Rio+20: what does success look like in the post-Copenhagen era?
At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, there was a simple grand bargain: the poor countries would clean up if the rich countries would pay up. This was all codified in a series of treaties, declarations, and aid deals. Rio+20 doesn't have a grand bargain – in part because the simple, two-sided world of rich countries and poor countries doesn't exist anymore, and in part because many of the key players don't actually need a global deal.
Rio in 1992 was the world of the G7. Rio+20 is the world of the G20. The intervening 20 years has seen the rapid development of emerging economies. By 2050, many of the poor developing countries of Rio will likely dominate the list of the largest economies in the world.
Those emerging economies will clean up their environments and change their development models if it makes sense to them to do so for their own reasons. Mexico, which is hosting the G20 summit immediately prior to the Rio conference, just adopted a national climate change law requiring 30% emissions reductions by 2020 because Mexico believes it is in its own political, economic and environmental interest to do so.
There are still desperately poor countries in the world that will require significant foreign assistance to develop into thriving nations. But the rich countries aren't feeling very rich right now, especially compared to 1992 when the world thought the peace dividend would defray the transitional costs of environmental sustainability.
The key actors needed to solve global challenges have also evolved. After 20 years of post-Cold War, internet-enabled globalisation, the number and influence of global corporations has expanded dramatically. And they aren't just based in the US and Europe any more.
The role of business in the UN process has also evolved significantly. Twenty years ago, most of the companies who showed up at UN environmental conferences did so because they were concerned about the potential impacts of environmental regulation on their businesses, and the dirty companies tended to be the loudest voices. Today it's a very different world, with many progressive companies seeing environmental sustainability as a way to enhance productivity and competitiveness; seeing environmental degradation and resources scarcity as a quantifiable business risk; and beginning to go beyond CSR concerns to recognise that investing in nature's goods and services can bring positive returns. Many of these companies will be the loudest business voices in Rio.
Additionally, the rise of cheap, instantaneous global communications has also served to empower local communities as innovators and as whistle blowers.
This global economic and geopolitical transformation has had the effect of changing the way the world writes the rules of the road. The 1992 model was based on the concept of a global deal negotiated by governments through a consensus-seeking process that usually resulted in a lowest common denominator outcome.
That approach is much more difficult in a multipolar world (especially one that lacks global environmental leadership from the most powerful countries.) Instead, the 2012 model is essentially bottom up, voluntary and leader-driver. It's about a series of commitments to best practice from a range of leaders across different stakeholder groups.
Accordingly, the measure of success at Rio won't be the negotiated outcome document or the formal declaration. Instead, it will be the quality and the quantity of real commitments to measurable changes in behaviour and policies to promote sustainability by countries, companies and communities.
Andrew Deutz is director of international government relations at the Nature Conservancy
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox