they increased economic growth, while ignoring their impacts on local communities and their land. Such projects now need to be “reassessed, adjusted or just cancelled, as they create poverty rather than alleviate it,” he said.

Some came to Rio looking for practical steps that could boost economic develop-ment and job creation.

Innovation

“We were hoping Rio would produce concrete solutions on sustainable development. In the East African region our priority is safeguarding nature, on which our economies depend,” said Jesca Eriyo, deputy secretary-general of the secretariat of the East African Community, a regional intergovernmental group of Burundi, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania.

What would a green economy mean for those active in nature-dependant sectors like agriculture, fisheries and tourism? If it brings innovation and industrialization, resulting in jobs in new industries, it could be an opportunity, she conceded.

Charles Mbella Moki, the mayor of Buea, a town in southwestern Cameroon, thought it would take time for the significance of the Rio summit to become clear. “It is yet to be seen in the years ahead if this get-together will have a positive impact on humanity.

The writer is lead international science and environment correspondent at Inter Press Service.