T
he United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, otherwise known as the Earth Summit, took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 3-14, 1992. It was a failure and a success in different ways. It was a success because several new and radical concepts about the environment and the way we govern ourselves on a global level were addressed and accepted, at least in principle, by a major deliberative body. It was a miserable failure because the amount of funding raised and the immediate prospects for investment in sustainable development of the poorest countries were few. Whether one thinks the Earth Summit was a success or a failure, the major accomplishment was that it was held at all. Never before in history have 118 heads of state met in one place at one time to discuss anything; their meeting was a significant event. They discussed the environment and development, which until recently were considered to be highly disparate topics. Development was discussed-not in terms of its traditional meaningbut in terms of sustainable development, that is, the preservation of options, land, labor, a n d natural resources for future generations. The discussion of the environment in connection with development shows how far we have come in our thinking during the past 20 years. Environment and development are not oxymorons: they are inextricable concepts requiring that nations cannot have successful economic development as they destroy the resource base and despoil the environment, and nations cannot protect the environment without a healthy economy and eradication of poverty. Environmental planning and policy must be interwoven with economic planning and policy in developed and in developing countries. The Earth Summit concerned not only the environment: it was about social justice, poverty, and politics as much as anything else. Four of the major documents signed at the Earth Summit were the Rio Declaration of Principles, the Views an? insightful commentaries on timely environmental topics, represent an author’s opinion, and do not necessarilyrepresent a position of the society or editors. Contmsting views are invited. 18 Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 27. No. 1. 1993
WHAT DOES
EARTH IT MEAN?
Climate Convention, the Biodiversity Treaty, and Agenda 2 1 (an environmental action plan that extends into the twenty-first century). Following are brief descriptions of the documents and the principles that set new policy precedents.
Rio Declaration The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development contains 27 principles on the general rights and obligations of countries. The necessity for sustainable development is stressed throughout the six-page
document. However, the principle with the most important future policy implications for nations is stated in F’rinciple 2: , the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” For the first time it is clear that one nation can no longer do anything it wants with its environment without regard to the impact on other nations. Principle 2 is needed because the global commons have been com-
“. .
0013-936X/93/0927-18$04.00/00 1992 American Chemical Society
promised. The principle was alluded to in the U.N. Stockholm Conference 20 years ago, but now it is affirmed. There is no upwind anymore! Everyone is downwind from someone else; there is no pristine place to retreat. Atmospheric trace gas concentrations caused by human activities are increasing exponentially. Carbon dioxide is increasing at 0.5% per year, methane at 0.9% per year, and chlorofluorocarbons are increasing even faster still (1). Smoke from forest clearing and burning sends pall around the entire Earth: astronauts remark that it is getting worse with each flight. Climate Convention The Climate Convention was signed by 153 nations. The United States signed the treaty only after it was weakened during several presummit meetings in which enforceable target emission levels were abandoned for unenforceable broad aims. Nevertheless, the Climate Convention is unprecedented in its provisions for global emission inventories, monitoring, and trace gas concerns (Figure 11. The treaty establishes a goal to level off CO, emissions and other greenhouse gases that are not controlled under the Montreal Protocol at 1990 levels. The climate treaty’s commmitment to develop, update, and puhlish national inventories of anthropogenic emissions is important. It is similar to a provision in the Superfund Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1986 (Section 313, Title III), which required self-reporting~of toxic emissions from U S . industries. It was passed immediately after the tragic spill of methyl isocyanate, which killed some 2 0 0 0 people and injured many more in Bhopal, India. Senator Daniel Moynihan, among others, stated that it was not necessary to create effluent regulations on toxic emissions but only to require reporting of the emissions and to give the public access to the data. He was right. When the emissions were reported, it was in every company’s interest to “get off the list,” which was published by citizen action groups and made every newspaper’s front page. Toxic emissions to the air have decreased by nearly one-half since the provision was implemented. This “mobilization of shame” is extremely powerful, even i n international circles, andcoupled with the worldwide endeavors of 10,000 nongovernmental Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27,No. 1. 1993 19
organizations (NG0s)-it will bringchinge. The NGOs are linked bv comnuter electronic mail (ECONET], a;e increasingly organized, and have an important effect on environmental policy in countries everywherc One of the most important oul comes of the Earth Summit may be the increased collaboration among NGOs, which has made them a formidable force. This degree of collaboration, made possible by electronic communications, was not achievable just 20 years ago at the U.N. Stockholm Conference on th Environment. The twin driving forces behind increasing worldwide greenhouse gas concentrations are our hurgeoning population’ and the increasing consumption per capita in developed countries. CO, concentrations have increased from about 280 ppm in 1860 to 356 ppm today: this is an increase of about 25% (2). Other greenhouse gases have also increased markedly. Because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have taken up most of the CO, emissions, the rate of increase for CO, (0.5% per year) is much smaller than the population growth rate since 1957. But the rate of anthropogenic CO, emissions has increased even faster than the population rate (more than 2 % per year), demonstrating that per capita consumption is