NEWS FOCUS
Earth Summit Concludes With Agenda for Action, hut Little Funding Delegates hope conference will mark turning point for accepting principles for development and better protection of the environment Bette Hileman, C&EN Washington
T
he 12-day Earth Summit, which brought together in Rio de Janeiro the largest number of heads of state ever assembled in one place, ended on June 14 with mixed results. Altogether, 154 nations signed the convention on climate change and 153 signed the one on biodiversity. The delegates reached agreement on Agenda 21, an action plan for developing the planet sustainably through the 21st century, and on a broad statement of principles on how to protect forests. All nations present accepted without change the Rio Declaration, a nonbinding statement of broad principles for guiding environmental policy. And new international networks, both formal and informal, were forged to carry out and oversee implementation of the agreements. Yet there were failures. The convention on climate change lacked the targets and timetables for stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions that had been desired by all major industrial countries except the U.S. The statement on forest principles was so watered down, most environmental groups believed it was less stringent than the current World Bank standards. The U.S. refused to sign the biodiversity convention, and countries did not firmly commit even the minimum amount of money conference organizer Maurice Strong said was required to begin implementing Agenda 21. Moreover, the delegates did not squarely address a number of important issues. They largely avoided the population issue and its relation to poverty and development. They did not tackle the use of environmental destruction as a weapon of war, nor did they deal with the need for more open trade and its environmental and developmental impacts. For the U.S. government, the meeting—officially designated the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development (UNCED)—probably marked a
new low in prestige and leadership, at least in the environmental arena. At the first UN conference on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, the U.S. led the rest of the world on environmental issues and prodded other nations to follow. It was criticized strongly there, but not on account of its environmental stances, only for its role in the Vietnam War. At Rio, the U.S. delegation was, on many issues, the reluctant follower, opposing strong conventions and statements. It was subject to sharp criticism for its views on many issues and seemed constantly on the defensive. Administration officials counter, however, that the U.S. "still feels strongly about the need to do something about biodiversity/' but that it decided not to sign the biodiversity treaty because the pact would harm the competitiveness of the U.S. biotechnology industry and undermine the protection of ideas. "Our efforts to protect biodiversity itself will exceed ... the requirements of the treaty/' President Bush said in his speech to the summit. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William K. Reilly, head of the U.S. delegation, added: "If the biodiversity convention had confined itself to protecting flora and fauna, we would have supported it."
Section of downtown Rio de Janeiro JULY 6,1992 C&EN
7
NEWS
FOCUS
UN conference site, Rio Centro, constructed from exhibit halls formerly used for fairs, was located 27 miles from downtown Rio
And the Administration refused to commit to targets and timetables for stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions, partly because it believes other countries do not have credible plans for stabilizing emissions. "No country is very far along in delineating concrete action for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, except the U.S. and the Netherlands," said Michael Young, the State Department's assistant secretary for economic and agriculture affairs. The U.S. has already committed itself to an action plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 7 to 10% from what they would otherwise be in the year 2000, Reilly said. Also, on his way to Rio, Bush explained it would be "counterproductive" to promote environmental programs at the expense of the U.S. economy, which he called the "engine of global economic growth." At Rio, Bush said: "We come to Rio proud of what we have accomplished and committed to extending the record on American leadership on the environment." Part of the reason U.S. policies seemed merely reactive in Rio may be that, with the economy still in the dol8
JULY 6,1992 C&EN
drums, the Administration thought it had little to offer in the way of financial assistance for the developing world. It may also be that the Administration was not focusing much effort on the Earth Summit. The most experienced people at the State Department were not working on this project. The U.S. was distracted in part by arms control negotiations with Russian President Boris Yeltsin, who arrived in Washington only two days after Bush returned from Rio. And the U.S. in its lonely stances on biodiversity and stabilization of carbon dioxide emissions was opposing other major industrial countries who had a great deal of commonality in their policy agendas. Although there were many differences between government representatives from the industrial and the developing countries and between government delegates and environmental groups at the Earth Summit, there was one view that everyone seemed to share. That was a belief in technology. Though technology has created some of the problems the world faces, everyone assumed that the problems will not be solved without the application of technology. That's a change from 20 years ago when many attendees at the Stockholm conference believed environmental problems could be solved with small-is-beautiful technology. Environmental groups at that time were likely to be minimally interested in the application of technology on a large scale. But at Rio most attendees recognized a major role for technological efforts in such areas as renewable energy, materials recycling, industrial process changes, and satellite imagery for land management. Even the more radical environmental activists did not express resistance to such ideas. Throughout the summit conference, speakers expressed the opinion that the world faces almost certain catastrophe in a generation or two if current trends do not change. "We may temporarily immunize ourselves emotionally to the images of starvation, drought, floods, and people suffocating under the load of wastes we are piling on a nature so bountiful, but there is a time bomb ticking/' said Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway. "We cannot betray future generations. They will judge us harshly if we fail at this crucial moment." UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali laid out the problem in slightly different terms, saying, "We are looking at a time frame that extends far beyond the span of our individual lives We can waste the planet's resources at the current pace for a few decades more." But, he continued, "we must realize that one day the storm will break on the heads of future generations. For them it will be too late." Strong reiterated that view at the close of the meeting: "Every bit of evidence I've seen persuades me we are on a course leading to tragedy. I don't agree with those who say the status quo is the answer."
