Sending my unconditional love to politicians in Rio

I hope you enjoyed Mark's thought provoking essays in the run up to Rio.  While he's been taking centre stage, I managed to escaped the rain during half-term in Northumberland, play cricket (carefully) alongside orchirds and visit the Farne Islands to see a lot of seabirds (including c20,000 guillemots).  On my return to work I enjoyed my visit and debate at the Cereals Show, spoke to MPs about tropical forests (and chocolate) and was pleased to take part in the launch of the latest Cemex publication on the Oceans. 

I even managed to listen the radio.  There was a wonderful piece on Radio 4's pm programme on Tuesday evening before England played Ukraine (yes, I did watch).  Maureen Gaffney spoke about the nature of support, optimism and expectation.  She said that what any team needed when facing a major challenge was unconditional love.  She went on to say that there was lots of evidence to suggest that we're more likely to be successful when we're optimistic.  Expectations however were a different matter entirely.  And that sums up my approach to English football.  I'll support them, be optimistic about their chances but, if honest, I have pretty low expectations of success.  Am sorry, Roy.

This struck a chord when I read two contrasting pieces about Rio in the Times yesterday.  One optimistic and supportive (the editorial) while the other (a newspiece) was sharing the outrage that many have expressed in the past 24 hours about the draft text which is being debated by political leaders at the conference.  I have since received a briefing from colleauges in Rio (you can read about their experiences here) and to be honest, it does not look good.  Have a read for yourself and play "spot the new commitment, tangible outcome, sense of urgency".  You'll be disappointed.

There are four things that could happen over the next 48 hours before the conference closes:

Option 1. The text remains unchanged and is the outcome of the Conference

Option 2. The text remains unchanged but an additional short political declaration of some sort is adopted by political leaders. This has happened at previous summits and could be the most likely outcome at present as it will give leaders something to do over the next two days!

Option 3. The text is opened on some of the key red line issues in some way. There would obviously then be a risk of the talks collapsing.

Option 4. Something else.

It is a little frustrating sitting at home with no influence whatsoever in the process, but I know that my colleagues, BirdLife partners and the other members of civil society organisations will do all they can to secure a good outcome.  And, like all those armchair England football fans, I shall be giving my support to those political leaders trying to get the best possible deal.  And yes, for the duration of Rio, they can have my unconditional love.

I'll leave you with the words of the TImes editorial of yesterday...

"Saving the world is exasperating but possible

Do not believe the nattering eco-bobs of negativism who have arrived at the Rio+20 conference convinced in advance that it will achieve nothing; or who, like David Cameron, Barack Obama and Angela Merkel, have decided not to show up at all.

Do not assume that just because most goals agreed upon at the original Rio Conference on Sustainable Development have not been achieved; that multilateralism is dead.

Do not despair at the destruction of forests equivalent to the area of Argentina since that heady, optimistic gathering beside the sands of Ipanema 20 years ago, or at the steady increase in parts per million of atmospheric CO2, or the continuing, headlong assaults by Homo sapiens on fish stocks and biodiversity. And don’t surrender to the easy fallacy that but for the right wing of the US Republican Party, scores of governments and thousands of NGOs would have reached a robust, consensus on how to save the world, and saved it.

There are at least three reasons not to do these things. One is that the 1992 conference happened the year after the end of the Cold War, when everything seemed possible but not much really was. Another is that, since then, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has enforced the Montreal Protocol on chlorofluorocarbons to nearmiraculous effect, reversing the destruction of the ozone layer — and an almost certain outcome of this week’s summit is a strengthened UNEP with a guaranteed budget for the first time in its life. A third is that nature is priceless and we are where we are. Talking about husbanding the Earth’s resources is better than going to war over them, and better than not talking. To the no-shows: shame on you. To those at Rio: we watch, in hope, as ever."

Are you supporting our political leaders in Rio? Are you optimistic? And what are your expectations?

It would be great to hear your views.