© 2002 American Chemical Society NOVEMBER 1, 2002 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ■ 429 A

▼Viewpoint

Did the latest meeting

really move the world

forward toward sustainability?

Examining theWorld Summit

on SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

J E R A L D S C H N O O R

Ajourney of 1000 miles begins with the firststep. In terms of sustainability, that stepwas taken in 1972 when world leaders metin Stockholm, Sweden, but whether therecent World Summit on Sustainable De-

velopment (WSSD) represents another step forwardremains to be seen. After attending WSSD inJohannesburg, South Africa, I came away inspired bythe thousands of individuals who devote their livesto making the world a better place. I was encouragedby actions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)and some businesses, but I left wondering about theproper role of government and why the United Statesrefuses to take the lead.

WSSD sought action to improve the entire humancondition and global environment. In the words ofJean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, “Sustainabledevelopment is about the very destiny of our planet.”

ASSOCIATED PRESS

430 A ■ ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NOVEMBER 1, 2002

Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations,proposed five key areas as the focus of WSSD: water,energy, health, agriculture, and biodiversity, and thesewere brought together under the acronym WEHAB.Initial steps toward sustainability were first taken bythe United Nations Stockholm Conference on theEnvironment in 1972 and later at the Rio EarthSummit in 1992, and the Millennium Declaration of2000. But it has been 30 years since Stockholm, andmany feel we should be further down the road.

We still have 1.2 billion people on our planet whodo not have access to safe drinking water, 2.4 billionwithout adequate sanitary fa-cilities, and more than 5 mil-lion children who perish eachyear from diarrhea, dysentery,cholera, and other easily pre-ventable diseases. Althoughthese numbers have improvedover the past decade, the needfor sanitation remains critical.People in developed countriesworry about environmentalperils, such as climate changeand species extinctions, but theplain fact is that children in thedeveloping world are stilldying. For poor countries topreserve forests and developsustainably, developed coun-tries must first help them overcome their problems.

The World Summit was devoted to implementationrather than discussing previously agreed-upon goalsand principles. Agenda 21, the global plan developedat the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, provides a templatefor action on these issues, but official developmentalassistance (ODA) and progress have been lacking.When 107 heads of state met in Rio, industrializedcountries allocated approximately 0.35% of their grossdomestic product (GDP) toward ODA and endorseda goal of 0.7% of GDP. Today, the percentage that richcountries devote toward ODA is about 0.2% of GDP,so governments have actually slipped backward fromtheir goal since Rio. Tony Blair, the British prime min-ister, said, “This is not charity—it is an investment inour collective future.” Current U.S. developmental as-sistance is roughly $8 billion, but this amounts to only0.1% of GDP.

Everyone now accepts that poverty looms as thelargest impediment to sustainability and that gov-ernments, business, and civil society must partner todevelop a better way of life for more than 1 billionpeople on earth living on less than U.S. $1 per day.Partnerships emerged from unexpected places. Forexample, I attended an unprecedented meeting heldduring WSSD between Greenpeace and the WorldBusiness Council for Sustainable Development, wherethey issued a joint statement on the urgent need toimplement the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.Like the lion lying down with the lamb, the press con-ference was indeed fascinating. Both groups risked in-furiating a large portion of their constituencies, yetnonetheless decided that the issue was too impor-tant not to cooperate.

The United States’ lack of leadership was lament-ed in many circles. As the world’s largest economyand greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, the UnitedStates would seem to bear a moral imperative to re-spond more ambitiously. But by its resistance to en-dorsing firm time frames for reducing agriculturalsubsidies and emissions of greenhouse gases, and forincreasing renewable energy, the U.S. governmentwas almost unique in its reticence to move on theseissues. Despite harsh criticism, the United States didremain fully engaged in WSSD and was a signatory tothe final implementation plan.

Secretary of State ColinPowell, leader of the U.S. del-egation, announced morethan $1 billion in assistanceover the next four years to im-prove water efficiency in fac-tories and farms, provideelectricity for the developingworld, and bolster programsthat fight hunger and restoreforests in Africa. The UnitedStates also endorsed plans andtime frames to restore deplet-ed fisheries and to reduce therisk from hazardous chemi-cals. Even though the UnitedStates was reluctant to supportthe ambitious goal of halving

the number of people without access to safe drinkingwater by 2015, it eventually approved the text.

Clearly, WSSD provided global impetus to eradicatepoverty and improve the environment. Partnershipsbetween businesses, NGOs, and governments areemerging as key strategies for action to improve theglobal condition. More than 150 companies are mem-bers in the World Business Council for SustainableDevelopment. In addition, there are some 24,000 NGOsworldwide. They are increasingly cooperating, forgingalliances, working with governments, and providingthe action needed for sustainable development.

Sticking points remain regarding governmentagreements to increase renewable energy, reduceagricultural subsidies, and implement the KyotoProtocol on a firm schedule. But nations attendingWSSD successfully brokered agreements on mostWEHAB issues, including safe drinking water, forestpreservation, and AIDS/HIV funding. Whether this isa step depends upon whether governments, NGOs,and businesses free up money and actually imple-ment WSSD’s plan.

In his opening remarks to more than 100 worldleaders, Annan said, “Let us stop being economical-ly defensive and start being politically courageous.”Thankfully, governments remain engaged in thesepressing problems, but the world must wait for con-crete steps forward.

Jerald Schnoor is the Allen S. Henry Chair Professor ofEngineering and the codirector for the Center for Globaland Regional Environmental Research at the Universityof Iowa. He assumes the position as Editor of ES&T in2003. E-mail: jerald-schnoor@uiowa.edu.

JERA

LD S

CHN

OOR