Of course, not all attendees believed so strongly that tragedies lie ahead. But no one expressed the opinion that the world is on the right course, that major changes are not needed. What are the developments that cause people to be so pessimistic about the future if present trends continue? Mostafa K. Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program, laid out some of these trends in the speech he gave at the opening of the conference. He pointed out that during the past two decades, environmental gains have been made in industrialized countries in certain areas. Urban air quality has improved, many industries are using cleaner technologies, the amount of energy consumed per unit of production has gone down, and the average weight of automobiles has declined. Yet, Tolba pointed out that the environment in developing countries is steadily deteriorating. And new global problems have become much more apparent—loss of species, climate change, and the threats posed by a burgeoning world population. Loss of species is one of the more ominous trends. According to Edward O. Wilson, biologist at Harvard University, when a patch of habitat is decreased by 90%, the number of species living in it is eventually cut in half. Based on the rate of loss of tropical rain forests, he and other biologists estimate that about 25% of the world's species will be lost in the next 50 years. This rate of loss is about 1000 times greater than that through most of history. It could cause whole ecosystems to disintegrate and eventually destroy the overall health of the biosphere. Another worrisome global trend is climate change, said Tolba. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that if present emission trends for greenhouse gases continue, the average global temperature will rise 1.5 to 4.5 °C by about the middle of the next century. And then there is the matter of the world's population, which was 2.5 billion 40 years ago, is now 5.4 billion, and is expected to increase by one third during the next two decades. And by the end of the next century it may nearly triple. Such an enormous increase will put even more pressure
Bush: we are proud of what we have accomplished
Strong (left) and Boutros-Ghali: catastrophe ahead for the world if current trends do not change
on Earth's natural resources and its capacity to absorb pollution. Food production has increased during the past 20 years, but most experts believe that few additional gains can be expected from the Green Revolution. Almost all prime agricultural land is already under cultivation. The additional land now being cleared has only marginal productivity. The World Resources Institute estimates that since the turn of the century, soil has been degraded in an area the size of China and India combined. Population is growing faster than food production in almost 70% of developing countries, says the secretariat of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research in Washington, D.C. So far world hunger has resulted from either political upheaval, poor food distribution, or the inability of the poor to buy food. But as population increases by a third or more over the next two decades, worldwide demand for food may actually exceed overall world food production. Already, the population in many parts of the world cannot be fed with local food supplies. Currently about 1.1 billion people are chronically hungry, 90 million more than in 1970, and about 10 million children are severely malnourished. Contributing to this problem is the great imbalance in income and wealth between the industrial countries (North) and the developing nations (South). The Third World, with 77% of the world's population, now has 15% of the income, uses 12% of the natural resources, and 18% of the energy, Tolba said. A child born in the North consumes 18 times as much of the world's resources as a child born in the South. This imbalance has increased over the past 20 years. Over that period, world gross domestic product rose $20 trillion, acJULY 6,1992 C&EN
9
NEWS FOCUS
Representatives from 172 countries listen to speech in the plenary hall at the opening of the summit
cording to Strong. But only 15% of this increase went to the developing countries, whereas 70% went to the rich countries. Each year, the debt service for the Third World is four times as great as the official development assistance it receives, Brundtland said. It was to address these trends that Agenda 21, the statement on forest principles, and the climate change and biodiversity conventions were written. Agenda 21 is an action plan that forms the basis for a new international partnership for sustainable development and environmental protection worldwide. It covers almost all facets of the environment and is addressed to governments, the UN, other nongovernmental and governmental organizations, constituency groups, and the public at large. Agenda 21 has several major goals—one is that development should proceed in a sustainable