Breaking the mold: a new type of multilateral sustainable development negotiation

Original Paper

Abstract

Participants in the Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were reminded time and again that there is no model for the process to develop the SDGs. They resolved to not repeat the closed process used to develop the Millennium Development Goals, but the OWG began work when failures to reach consensus and fatigue with multilateral environmental negotiations dominated delegates’ minds, rather than examples of successfully negotiated outcomes. The OWG Co-Chairs were faced with the daunting task of guiding delegates’ efforts to develop a proposed set of crisp SDGs and targets that all could agree to, and thus, had to accomplish the following goals: (1) reduce delegation rigidity, both of individual Member States and within coalitions; (2) maximize the sense of participation, transparency, and ownership to get the most buy-in at the end; and (3) develop a sense of trust that would change the relationship between Member States. To do this, the OWG Co-Chairs broke the mold of UN multilateral negotiations that Member States and observers had become familiar with and created a different approach. This article examines how the OWG accomplished these goals and overcame the shortcomings of other multilateral negotiating processes on sustainable development to produce a widely supported consensus outcome at a time when governments have struggled to achieve agreement in many multilateral negotiation tracks.

Keywords

Post-2015 development agenda Sustainable Development Goals United Nations Negotiations Environment Development 

Abbreviations

EU

European Union

G-77

Group of 77

GRULAC

Latin American and Caribbean Group

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

OWG

Open Working Group

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

UN

United Nations

UNCED

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNCSD

United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNGA

United Nations General Assembly

WEOG

Western European and Others Group

References

  1. Blavoukos, S., & Bourantonis, D. (2011). Chairing multilateral negotiations: the case of the United Nations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Busby, J. W. (2010). After Copenhagen: Climate governance and the road ahead. Working Paper. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  3. Chair’s Summary. (2011). High level dialogue on institutional framework for sustainable development, 19–21 July 2011, Solo, Indonesia. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/Chairs%20Summary%20from%20Solo%20meeting.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  4. Chasek, P. S. (2001). Earth negotiations: Analyzing thirty years of environmental diplomacy. Tokyo: UNU Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chasek, P. S., & Wagner, L. M. (2012). An Insider’s Guide to Multilateral Environmental Negotiations Since the Earth Summit. In P. S. Chasek & L. M. Wagner (Eds.), The roads from Rio: Lessons learned from twenty years of multilateral environmental negotiations (pp. 1–16). New York: RFF Press/Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Chasek, P. S., Wagner, L. M., & Doran, P. (2012). Lessons learned on the roads from Rio. In P. S. Chasek & L. M. Wagner (Eds.), The roads from Rio: Lessons learned from twenty years of multilateral environmental negotiations (pp. 253–272). New York: RFF Press/Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Colombia and Guatemala. (2011). Rio+20: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A proposal from the Governments of Colombia and Guatemala. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/colombiasdgs.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  8. Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2011). Inputs of the Government of Colombia to draft zero of the outcome document. http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/372Colombia.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  9. Davenport, D., Wagner, L. M., & Spence, C. (2012). Earth negotiations on a Comfy Couch: Building negotiator trust through innovative processes. In P. S. Chasek & L. M. Wagner (Eds.), The roads from Rio: Lessons learned from twenty years of multilateral environmental negotiations (pp. 39–58). New York: RFF Press/Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Depledge, J., & Chasek, P. S. (2012). Raising the tempo: The escalating pace and intensity of environmental negotiations. In P. S. Chasek & L. M. Wagner (Eds.), The roads from Rio: Lessons learned from twenty years of multilateral environmental negotiations (pp. 19–38). New York: RFF Press/Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Dubash, N., & Rajamani, L. (2010). Beyond Copenhagen: Next steps. Climate Policy, 10(2010), 593–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dupont, C. (1996). Negotiation as coalition building. International Negotiation, 1(1), 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  14. Frankel, S., & Regan, M. (2011). The PGA handbook: A practical guide to the United Nations General Assembly. New York: Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations. http://www.unitar.org/ny/sites/unitar.org.ny/files/UN_PGA_Handbook.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  15. Hoffmann, M. J. (2005). Ozone depletion and climate change: Constructing a global response. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hopmann, P. T. (1996). The negotiation process and the resolution of international conflicts. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  18. IISD. (2012a). Summary of the Initial Discussions on the “Zero Draft” of the Outcome Document for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development: 25–27 January 2012. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 27(16) (30 January). http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2716e.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  19. IISD. (2012b). Summary of the UNCSD Informal Informal Consultations: 23 April–4 May 2012. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 27(35) (7 May). http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2735e.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  20. IISD. (2012c). UNCSD informal consultations: Tuesday, 19 June 2012. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 27(48) (20 June). http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb2748e.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  21. IISD. (2014). Summary of the thirteenth session of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals: 14–19 July 2014. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 32(13) (22 July). http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb3213e.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  22. Kolb, D. M., & Faure, G. (1994). Organization theory: The interface of structure, culture, procedures and negotiation processes. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), International multilateral negotiations: Approaches to the management of complexity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Meilstrup, P. (2010). The runaway summit: The background story of the Danish presidency of COP15, the UN Climate Change Conference. In N. Hvidt, & H. Mouritzen (Eds.), Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS: pp. 113–135. http://subweb.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Books2010/YB2010/YB2010-Runaway-summit_WEB.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  24. OWG. (2014). Focus areas document. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3276focusareas.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  25. Parks, B. C., & Roberts, J. T. (2008). Inequality and the global climate regime: Breaking the North-South impasse. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(4), 621–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Tsebelis, G. (1990). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. UN. (1992). Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  30. UN General Assembly. (2012). The future we want. A/RES.66/288 (11 September). http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  31. UN General Assembly. (2014). Report of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 66/288. A/RES/68/309 (12 September 2014). http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/309. Accessed March 11, 2016.
  32. Wagner, L. M. (2013). A forty-year search for a single-negotiating text: Rio+20 as a post-agreement negotiation. International Negotiation, 18(3), 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagner, L. M., Hajjar, R., & Appleton, A. (2012). Global alliances to strange bedfellows: The Ebb and flow of negotiating coalitions. In P. S. Chasek & L. M. Wagner (Eds.), The roads from Rio: Lessons learned from twenty years of multilateral environmental negotiations. New York: RFF Press/Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Young, O. R. (1989). The politics of international regime formation. International Organization, 43(3), 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zartman, I. W., & Berman, M. (1982). The practical negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manhattan CollegeBronxUSA
  2. 2.International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations