Rio: ecumenical advocacy and witness at Rio+20.

Kerber, Guillermo

The recent United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, also called Rio+20) ended with an outcome document entitled "The Future We Want," which, despite the praise of some government representatives, including Brazil, the host country, was strongly criticized by churches and the civil society as a whole.

Churches, and the WCC in particularly, have been strongly involved in the preparation of this conference, both at the UN official gathering and at the Peoples' Summit, a space where civil society organized various activities. At the Peoples' Summit, the "Religions for Rights" cluster brought together 80 different activities including morning prayers, workshops, book launches and artistic performances.

Twenty Years after the Earth Summit

As its name indicates, Rio+20 refers to the Rio 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit. At that time various relevant documents were adopted by the international community, among them the UN Convention on Biological Diversity; the Forest Principles, and, last but not least, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Together with these, which are known as the three Rio Conventions, two other important texts were adopted in 1992: the Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint of actions to be taken and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (or, just Rio Declaration), which consists of 27 guiding principles for sustainable development.

UNCED had as precedent the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972, which was the first major modern international gathering on human activities in relationship to the environment and led to the founding of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the establishment of the International Day of the Environment on 5 June, as a commemoration of the UNCHE inauguration ceremony that took place on 5 June, 1972.

UNCED was seen as a turning point in a long process to bring about ecological sustainability and economic justice. Churches were active in the early negotiation stages of UNCED in providing input to what was proposed as an "Earth Charter." The Rio Declaration, which was the outcome of those negotiations, acknowledges human responsibility to care for the planet as a whole, recognizes that the ecological crisis is caused largely by the industrial and consumer practices in developed nations and calls for greater international cooperation to address problems of environment and development.

At the Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro, the WCC organized an ecumenical gathering called "Searching for the New Heavens and the New Earth," as well as daily activities at a WCC tent at the Expo Rio-92 (ECO-92). The ecumenical delegation present in Rio 1992 was not happy with the outcomes of UNCED: "For the first time, the world community was gathered to deal with the interrelated crises of ecological destruction and global poverty.

However, the results of UNCED are an inadequate response to the seriousness of the crisis." (1)

Nevertheless, the participants considered that many of the Rio principles (e.g., common but differentiated responsibilities, the preventive principle, the polluter pays principle) provide the basis for significant and perhaps even radical change if taken seriously and implemented. Churches were encouraged to use the Rio Declaration to advocate for changes in their own societies and internationally.

The overall situation is perceived as alarming. In the Letter to the Churches, sent by delegates of the meeting, they clearly affirm: "The earth is in peril. Our only home is in plain jeopardy. We are at the precipice of self-destruction. For the very first time in the history of creation, certain life support systems of the planet are being destroyed by human actions." (2)

Rio+20

Rio+20 would have been the occasion to assess what happened since UNCED. What is the situation of the earth today? What are the changes? How were the three Rio conventions implemented or not? Why? But the resolution of the UN General Assembly, which called for

"An Evaluation of the UNCED Conventions," in Searching for the New Heavens and the New Earth: An Ecumenical Response to UNCED (Geneva: WCC, 1992), 12.

"Letter to the Churches," in ibid., 10. UNCSD, already limited the scope to two issues: the green economy and the international framework for sustainable development. Moreover, the geographical distance between the UN Conference, held at Riocentro Conference Center, and the Peoples' Summit, held at Aterro do Flamengo--35 kilometres--was even longer in political terms. While in 1992 the civil society's global forum had a formal way of delivering its conclusions to the UN conference, there was no formal way this time.

There was a large ecumenical delegation participating both at the UNCSD and the Peoples' Summit. Previously, the WCC had submitted a joint contribution with the Lutheran World Federation to the "Zero Draft" of the outcome document and organized a series of side events at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Rio+20. Other ecumenical actors had submitted comments as well.

The ecumenical participation at the Peoples' Summit was part of a larger interfaith initiative under the cluster "Religions for Rights." This space had a main tent and others focusing on food sovereignty, climate justice, sustainable development, youth, conflict transformation, and so forth. In these tents, more than 80 activities were organized. A local and an international committee worked together since the beginning of 2012 to prepare the agenda.

Two of WCC's activities were held at the main tent. The first, on climate justice, creation and human responsibility, moderated by Rev Lusmarina Campos Garcia, included a samba, especially composed for this activity by Rev Campos Garcia, performed by a musical group and a dance. The second was a dialogue between Professor Leonardo Boll, well-known Brazilian liberation theologian, one of the drafters of the Earth Charter, and Rev Dr Walter Ahmann, moderator of the WCC Central Committee. The topic of this dialogue was "Ethical and Theological Bases for Climate Justice." Other activities included workshops on "The WCC and the Rio Convention on Climate Change" and the launch of an updated edition of David G. Hallman's book Spiritual Values for Earth Community.