manner. To do this "the system of incentives and penalties which motivate economic behavior must be reoriented to become a strong force for sustainability,,, it says. Including environmental impacts of resource use in economic accounting would help in this effort, it notes. Another goal is coordinated actions to ultimately eliminate poverty throughout the world. Closely related is the aim of better managing human settlements by improving the quality of shelter, water supply, energy and transportation services, and sewage and solid-waste treatment. Waste minimization for both industrial and municipal waste plays an important role in this effort. The efficient use of resources, such as energy and land, fresh water, and biological resources, is also a key element in Agenda 21. A fifth goal deals with the sustainable use of global and regional resources, such as the atmosphere, oceans and seas, and marine organisms. A final goal concerns the management of chemicals and wastes. One third of the deaths in developing countries are caused by ingestion of food and water that are contaminat10
JULY 6,1992 C&EN
ed with human or industrial waste, Agenda 21 says. These problems could be eased by reducing waste generation, recycling wastes into production activities, and finding safe ways of disposing of wastes. Agenda 21 recognizes that government participation alone will not be sufficient to reach these goals. Women, youth, indigenous groups, nongovernmental organizations, farmers, local authorities, trade unions, business and industrial organizations, and scientists and engineers must also be involved. It calls for greater international scientific cooperation and more efforts to transfer environmentally sound technologies from nation to nation. To realize its goals, Agenda 21 points out that the industrialized world will need to provide new and additional financial resources to the Third World. Somewhere between 85 and 95% of Agenda 21 was agreed to at the four preparatory committee meetings held before the Earth Summit. But a number of stubborn issues caused considerable debate during the conference. Forest protection was a major source of contention. For many months the U.S. had been pushing for language in Agenda 21 that would call for a legally binding convention on forests. But several Third World countries, led by India and Malaysia, opposed this. They said a convention would infringe on their sovereignty. ''If our forests did not sustain fuel needs [of millions of people], I shudder to think what our oil requirement would be," said Kamal Nath, Indian Minister of the Environment. "We do not talk of the globalization of oil so we do not talk of the globalization of forests," he explained (C&EN, June 15, page 4). Many Third World spokesmen accused the industrial North of wanting the South to keep its forests as a sink for carbon dioxide so the North could continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. Their contention was validated by a document the White House press office wrote when the Administration offered more money for forest protec-
tion. The document said "curbing forest loss would be an extremely effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions" and that it is much more cost effective to protect forests (which are mainly in the South) than to clean up emissions that cause global warming (which would be done in the North). The North-South conflict was resolved by adopting compromise language saying the parties would "consider" the possibility of calling for a treaty on forest issues. This language became a part of both Agenda 21 and the statement on forest principles. Another sticking point was Agenda 21's language on desertification—land degradation in arid and semiarid areas resulting from climate variation and human activities. Desertification is now affecting one quarter of the land area of the planet and is a particular problem in Africa. It can be combated through afforestation, reforestation, and soil conservation. The U.S. opposed calling for a treaty on desertification, whereas the African countries wanted a firm commitment to negotiating a treaty. "We think it may be better to have attacks on the causes of desertification," said the U.S/s Young. However, the final text of Agenda 21 does call for the adoption of an international convention on desertification. Observers close to the negotiations speculate that the U.S. was withholding approval of a convention on desertification as a bargaining chip for approval from the South for a convention on forests. Even something as seemingly innocuous as renewable energy was a source of friction at UNCED. In a marked turnaround from its stance during the mid-1970s oil crisis, during which it said the only way the industrialized world could bring down oil prices was by means of conservation and renewables, Saudi Arabia opposed Agenda 21's emphasis on renewable energy. But despite this opposition, the language remained in the final text of the agenda.