also an important factor. Scientists do not know if the increasing greenhouse gas levels have affected the climate. Based on global average temperatures, the Earth is currently undergoing a very warm period. Six out of the seven warmest years in a 130-year record have occurred after 1980, but the average temperature increase since 1860 (about 0.5 “C) is within the interannual variability, which is the average temperature variation that can be expected to occur from one year to the next (3). On a global average basis, 1992 was a cool year because of the effects of Mt. Pinotubo’s volcanic e r u p t i o n i n t h e Phillipines in 1991. The aim of the Climate Convention is to stabilize-at 1990 levelsCO, and other emissions by the year 2000. Urgency stems from the juggernaut that exists because the capacity for increased emissions is great, but a 60% decrease in emissions from 1990 levels would he required to stabilize CO, concentrations in the atmosphere. The U.S. administration did not oppose the concept. It had already made a com20 Environ. So.Technal., VoI. 27. No. 1. 1993
mitment to stabilize total greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 2 ) through the promulgation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. In addition, the National Energy Strategy is projected to bring about a 7-11% decrease in net greenhouse emissions (CO,, CO,, and N,O) by the year 2000. The United States wanted a more flexible approach than mandatory limits on CO,, CH,, and N,O. With weaker verbage, the United States signed the Climate Convention, and a few other countries probably breathed a sigh of relief. The Climate Convention may prove to be a big step because international agreements have a way of taking on a life of their own. International lawyers call it “soft law.” For example, when the Helsinki Accords of 1975 were ratified, many observed that because the provisions had no teeth the agreement was largely meaningless at best, or they said the agreement made it possible for the Soviet Union to consolidate its power base. One section of the agreement dealt with such fundamental human rights as freedom of thought, religion, and conscience. Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, protested human rights violations around the the world. Some historians now surmise that the single most important event leading to the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the former Soviet empire was ratification of the Helsinki Accords. The Climate Convention may be amended further and become a
major international force with great effect. Biodiversity Treaty The Biodiversity Treaty represents a major new idea in international environmental thinking. Countries have always declared sovereignty over their own resources. However, this agreement is a milestone because it states that countries have compensation rights for products developed from their genetic resources. In other words, one country or party can no longer take resources out of another country, develop a new product from it using biotechnology and genetic engineering, and then file for a patent on the new product or concept without somehow compensating the original country from which the resource was taken. The original plant, seed, or cell may be so small that it fits under the fingernail of a researcher; nevertheless, another party is now involved and compensation or technology transfer must occur. It should be stated that the Biodiversity Treaty has many loopholes and caveats. It may not change the way international research and commerce are conducted in the immediate future, but it is a radical concept-one that the United States needs more time to digest. The agreement was signed by 153 countries: the United States did not sign because of Articles 16 and 1921, which provide for the financial mechanism of compensation and technology transfer. (The United States may still sign the agreement;
it has one more year to do so.) Eventually, the United States may he forced to sign the agreement if US. companies lose access to biological resources in other countries as a result of not participating. For now, some issues of patent law that are different among Japan, the European Economic Community, and the United States need to
be resolved, but the treaty's principle is an important one. It is a seminal agreement and, some would say, it is socially just. From a utilitarian viewpoint alone, a need exists for the preservation of species: they are our biological resource for the twenty-first century. Thirty percent of all cancer medications use plant extracts at
some stage in their development. For example, taxol, a medication for breast cancer, comes from the Pacific yew tree. E. 0. Wilson, Harvard University, estimates that 100,000 species become extinct every year, hut this is a crude estimate because we do not know how many species exist (41. Currently, 1.4million species are labeled with Linnean genus and species names, but estimates of species numbers range from 4 to 40 million. The current species extinction rate is unprecedented in human history. Its cause is habitat destruction [rain forest clearing as well as agricultural and commercial development) that occurs as our population and technology grow more pervasive. Most species live in the tropics; consequently, rain forest clearing i s of p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e r n . Approximately 0.5% of the forests are cleared each year (41. If this causes 50% of species to become extinct, the rate of species extinction may be 0.25% per year. Figure 3 is a plot of the inverse relationship of global population growth and declining biodiversity. Simply put, there is no more room for the millions of plants a n d animals to live; humans have become that powerful an influence on Earth (51. In his book Earth in the Balance, Albert Gore states that the central organizing principle of governments in future years must he the environment. This may be an overstatement, but that is not to say it will not he an important principle, and the Earth Summit proves it. Protecting the environment establishes a framework for global cooperation because it is the one concept that clearly interconnects all nations. It offers one of the rare instances in which the developing countries have what the developed countries want, namely, tropical forests for genetic resources and for sequestering CO, emissions. Developed countries will have to pay for it, and it is in their best long-term interests to do so. The Biodiversity Treaty sets that principle. Furthermore, it lays out a plan in which the developing countries must use transfer payments for the sustainable development of their environment and to better their peoples' living conditions.
