Rio+20 declaration talks fail almost before they begin, page 1

Apparently the summit is now relegated to be a laughing stock.

They key objectives, the prime drivers, the big issues... all reduced to ridicule? So say the special interest groups looking to this gathering for some kind of "progress."

... 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...

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..

Many mentions are made in the source about the feelings of the disaffected:

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

"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.

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 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."

Of course the recently circulated "The Future we Want" document (see related thread) was the usual bland, ill-defined, non-specific, non-binding literature legal and marketing minds are notorious for...

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.

The dissenting nations, the US, Venezuela, Canada, Russia and Japan... not coincidentally are knee-deep in pushing the "Law of the Sea Treaty" which will legally empower transnational corporations in a manner which would not be desirable if the Rio+20 document gets ratified first.... sea food for thought.

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)