And then there was the thorny question of who would oversee implementation of Agenda 21. In the negotiations that preceded the Earth Summit the U.S. had favored using the existing UN agencies to monitor how well governments and other UN agencies carry out Agenda 21. However, most countries wanted to create a new UN agency to be called the Commission on Sustainable Development to perform this function. Eventually, all nations agreed to establish such a commission. It is still not known what this commission's structure or level of representation will be. UNCED Secretary-General Strong hopes the representation will be at the ministerial level. The entity that will administer funds to implement Agenda 21 was also a source of conflict. Originally, the industrialized countries insisted that the Global Environmental Facility (GEF)—which is managed by the World Bank in association with UN agencies-—be the sole channel for funds. The Third World nations opposed this idea, because they believed they had little influence over GEFs decisions in the past and because the World Bank has such a poor environmental record in its development projects. Eventually, the delegates agreed to direct sustainable development funds through a variety of entities, which include GEF, regional banks, UN agencies, and bilateral aid. This compromise was possible partly because the decision-making mechanism at GEF recently was changed. When GEF was created two years ago, donor countries were the only ones who voted on projects. Now, there is a dual track for decisions. One voting body consists of all the countries that belong to GEF, and the other consists of donor countries. A final source of contention that persisted until the last days of the summit was the level of financial support developed countries would commit to Agenda 21. In the months
Despite contradictory environmental recoi^ Japan aims to lead way in solving problems Japan's domestic environmental record has some contradictions. On the one hand, Keidanren, Japan's blue-ribbon business council, last year asked Japanese companies to make environmental protection part of their business planning concerns and issued a set of stringent guidelines for the activities of Japanese businesses overseas. And Japan emits less than half the carbon dioxide per capita than the U.S. and less sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides per capita than other industrialized nations. But Japan's carbon dioxide emission figures, after remaining flat, have risen rapidly since 1987 (4% annually), and the country's energy efficiency has declined because people have begun to drive larger cars. Japan plans to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels partly by building many new nuclear power
plants. Much of the government's internal spending for what it calls global environmental issues is for nuclear power development, even though the antinuclear movement is growing stronger in Japan. However, Japan's pollution control devices and environmentally benign equipment already are considered to be 10 years ahead of those of the rest of the world. And Japan is moving to develop and market these technologies abroad, while further improving its environmental record at home. It is establishing an International Center for Environmental Technology Transfer to train people from developing countries in energy conservation, pollution control technology, and environmental protection regulations. Japan is also putting a great deal of money into research on new environmental technologies. Its powerful Ministry of International Trade & In-
dustry (MITI) has created a 100-year plan called New Earth 21 for elimination of the world's pollutants. Its aim is to restore Earth to its pre-industrial-revolution condition. To further that plan, MITI is building the Research Institute of Innovative Technology near Osaka, which is slated to open next year. The institute will focus on seven fields, which include biodegradable plastics, new refrigerants, carbon-digesting algae, and microorganisms that produce hydrogen. It plans to breed new species of superalgae and bacteria that could photosynthesize carbon dioxide emissions and turn them into new fuels and food. Up to 16 Japanese companies are participating in each project Japan obviously sees global environmental concerns as a challenge and opportunity to sell environmentally sound technologies to the rest of the world. JULY 6,1992 C&EN 1 1
NEWS FOCUS
Business group develops radical plan to change the way corporations operate At the Earth Summit, a radical plan for changing the way corporations do business was pushed by a council of corporate leaders. The international group, called the Business Council for Sustainable Development, proposed that government regulations and subsidies be changed in a way that would encourage industries to conserve their resource bases. It said that prices should reflect the environmental costs of production, use, recycling, and after-use disposal. The council is a private, informal group of 48 business leaders, including Frank P. Popoff of Dow Chemical and Edgar S. Woolard of Du Pont. Based in Geneva, the council is chaired by billionaire Swiss industrialist Stephan Schmidheiny. He formed the group to respond to conference-or-
ganizer Maurice Strong's request for business input to the summit (C&EN, April 27, page 28). The group studied examples of sustainable business practices from around the world. Schmidheiny, in consultation with the other members of the council, then wrote a report for the Earth Summit called "Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment." The report recognizes that "economic growth in all parts of the world is essential to improve the livelihoods of the poor, to sustain growing populations, and eventually to stabilize population levels," and that open and competitive markets are key to sustainable development. But it also recognizes that industrialization has usu-
preceding the UN meeting, Strong and other UN leaders estimated that if official development assistance from the industrialized world were increased from its current total level of $55 billion to an overall average of 0.7% of each country's GNP, or a total of $125 billion, enough money would be generated to finance the implementation of Agenda 21. Twenty years ago at Stockholm, all the industrialized countries except the U.S. agreed in principle that they should give 0.7% of their GNP as official development assistance. But so far only Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands have reached that goal.
ally involved unsustainable resource use. To changé this destructive pattern, it says that markets must give the "right signals." To do so, subsidies that promote wasting of resources should be phased out, and prices should include the cost of environmental damage. The report proposes a number of new economic measures, which include pollution taxes and charges and tradable pollution permits. However, these new economic instruments must be harmonized among trading partners; that is, they should be uniformly applied among trading partners so businesses operate on a level playing field. In a speech to the Earth Summit, Schmidheiny said that "progress toward sustainable development makes good business sense because it will
At the summit, the Third World made strong efforts to include in Agenda 21 language specifying the year 2000 as a definite time for the developed countries to reach the 0.7% target. But in the final compromise, the date for reaching the target was stated only as a broad goal to be reached as soon as possible. The texts of the conventions on biological diversity and on climate change were negotiated before the start of the Earth Summit. However, during the meeting several controversies swirled around these conventions. In these the U.S. found itself alone.