Agenda 21 Agenda 2 1 is an 800-page environmental action plan for the twenty-first century. It covers everything Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27. No. 1, 1993 21
Selection. Ouality. At Anderson Laboratories
we specialize in customer satistaction Anderson has an in-Stock selection 01 more than 500 soecific standardized Solutions reagents and chemicals - but theres more We prepare solulions every day labeled lo meet specificrequests variable strength Solulions quantities and sizes - withoul sacrilicing Ihe rigid quality control standards Anderson has always emphasized When you need a STANDARD prepared to customized specilications Anderson is your best source To lind a dealer near you look in the Laboralory Equipment and Supplies section 01 your Yellow Pages or call 1m-7751
Because 01 ouf large network 01 U S distribulors i n every malor metropolitan area we ti11 and ship most orders within 48 hours
Choose lrom Standardized Laboratory Solutions Reagent Grade Laboratory Solvenls Water Testing Solutions APHA. ASTM and AOAC Tesl Solutions Buners (Standard and Color Coded) Indicating Solutions Biological Staining Solutions
In-Vitro Diagnostic Reagents Custom Preoarations
BANCO ~
.STANDARDIZED.
Anderson Laboratories. Inc 5901 Fitzhugh Avenue Fort Worth. Texas 761 19 (817) 457-4474 1-800-433-7751 Fax (817) 451-8349 CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CAR0
22 Environ. Sci. Technol., Val. 27. No. 1. 1993
from global environmental impact statements to womenk rights in sustainable development to financial mechanisms for transfer payments from developed countries to developing countries. Agenda 2 1 was meant to be the vehicle that assured preservation of forests, decreased poverty and equitability among nations, a n d provided safe drinking water and sanitation for the 1-2 hillion people of the world w h o are in need. In addition to the lack of serious discussion on population control, it was the biggest disappointment of the summit. The problem stems from a shortage of development capital in a time of worldwide recession. It is estim a t e d t h a t t h e 115 projects i n Agenda 21 would require $125 billion i n funding. T h e Global Environmental Facility, operated by the World Bank a n d other organizations, is the funding agency for sustainable development projects in developing countries, but it is woefully underfunded. Currently it contains $1.3 billion for all projects. T o put that into perspective, t h e amount spent o n the Alaskan oil spill cleanup from 1989 to 1992 was i n excess of $2 billion; that was spent on one project in one country at one time! The summit fell pitifully short of obtaining commitments from developed countries to devote a larger portion of their gross national produ c t [GNPI for A g e n d a 2 1 . T h e Southern hemispheric developing nations wanted to set the year 2000 as the definitive target date for the northern hemispheric developed countries to allocate 0.7% of their annual GNP. Currently, the richer nations are giving about 0.35% of GNP to official development assistance, a n d the United States is allocating only about 0.21% (6). F u n d i n g levels m u s t increase i f real progress i s to be m a d e on Agenda 21. Summary T h e Earth Summit was a n u n precedented meeting. It set broad new principles, which emphasize the importance of sustainable development and environmental conservation, for how we should govern ourselves into the twenty-first century. A framework was laid for greenhouse gas control, forest preservation, sustainable development ofbiotic resources, and many other topics. Funding for the ambitious action plan remains problematic. Nonetheless, a n i m p o r t a n t eco-
nomic a n d social imperative was established: Developing countries h a v e biological r e s o u r c e s t h a t developed countries w a n t to be preserved: developed countries are going to have to pay for it in some way: and the developing countries will have the responsibility to use t h o s e f u n d s for t h e s u s t a i n a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e i r resources a n d for t h e betterment of t h e i r people.
professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Iowa and was a Darticipant at the bNCED Meeting in Rio de janeiro through the United Nations Associufion-lonn llivision. He is on associate editor oJ ES&T. He received his Ph.D. in Environmental Health Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. L
A
~
~~~~
Acknowledgments The author thanks his collaborators at the Center for Global and Regional Research. the University of Iowa: Burns Weston and Geoffrey Palmer of the College of Law, University of Iowa; and the United Nations Association-Iowa Division. Dorothy Paul, director. Helpful comments came from reviews by Thomas Drennen and Duane Chapman, Cornell University. The study was funded through the Environmental and Natural Resources Policy and Training grant (EPAT) to the Midwestern Universities Consortium for International Activities (MUCIA) from the U S . Agency for International Development. No endorsement by the granting agency should be inferred. References I11 World Meteorological Organization. Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assessment; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. U.K.. 1990. I21 Boden. T. A.: Kanciruk. P.: Farrel, M. P. Trends '90:A Compendium of Dolo on Global Change; Oak Ridge National Laboralory. U S Department of Energy: Oak Ridge, TN. 1990. (3) National Academy of Science. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming; National Academy Press: Washington. DC, 1991. I41 Mann. C. C. Science 1991. 2,53(5201), 736-38. I51
Saute. M. E. Science 1991.2,53(5021).
16)
Pronk.
744-50.
I.: Haq, M. Sustainable Development-From Concept I o Action: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ministry of Development Cooperation: The Hague. The Netherlands. 1992.
