INSTRUCTIONS: U.S. RESPONSE ON PROPOSED RIO+20

UNCLAS STATE 116592

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: UNGA UNGA SENV EAID AORC
SUBJECT: INSTRUCTIONS: U.S. RESPONSE ON PROPOSED RIO+20
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT

REF: A. USUN NY 902

B. USUN 928

C. USUN NY 978


1. Summary. South Korea's Ambassador Park has approached
Ambassador Khalilzad and Ambassador McMahan (reftels A and
C) about Korea's interest in hosting a Rio-plus-20 (Rio 20)
conference on sustainable development in Korea in 2012. He
reiterated that it is the right time for Asia to host such a
stock-taking conference and said that the G-77 was pushing
for such an event. He requested the U.S. position on such as
summit. End Summary.


2. Additional Background:
Brazilian President Lula and South Korean PM Han have each
proposed hosting a "Rio 20" Sustainable Development Summit
in 2012 to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of the 1992 UN
Conference on Environment and Development ("Rio Earth
Summit") and 10th anniversary of the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Brazil intends to
table a General Assembly resolution in early November calling
for such a Summit; it is not clear at this stage whether ROK
intends to do the same, but has suggested the need for one.
Both governments have demarched USUN Ambassador Khalilzad to
press their case (reftels). A timeline of sustainable
development conferences is:
-- 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm
-- 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development ("Rio
Earth Summit")
-- 1997 "Rio 5" - New York
-- 2000 Millennium Summit
-- 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development,
Johannesburg
-- GOK and Brazil have proposed a 2012 Rio-plus-20 Conference
-- CSD agreed in 2003 to a 2016/2017 "Overall appraisal of
implementation"
of Rio, Johannesburg outcomes in the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development.


3. Additional Background Continued:
If convened, Rio 20, would be the third Rio
follow-up conference, after Rio 5 in 1997 and the World
Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. In 2003, the
UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD),the body
charged with ensuring effective follow-up of the 1992 and
2002 Summits, agreed by consensus to postpone any
comprehensive review of the outcomes of these Summits
until 2016/2017. The CSD work cycle reflects this
agreement by covering various aspects of sustainable
development, in series, through 2017:
-- 2004/2005: water, sanitation, human settlements
-- 2006/2007: energy, industrial development, air
pollution/atmosphere, climate change
-- 2008/2009: agriculture, rural development, drought,
desertification, Africa
-- 2010/2011: transport, chemicals, waste management, mining,
sustainable consumption and production
-- 2012/2013: forests, biodiversity, biotechnology, tourism,
mountains
-- 2014/2014: oceans and seas, marine resources, small island
developing states, disaster management and vulnerability
-- 2016/2017: overall appraisal of implementation of Agenda
21, the Program of Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and
the Johannesburg Program of Implementation.


4. Post is requested to respond to Ambassador Park by
reiterating the message given in the U.S. 2nd Committee
Statement on Sustainable Development, delivered on October
27, 2008 (text in paragraph 5). USUN should emphasize that
the U.S. is not opposed to the Summit per se, but we are
concerned about the resources, both financial and human, that
would be required,and we have questions pertaining to whether
a summit would be productive at this stage, in light of our
ongoing sustainable development commitments. USUN should
also emphasize that the role of the UN Commission on
Sustainable Development (CSD) and its cycle of work,
internationally agreed in 2003, are important priorities for
the U.S. We also have questions about the process leading up
to any summit and how that would influence or change the CSD
work cycle. Internal discussions continue on the U.S.
position on a Rio 20, but the initial thought is that a
summit in 2012 may be premature and may detract from ongoing
programs of work.


5. Begin U.S. statement text related to "Rio 20":
We understand that there has been some discussion of a
possible "Rio 20" Summit. We welcome both continued work on
sustainable development and discussion on this particular
topic. However, given the success of the CSD, and in light
of its schedule of cycles, we should closely examine the
necessity of a summit. We already have a large number of
agreements governing our ongoing efforts on sustainable
development, as well as commitments still in progress.
Another summit could detract valuable attention from our
ongoing efforts to fulfill commitments and implement Agenda
21, with limited additional benefits, if any. Such a summit
would disrupt the CSD cycle of work linked to Agenda 21 that
ends in 2017. Also, we question whether a "Rio 20" is the
best use of limited financial and human resources in the
current economic climate. Above all, we advocate continuing
progress towards existing commitments and spending resources
on actions that directly produce results.
End statement text.
RICE