Global strategies can increase Third World's energy supply while minimizing emissions A number of meetings were held in Rio de Janeiro at the same time as the Earth Summit to consider energy use in the context of sustainable development. These sessions highlighted examples of technologies that can increase the Third World's energy supply while minimizing carbon dioxide emissions. They also focused on wasteful energy policies that are being used in many countries, both industrialized and developing. At one meeting held at the Federal University of Rio, Robert H. Socolow of the Center for Energy & Environmental Studies at Princeton University reviewed large-scale global energy strategies that could produce adequate energy for both the industrialized and developing world, while
12
JULY 6,1992 C&EN
minimizing adverse effects on the environment. Socolow pointed out that the only way the world will be able to develop sustainably is "by rapidly and widely introducing advanced forms of both renewable solar energy and energy efficiency." Research and development are now revealing "a rich menu of ways to collect and transform energy in sunlight cheaply, efficiently, and in environmentally responsible ways," he said. One important approach is via energy plantations using green plants to collect the solar energy. Others include using high-temperature solar thermal collection, large windmills on tall towers, and photovoltaics (plantations of glass), all in large-scale, gridconnected applications.
As was evident at the meeting, similar, though usually smaller scale, approaches are being tried in a number of countries. For example, in rural Africa, where less than 20% of the people have electricity, local photovoltaic systems are economical for lighting, said Youba Sokona of Senegal. Use of these systems, that can be managed by the local community, avoids the cost of installing transmission lines over long distances. His group has built photovoltaic systems in 50 villages, where the people now spend less for electricity than they used to pay for kerosene. Windmills in Denmark can supply electricity at 3 cents per kWh, said Preben Maegaard of the Danish Organization for Renewable Energy, Copenhagen. Such electricity is now
create competitive advantages and new opportunities." He called "eco-efficient" those companies that are able to add maximum values with minimum resource use and minimum pollution. "Companies which cannot do this are inefficient both environmentally and economically, and will soon lose competitive advantage to their more eco-efficient rivals," Schmidheiny said. But making progress toward sustainable development will require "far-reaching shifts in corporate attitudes and new ways of doing business," he added. A few of the specific measures the business council favors are eradicating coal subsidies, abolishing tax breaks for company cars and tax deductions for auto travel, and imposing a valueSchmidheiny: shifts in corporate attitudes added tax on electricity and gas use.
During the first week of the meeting, the U.S., France, the U.K., and Japan all said they had difficulties with certain aspects of the biodiversity convention—the language on financing, protection of intellectual property, transfer of technology to developing nations, and safeguards on genetically engineered products. The treaty states that the first beneficiaries of the conservation and sustainable use of wild plant and animal species should be the rural communities and indigenous people who have conserved them for centuries. EPA Administrator Reilly faxed a memo to White House domestic policy adviser Clayton Yeutter, explaining
comparable in cost to coal-generated electricity and cheaper than electricity from oil-fired plants. Poor farmers in Denmark have been able to supplement their incomes by harvesting wind energy, Maegaard said. Emilio La Rovere of the Federal University of Rio said that because one half of the vehicle fuel in Brazil is supplied by alcohol from sugar cane plantations, one half of it is renewable. But much of the potential for energy savings in Brazil is untapped, he said. Energy could be saved by using cogeneration schemes in alcohol distilleries utilizing sugar cane bagasse to fuel boilers, small hydropower units, biodigestion of sugar cane bagasse, and high-efficiency kilns for charcoal manufacturing.
Carbon taxes may be one of the factors that could help promote sustainable development, Schmidheiny said. However, they would be effective only if fossil fuel subsidies were eliminated first, if other taxes on industry were reduced so the total tax burden does not increase, and if the carbon taxes were applied internationally among the trading partners. The council also stresses that technology cooperation between developed and developing nations is necessary for sustainable development. This is best accomplished on a company-tocompany basis, it says. The work of the council will not end with the Earth Summit. About 10 national Business Councils for Sustainable Development are now being organized.
