Regarding the format and structure of the outcome document, there was general agreement that the document should be a focused and concise political declaration with a set of agreed actions. Many called for these actions to promote multi-stakeholder participation, specify timeframes and means of implementation, but various views on whether the document to be negotiated or voluntary, attached as annexes or included in the existing document. I've heard general feelings from some delegates that the result fell short of their expectations, and the most predictable outcome could be a voluntary, political declaration with annexes attached.

On the two themes of the Conference, Green Economy in the context of Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development (IFSD), there were broad agreement that transition to a green economy is a means to achieve sustainable development and not a one-size-fits-all approach, and that all three dimensions of sustainable development (economy, society and environment) need to be addressed with a strengthened IFSD with better coordination at all levels. It remains to be seen whether various proposals on each theme will be included into a political declaration or in annex, but I’ve sensed a general atmosphere here and there that the latter is more likely.

On the other hand, there has been a growing momentum for the development of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a proposal made originally by Columbia, currently with the support of Guatemala and Peru, to address all three dimensions of sustainable development to be universally applicable including both developed and developing countries, unlike the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which mainly targets developing countries. There is also general support for developing measures (i.e. indicators) of sustainable development beyond GDP. However, views on the conventional principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR)” are starting to change as several countries stressed CBDR “with respective capabilities” to be a key principle of SDGs and progress towards MDGs should not be blocked by a new SDG process. In this regard, I believe that identifying “common goals” at a global level and targets with “differentiated responsibilities” at a national level as well as the link between SDGs and MDGs could be the key points for discussion towards Rio+20. The questions is, to what extent could Rio+20 agree on the definition, scope, and roadmap for SDGs?

Another discussion point at Rio+20 is the new and emerging issues. Brazil informed about eight issues to be discussed during four days thematic meetings right before Rio+20, which include; food security and poverty eradication, sustainable cities, energy, innovation, water, oceans, economies in sustainable development, decent jobs and migration. Many countries also mentioned the “10 Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP)” to be adopted at Rio+20, while a few countries noted the importance of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s “Sustainable Energy for All Initiative.” These two could be additional deliverables at Rio+20 as there was no clear opposition to them in addition to the list of new and emerging issues to be outlined in the outcome document.

The Bureau will review the results of this meeting on the week of 19 Dec. and decide the format and structure of the zero-draft, which is to be available by mid-January 2012.

The meeting did not have a zero-draft in hand which meant that the content of discussions was soon exhausted as it turned out that there was a lack of speakers during the meeting. However this has at least pointed to the possibility of a zero-draft of the outcome document as a political declaration with annexes attached and deliverables such as SDGs. So far, the prospect of the outcome document of Rio+20 is not really clear as the expectations for Rio+20 have not really been as high as they were 20 years ago. Can we hope that Rio+20 will become a new precedent for sustainable development multilateralism backed by the COP17 outcome or will it turn out to be a just another UN Conference? Official negotiations will begin from the end of January 2012² and continue up to Rio+20 in June. We must keep a positive outlook on this. Several member states have stressed that the success of the Conference should not be evaluated only by the outcome document, but also by the active engagement of civil society. Yes, I agree. What we can get out of Rio+20 depends on making timely contributions to the process with our clear vision, collective voice and positive actions.