▼ Viewpoint
Examining the
ASSOCIATED PRESS
World Summit on SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Did the latest meeting really move the world forward toward sustainability? JERALD SCHNOOR
© 2002 American Chemical Society
journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step. In terms of sustainability, that step was taken in 1972 when world leaders met in Stockholm, Sweden, but whether the recent World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) represents another step forward remains to be seen. After attending WSSD in Johannesburg, South Africa, I came away inspired by the thousands of individuals who devote their lives to making the world a better place. I was encouraged by actions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and some businesses, but I left wondering about the proper role of government and why the United States refuses to take the lead. WSSD sought action to improve the entire human condition and global environment. In the words of Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, “Sustainable development is about the very destiny of our planet.”
A
NOVEMBER 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
■
429 A
430 A
■
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NOVEMBER 1, 2002
The United States’ lack of leadership was lamented in many circles. As the world’s largest economy and greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States would seem to bear a moral imperative to respond more ambitiously. But by its resistance to endorsing firm time frames for reducing agricultural subsidies and emissions of greenhouse gases, and for increasing renewable energy, the U.S. government was almost unique in its reticence to move on these issues. Despite harsh criticism, the United States did remain fully engaged in WSSD and was a signatory to the final implementation plan. Secretary of State Colin Powell, leader of the U.S. delegation, announced more than $1 billion in assistance over the next four years to improve water efficiency in factories and farms, provide electricity for the developing world, and bolster programs that fight hunger and restore forests in Africa. The United States also endorsed plans and time frames to restore depleted fisheries and to reduce the risk from hazardous chemicals. Even though the United States was reluctant to support the ambitious goal of halving the number of people without access to safe drinking water by 2015, it eventually approved the text. Clearly, WSSD provided global impetus to eradicate poverty and improve the environment. Partnerships between businesses, NGOs, and governments are emerging as key strategies for action to improve the global condition. More than 150 companies are members in the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. In addition, there are some 24,000 NGOs worldwide. They are increasingly cooperating, forging alliances, working with governments, and providing the action needed for sustainable development. Sticking points remain regarding government agreements to increase renewable energy, reduce agricultural subsidies, and implement the Kyoto Protocol on a firm schedule. But nations attending WSSD successfully brokered agreements on most WEHAB issues, including safe drinking water, forest preservation, and AIDS/HIV funding. Whether this is a step depends upon whether governments, NGOs, and businesses free up money and actually implement WSSD’s plan. In his opening remarks to more than 100 world leaders, Annan said, “Let us stop being economically defensive and start being politically courageous.” Thankfully, governments remain engaged in these pressing problems, but the world must wait for concrete steps forward. JERALD SCHNOOR
Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, proposed five key areas as the focus of WSSD: water, energy, health, agriculture, and biodiversity, and these were brought together under the acronym WEHAB. Initial steps toward sustainability were first taken by the United Nations Stockholm Conference on the Environment in 1972 and later at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and the Millennium Declaration of 2000. But it has been 30 years since Stockholm, and many feel we should be further down the road. We still have 1.2 billion people on our planet who do not have access to safe drinking water, 2.4 billion without adequate sanitary facilities, and more than 5 million children who perish each year from diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, and other easily preventable diseases. Although these numbers have improved over the past decade, the need for sanitation remains critical. People in developed countries worry about environmental perils, such as climate change and species extinctions, but the plain fact is that children in the developing world are still dying. For poor countries to preserve forests and develop sustainably, developed countries must first help them overcome their problems. The World Summit was devoted to implementation rather than discussing previously agreed-upon goals and principles. Agenda 21, the global plan developed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, provides a template for action on these issues, but official developmental assistance (ODA) and progress have been lacking. When 107 heads of state met in Rio, industrialized countries allocated approximately 0.35% of their gross domestic product (GDP) toward ODA and endorsed a goal of 0.7% of GDP. Today, the percentage that rich countries devote toward ODA is about 0.2% of GDP, so governments have actually slipped backward from their goal since Rio. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, said, “This is not charity—it is an investment in our collective future.” Current U.S. developmental assistance is roughly $8 billion, but this amounts to only 0.1% of GDP. Everyone now accepts that poverty looms as the largest impediment to sustainability and that governments, business, and civil society must partner to develop a better way of life for more than 1 billion people on earth living on less than U.S. $1 per day. Partnerships emerged from unexpected places. For example, I attended an unprecedented meeting held during WSSD between Greenpeace and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, where they issued a joint statement on the urgent need to implement the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Like the lion lying down with the lamb, the press conference was indeed fascinating. Both groups risked infuriating a large portion of their constituencies, yet nonetheless decided that the issue was too important not to cooperate.
Jerald Schnoor is the Allen S. Henry Chair Professor of Engineering and the codirector for the Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research at the University of Iowa. He assumes the position as Editor of ES&T in 2003. E-mail:
[email protected].