that the "U.S. refusal to sign the biodiversity convention is the major subject of press and delegate concern" in Rio, and suggesting certain minimal changes in the treaty that would address U.S. "bottom-line concerns." The White House responded with a flat "no" to Reilly's request. That same day, Reilly's memo was leaked to the press, allegedly by a staff member of the White House Council on Competitiveness, which is headed by Vice President Dan Quayle. While Reilly was holding a press conference in Rio, a reporter confronted him with the memo, causing him deep embarrassment. Afterward, President Bush stated that
Stephen Karekazi of the Foundation for Woodstove Dissemination in Nairobi, Kenya, pointed out that in Africa, where biomass supplies 80 to 90% of the energy, the use of energy-efficient ceramic cook stoves can save charcoal and improve the health of women and children. Cooking indoors with wood or charcoal causes respiratory illnesses, which are a major cause of death in children, he said. He described a successful East African project to introduce energy-efficient cook stoves that cut charcoal consumption in half. The project worked, he said, because it resisted subsidies, used the existing system to produce and market the stove, and involved small-scale enterprises in manufacturing the stove liners. Benjamin Gertes of the Philippine
Center for Appropriate Technology & Training described one project in the Philippines—a new, unused 600-MW nuclear power plant partially constructed for $2 billion near Mt. Pinatubo. It was abandoned for several years because it is located on land where volcanic eruptions are a concern, but now, because of acute power shortages, construction has been resumed. Christopher Flavin of the Washington, D.C-based Worldwatch Institute pointed out that if the new, efficient combined cycle technologies are used with natural gas, they can reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Because these technologies can run on hydrogen, they can also provide a bridge to a solar hydrogen economy—one that uses solar energy to hydrolyze water.
JULY 6,1992 C&EN
13
NEWS
FOCUS
he had full confidence in Reilly and said Reilly was doing a "terrific job." Even some Democratic Congressional staff members admitted that the treaty as written could present problems. One staffer said, "There is a flavor in the language that could allow intellectual property rights to be compromised as a result of the exchange of genetic resources. But the U.S. government's real fear was that the treaty would lead to the international regulation of biotechnology." Apparently, the Washington, D.C.based Industrial Biotechnology Association (IBA), an association of companies that are involved in biotechnology, was the primary industrial opponent of the biodiversity convention. Richard D. Godown, president of IBA, said that IBA "commends the position taken by the Administration Reilly (left): action plan to reduce greenhouse gasses; Young: attacks on causes of desertification in refusing to sign the biodiversity convention." IBA opposed the convention because "it contains a great deal of vague imprecise language, difficult to interpret and nity as a whole." Austrian Prime Minister Franz Vranitzimplement." IBA also noted that rather than through a treaky explained that Austria's statement was "not meant as ty, "the sharing of commercial benefits should be achieved a provocation to anyone. It is meant as a contribution to a by interested parties through standard commercial mechavery important task." nisms. This is a matter for the international intellectual Before the Rio meeting, Strong said it was unrealistic to property rights community to resolve." expect the industrialized world to increase its development assistance to the needed total of $125 billion during the next Some corporate executives, however, expressed little oppoyear or two, but that an additional $10 billion was required sition to the treaty. Stephan Schmidheiny, Swiss industrialist immediately to start implementing Agenda 21. But the acand head of the Business Council for Sustainable Developtual new money the developed world committed fell far ment, a group of 48 business leaders, said, "I personally short of this goal. The amount firmly committed, not countwould not have a problem [with signing the biodiversity coning that diverted from other purposes, was only about $2 vention]. I think it is a step in the right direction." billion. Strong calculated that the total new funding for susEventually France, the U.K., and Japan decided they had tainable development, taking into account that diverted found a way to overcome their objections to the biodiversifrom other areas, is $6 billion to $7 billion. ty treaty. So the U.S. remained the only major country that Japan offered by far the largest amount of new money. refused to sign it. Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa announced in a In the negotiations leading up to the climate convention, written statement that his nation will increase environmenthe U.S. was the only major industrialized country that tally related official development assistance 50%, to about would not agree to a provision requiring the stabilization of $1.4 billion per year, during the five-year period from 1992 carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. to 1997. The U.S. eventually succeeded in convincing the other dePresident Bush said he would increase funding for interveloped countries to agree to a treaty without such a bindnational environmental initiatives 66% over the 1990 level. ing commitment. This lonely stance seemed to come back to The increase is due, however, to previously announced inihaunt the U.S. at the Rio meeting. tiatives. (On June 8, Bush said that in the next fiscal year, During the first week of the summit, Switzerland, Austhe U.S. will give an extra $150 million as international astria, and the European Community threatened