At the UNCSD venue, the WCC, along with the Lutheran World Federation, Religions for Peace and Caritas Internationalis, organized a side event on the theme "Ethical and Religious Insights on the Future We Want," chaired by Rev Dr Walter Altman, WCC Central Committee moderator. The event was attended by more than 100 people. The event was opened with the reading, by Lic. Elias Crisostomo Abramides, from Argentina, of the message of His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I to the leaders gathered at Rio+20. Then, Bishop Dr Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria, Germany, encouraged people of faith to dedicate themselves to the struggle against environmental deterioration, calling for a public theology developed both in religious and secular languages to express what religions have to offer in addressing environmental threats. Rev Dr Nestor Paulo Friedrich, president of the Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil (IECLB), cautioned against the distance between the UNCSD and the Peoples' Summit. Building on what IECLB and Lutheran Youth have offered at the Summit, he called for an increase in the participation of civil society in global dialogues. For Ms Rosa Ines Floriano Carrera, from Colombian Caritas, the issue of human dignity has not been at the center of the concerns of the negotiators gathered at the UNCSD. She reminded that the option for the poor is an ethical imperative that addresses not only poverty caused by economic structures, but all forms of injustice, including environmental ones. A young Muslim leader, Ms Soher El Sukaria, Secretary of the Muslim Arab Society of Cordoba, Argentina and Co-Coordinator of the Religions for Peace Latin America and Caribbean Youth Network, stressed the common struggle religions are in for protecting the environment and empowering the poor. And at the end of the panel, Mr Michael Slaby, on behalf of Rabbi Awraham Soetendorp, presented the interreligious statement: "Towards Rio+20 and Beyond--A Turning Point in Earth History," which has been signed already by many religious leaders and organizations.

Other side events organized by the WCC included one on "Ethical Implications of Sustalnability: Educational and Religious Perspectives," co-organized with the Baptist World Alliance, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, the Instituto de Direitos Humanos do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, the University of Washington and others; and another one on "The Spirituality and Ethics of Water," co-organized by the Ecumenical Water Network (EWN) of the WCC with the United Religions Initiative (URI) and Faith without Borders (FWB).

Furthermore, WCC delegates contributed to a seminar on "The Rio+20 Legacy: An Inter-generational Dialogue on Sustainability" organized by Beyond 2015, the Global Campaign for Climate Action (GCCA) and the panel on "Humanity & Environment = Our World's Resources," organized by the World Team Now and GCCA/Tcktcktck.

Outside the Peoples' Summit and UNCSD venues, and, in my personal opinion, one of the most encouraging activities, WCC delegates, including Rev Neddy Astudilio, from Venezuela, serving at the Presbyterian Church USA, coordinated a workshop on Eco-justice at the Seminar on Ecological Justice organized by the World Student Christian Federation--Latin America (FUMEC) together with Brazilian Youth Lutherans and others at the Methodist Bennett University.

Assessment and Perspectives

If, as the WCC General Secretary Rev Dr Olav Fykse Tveit in his message to Rio+20 stressed, "[Rio+20] can and should be a catalyst for concrete initiatives to overcome the short-term perspectives that have been predominant in recent international negotiations. The outcome from Rio+20 should therefore comprise a set of clear targets and timetables for a sustainable future which must include accountability and reporting measures," then it is clear the outcome from UNCSD has been very far from what has been expressed as necessary by many from the scientific community, vulnerable countries and civil society.

The sense of urgency of the earth crisis, the concrete initiatives and a set of clear targets and timetables are not part of the outcome document, perhaps too ambitiously entitled "The Future We Want." Actually, many civil society organizations participating at Rio+20 called to remove the phrase in the first paragraph which reads, "We, the heads of State and Government and high level representatives,... with full participation of civil society, renew our commitment to sustainable development, ..." as they didn't think their contribution was taken into account. The Peoples' Summit Final Declaration expresses: "Twenty years ago the Global Forum, also held in Flamengo Park, denounced the risks which humanity and nature ran with privatization and neoliberalism. Today we say that, besides confirming our analysis, there were significant setbacks in relation to human rights already recognized. The Rio+20 repeats the same wrong way for false solutions advocated by the same actors who caused the global crisis. As the crisis deepens, more corporations move against peoples' rights, democracy and nature, kidnapping the common goods of humanity to save the financial-economic system."

While since the so-called Zero Draft of the UNCSD outcome document, the WCC, together with the Lutheran World Federation, advocated for a principle-based preamble with clear ethical grounding, the present "vision" of the text fails short in this regard. The international community, having been unable to reach a consensus, opted for the lowest common denominator, avoiding any controversial issue. As a result, the earth loses, and the poor and vulnerable lose.

It should be said, however, that there are some positive aspects of the outcome document, among them the recognition of both the sections on the Human Right to Water and the Right to Food, despite opposition by some governments. On climate change, the document expresses the concern "about the potential environmental impacts of ocean fertilization," based on the precautionary principle. Ocean fertilization is a theoretical climate-change geoengineering tool intended to enhance biological productivity and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

From an ecumenical and interfaith perspective, both the UNCSD and the Peoples' Summit showed a growing consensus in faith communities in addressing the main issues of the conference. The prevailing understanding of green economy was rejected, considering it more "greed economy" than a sustainable way of bringing together economy and ecology; care for the earth and common ethics were highlighted as contributions faith communities can make to the earth crisis, calling for an explicit recognition of the contribution faith communities can make to the negotiations, taking into account that faith communities as such are not one of the nine major groups recognized by the Agenda 21.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-6623.2012.00184.x

Dr Guillermo Kerber is the WCC Programme Executive on Care for Creation and Climate Justice.