A disappointing outcome?
The morning after was a day to forget. It will be hard to erase the memory of the Saturday morning that CSD ended, the rush of disappointment upon learning of states’ inability to agree with the text. Twitter, as always, was the source of knowledge: #CSD19 closed at 8:52 am Saturday morning, having failed to agree on a resumed session or an agreed outcome. #UNCSD #rioplus20 #rio2012
Yet the anti-climatic failure of the Chair’s text was an empty reflection of the progress made throughout the conference. Negotiation processes were marked by deliberate and concerted attempts by state delegates to make compromises and find solutions to diplomatic tangles. I followed every chemical session, and they were characterised by a high level of calm, geniality and a willingness to work together to find solutions. Each time, I was happily surprised to find disagreements between (chiefly) the US, EU and G77 either being resolved by concerted attempts on the part of each party, or assisted by other countries, particularly Canada and Switzerland. Indeed the chair of the chemical sessions constantly thanked the delegates for their flexibility.
Perhaps the chemicals thematic sessions are a representative microcosm of the entire CSD. Despite the delegates’ hard work, the chemicals text could not be agreed upon. The fundamental issues remained steadfast roadblock to success, rendering any negotiation virtually useless. The problem was clearly not a lack of concern on the part of the governments – at the announcement of failure, several delegates cried. As in many international meetings, it appeared that one or two nagging issues – technology and financial transfer and occupied territories key among them – were enough to damn the entire proceedings and frustrate progress made on so many other issues. Our focus should therefore be to look straight to the touchy issues, to wrangle with them, and, however painful, to find a way to solve them. The future success of any negotiation hinges on that.
The power of the youth in CSD
Despite its disappointments, CSD19 should be a point a pride for the youth caucus. From the start we were, as always, disadvantaged, struggling to make our voice known, but we made the best of it. CSD has been a process where the youth has fought to gain legitimacy and credibility among the CSD board and member states; CSD 19 is perhaps a demonstration of the progress that we have made.
MCYG proceedings were highly organised. At its core, it was arranged according to the five thematic sections, with focal points and daily meetings as networks to relay information between each group. The operating partners were our links to the CSD board, keeping us within the loop of overall negotiations. Our ability to both divide labour, while ensure smooth cooperation and communication is best characterised by our closing statement on the final day. We were informed of a chance to speak mere thirty minutes before the closing session. With typical temerity, we divided the statement into different sections to work on before coming together to edit our speech, all within twenty minutes.
It says something that virtually all of the points that each thematic group wanted to see in the text, were taken up by the delegates. Indeed the “Youth and Children Major Group” were quoted in the text itself, no small feat. We met with delegates and ministers from all over the world – Sweden, Finland, Germany, Indonesia, Japan a few examples in a long list – and showed ourselves to be more than just young people with a voice, but committed actors with a purpose and an ability to act.
Singapore
available in: 