to sign a sistance to protect forests, making a total of $270 million. He formal declaration, committing themselves to this target also said the U.S. will give $25 million to help developing for carbon dioxide stabilization at the same time they countries implement the climate convention and $50 million signed the convention. The U.S. State Department, howto the GEF.) Currently, the U.S. contributes only about ever, sent letters to Switzerland and Austria and perhaps 0.21% of its GNP each year for official development assisto other European nations saying relations would be tance. strained if they were to sign such a formal declaration. The heads of state and other conference attendees looked Despite these U.S. objections, the EC, Austria, and Switforward to Bush's speech in Rio with great anticipation. He zerland made oral statements about carbon dioxide stabipresented it to a full plenary hall and to a very attentive lization on the day they signed the convention. The EC press. However, his words met with little enthusiasm. He said it reaffirmed "the objective of stabilization of carbon focused largely on cleanup the U.S. had done for its domesdioxide emissions by 2000 at the 1990 level in the commu14
JULY 6,1992 C&EN
I | | 5 | £ | |
contribution. In addition, Japan maintained a very strong presence at the meeting. It held a press conference almost every day and sponsored a fourhour meeting called Japan Day at the Sheraton Hotel. This was attended by Takeshita and former Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu and many parliamentarians and outside experts. Japan's Prime Minister was not able to attend the summit because he had to stay in Japan to oversee important deliberations in the Diet concerning Japan's role in UN peacekeeping operations. Miyazawa's speech was submitted to the plenary in writing. Although the increase in funds Miyazawa committed for official development assistance was larger than that of any other country, it fell far short of what observers had expected. Many of those who were close to the neKrupp (left): cost of not developing gotiations in Rio speculate that the U.S. technologies; Adams: a beginning on a government asked Japan not to promise large scale an extraordinarily large contribution at this time because it would embarrass the Administration, but C&EN was not able to confirm this. tic environment rather than on what the rest of the world was looking for—new money or new ideas to help with One of the most unusual aspects of the Earth Summit was sustainable development. 'We've cleaned up our water and that nongovernmental organizations participated in the preserved our parks, wilderness, and wildlife/' he said. "In process far more extensively than they had at any previous the United States we have the most advanced laws for proUN meeting. In all, representatives of about 760 such orgatecting lands and waters, and the most open processes for nizations were accredited to the UN conference. Most of public participation." The speech garnered very little apthose were environmental groups, but some were women's plause. groups, religious organizations, grass-roots development groups, and business and industry organizations. To be acIn fact, Bush received almost unanimous criticism, rangcredited, the organizations had to show "competence and ing from mild to severe. Former Brazilian President José relevance" to address the UNCED agenda. Sarney said: "The U.S. occupies the position of the superpower and the only power, but with one of the weakest Before the summit meeting in Rio, these organizations leaderships in its history, and with its eyes on the elections played a major role in the preparatory committee meetings and not on its responsibility for everyone's future." that led up to the conference. They presented oral and writIf the delegates found the U.S. stance disappointing, they ten statements to formal meetings and sometimes attended found Japan's behavior at the informal governmental negotiating Earth Summit puzzling. At sessions. times, Japan hinted it would At the Earth Summit itself, nongovtake a giant step forward on ernmental organizations were not alenvironmental issues. During lowed to take part in the formal negothe first week, for example, tiations. But they worked with deleJapan's Environment Minisgates informally to find compromise ter, Shozaburo Nakamura, language and help shape the negotiasaid, "We feel we must give tions. In some cases, alternative wordback to the world according ing they proposed became a part of to our position in the world. the final text. They also maintained It is a matter of honor." contacts with the press. He also said Japan had now The general response to the presdecided to take a leadership ence of such organizations at the sumrole in the air pollution area mit was positive. These groups "are with technology know-how. absolutely indispensable, not only to Former Prime Minister Nobothe conference, but to the implementaru Takeshita said in a speech tion of the conference," Strong said. to the plenary that he would The nongovernmental organizations personally do his best to enalso took part in other meetings in Rio sure that Japan would make that were going on at the same time as an appropriate [financial] Brundtland: we cannot betray future generations the Earth Summit. Daylong conferJULY 6,1992 C&EN
15
NEWS FOCUS ences, displays, and entertainment took place in a tent city called Global Forum in downtown Rio. These were sponsored by more than 7000 groups, from 175 countries, that have an interest in sustainable development and protecting the environment and that were working to influence the UN deliberations. Scientific conferences also were held at the Federal University of Rio on biodiversity, climate change, energy, and other environmental issues. Conferences and lectures on energy policy went on at several other locations including a hotel, the Central Bank in Rio, and at an exhibition site called Ecotech, where environmentally friendly technologies were displayed. Partly as a result of these meetings and conferences, all of which had international audiences, and partly as a result of the nongovernmental organizations' cooperation to influence the formal UN meetings, a series of new networks, alliances, and projects grew out of the Earth Summit. New working relationships were developed among these groups and governments, among the groups and academics, and among the groups themselves, especially among those in the developed and developing world. For example, about 50 organizations concerned with energy policy formed a sustainable energy network. Its aim is to encourage and support the implementation of environmentally sound energy strategies for sustainable development at the grass-roots and national and regional levels. The network will exchange experiences, educate the public,
lobby national governments and international bodies, and formulate and support the implementation of a global energy strategy. Regional coordinators from each continent were appointed. Another example is the formation of an informal network of academic scientists and some of the groups to promote interaction between U.S. and Brazilian activists in the area of energy efficiency. The World Engineering Partnership for Sustainable Development was formed through collaboration of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations and the International Federation of Consulting Engineers. Its aims are to develop sustainable production systems, improve understanding of the flow of materials and wastes through industrial processes, and educate technologists to be environmentally conscious. An example of a more formal collaborative agreement that grew out of the Earth Summit is a memorandum of understanding signed between the U.S. EPA and the World Health Organization. These agencies agreed to collaborate to address urgent environmental issues that no country or organization can tackle individually. Only time will tell whether the new human energy released and the alliances and coalitions formed at UNCED will bring about changes in global developmental behavior. Though U.S. environmental groups were disappointed about many aspects of the Earth Summit—the refusal of the U.S. to sign the biodiversity convention, the lack of timeta-
At Merck...Our Commitment
bles and targets for carbon dioxide emissions, the inade quate commitments of money to implement Agenda 21— many were hopeful that Rio would mark a turning point toward better protection of the environment. "It is a begin ning on a very large scale," said John Adams of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "I leave this conference believ ing we have a better chance of saving the world than we had when we came here." Frederic D. Krupp, executive di rector of the Environmental Defense Fund, warned that the Administration's policies may cause the U.S. to lose market share in environmental technologies. "What the U.S. needs to look at is the cost of not developing environmental tech nologies and buying them from other countries," he said. "The U.S. needs to be competitive in the race to create new technologies." Carl Bildt, the Prime Minister of Sweden, was optimistic about the outcome of the summit. "We have managed to get global agreements on issues where we never had global agreements before," he said. "These will have a decisive in fluence on the way we conduct policies in our countries." Gaylord A. Nelson, counselor to the Wilderness Society and former governor of and Senator from Wisconsin, said r e cently that most industrialized countries have been living off their capital, or in other words their resource base, rather than the interest from that capital. History is full of examples of corporations who lived off their capital base and failed. And countries who do so also fail, Nelson said. UNCED was the
first major attempt to explore ways that countries can move from one mode of behavior to the other. Conference organizer Strong had some of the sharpest criticisms of the outcome of the summit. "I sat on a podium 20 years ago [at the Stockholm conference] and heard many of the same things. But they were not followed by action," he said. "When we thought we did it at Stockholm, we did not do it." And he continued with an admonition to the world's leaders. "You distinguished leaders must go back and translate Agenda 21 into action. You must develop new sources of funding," he warned. New policies, such as trad able permits for carbon dioxide emissions or an internation al carbon tax must be tried, he added, and additional sourc es of funds must be developed. Perhaps in the long run, it will be the networks and alli ances formed at UNCED that will play the greatest role in determining whether the commitments and plans in the for mal treaties and Agenda 21 are carried out. For it is difficult, if not impossible, for one nation or a group of nations to force another to live up to even legally binding conventions. Without the political pressure exerted by citizens groups, treaties and statements such as Agenda 21 are almost cer tain to be largely ignored. "Law is a method of enforcement on a national level," conference organizer Strong said. "At the international level, political commitment is the impor tant thing because legal instruments flow from political commitment." Π
To Education Speaks Volumes M E R C K — n o t o n l y research in tensive... e d u c a t i o n intensive Publishers of scientific information on a nonprofit basis for over 100 years International distribution— available in many languages T h e Merck Manual Fifteenth Edition (1987) T h e M e r c k M a n u a l of Geriatrics First Edition (1990) T h e M e r c k Veterinary M a n u a l Seventh Edition (1991) T h e Merck Index Eleventh Centennial Edition (1989) Credit Card Orders: Call 1^800^659*6598
MERCK Merck & Co., Inc.
