he United Nations Confer- ence 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 suc- cess because several new and T radical concepts about the

environment and the way we gov- ern ourselves on a global level were addressed and accepted, at least in principle, by a major deliberative body. It was a miserable failure be- cause the amount of funding raised and the immediate prospects for in- vestment 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 sig- nificant event. They discussed the environment and development, which until recently were consid- ered to be highly disparate topics. Development was discussed-not in terms of its traditional meaning- but in terms of sustainable develop- ment, that is, the preservation of op- tions, land, labor, and 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 inextrica- ble concepts requiring that

nations cannot have successful economic development as they de- stroy the resource base and despoil the environment, and

nations cannot protect the envi- ronment without a healthy econ- omy and eradication of poverty.

Environmental planning and pol- icy must be interwoven with eco- nomic planning and policy in devel- oped 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 neces- sarilyrepresent a position of the society or editors. Contmsting views are in- vited.

WHAT DOES

EARTH IT MEAN?

Climate Convention, the Biodiver- sity Treaty, and Agenda 21 (an envi- ronmental action plan that extends into the twenty-first century). Fol- lowing are brief descriptions of the documents and the principles that set new policy precedents.

Rio Declaration The Rio Declaration on Environ-

ment and Development contains 27 principles on the general rights and obligations of countries. The neces- sity for sustainable development is stressed throughout the six-page

document. However, the principle with the most important future pol- icy implications for nations is stated in F’rinciple 2: “. , . the responsibil- ity 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 na- tion can no longer do anything it wants with its environment without regard to the impact on other na- tions. Principle 2 is needed because the global commons have been com-

18 Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 27. No. 1. 1993 0013-936X/93/0927-18$04.00/0 0 1992 American Chemical Society

promised. The principle was al- luded 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 pris- tine place to retreat.

Atmospheric trace gas concentra- tions caused by human activities are increasing exponentially. Car- bon dioxide is increasing at 0.5% per year, methane at 0.9% per year, and chlorofluorocarbons are in- creasing 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 pre- summit meetings in which enforce- able target emission levels were abandoned for unenforceable broad aims. Nevertheless, the Climate Convention is unprecedented in its provisions for global emission in- ventories, monitoring, and trace gas concerns (Figure 11. The treaty es- tablishes 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 commmit- ment to develop, update, and puh- lish national inventories of anthro- pogenic emissions is important. It is similar to a provision in the Super- fund Act Reauthorization Amend- ments of 1986 (Section 313, Title III), which required self-reporting~of toxic emissions from U S . indus- tries. It was passed immediately af- ter the tragic spill of methyl isocya- nate, 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 neces- sary to create effluent regulations on toxic emissions but only to re- quire 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 com- pany’s interest to “get off the list,” which was published by citizen ac- tion groups and made every news- paper’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, and- coupled with the worldwide en- deavors of 10,000 nongovernmental

Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27,No. 1. 1993 19

organizations (NG0s)-it will bring chinge.

- The NGOs are linked bv comnuter

electronic mail (ECONET], a;e in- creasingly 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 for- midable force. This degree of col- laboration, made possible by elec- tronic 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 hurgeon- ing population’ and the increasing consumption per capita in devel- oped 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 in- creased markedly. Because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have taken up most of the CO, emis- sions, the rate of increase for CO, (0.5% per year) is much smaller than the population growth rate since 1957. But the rate of anthropo- genic CO, emissions has increased even faster than the population rate (more than 2% per year), demon- strating that per capita consump- tion is also an important factor.

Scientists do not know if the in- creasing greenhouse gas levels have affected the climate. Based on glo- bal 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 in- terannual variability, which is the average temperature variation that can be expected to occur from one year to the next (3). On a global av- erage basis, 1992 was a cool year be- cause of the effects of Mt. Pinotu- bo’s volcanic e rupt ion in the Phillipines in 1991.

The aim of the Climate Conven- tion is to stabilize-at 1990 levels- CO, and other emissions by the year 2000. Urgency stems from the jug- gernaut that exists because the ca- pacity for increased emissions is great, but a 60% decrease in emis- sions from 1990 levels would he re- quired to stabilize CO, concentra- tions in the atmosphere. The U.S. administration did not oppose the concept. It had already made a com-

mitment to stabilize total green- house 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 coun- tries probably breathed a sigh of relief.

The Climate Convention may prove to be a big step because inter- national agreements have a way of taking on a life of their own. Inter- national lawyers call it “soft law.” For example, when the Helsinki Ac- cords of 1975 were ratified, many observed that because the provi- sions 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 sec- tion of the agreement dealt with such fundamental human rights as freedom of thought, religion, and conscience. Human rights organiza- tions, such as Amnesty Interna- tional, protested human rights vio- lations around the the world. Some historians now surmise that the single most important event lead- ing to the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the former Soviet empire was ratification of the Helsinki Ac- cords. The Climate Convention may be amended further and become a

major international force with great effect.

Biodiversity Treaty The Biodiversity Treaty repre-

sents a major new idea in interna- tional environmental thinking. Countries have always declared sovereignty over their own re- sources. 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 coun- try, develop a new product from it using biotechnology and genetic en- gineering, 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 compen- sation or technology transfer must occur. It should be stated that the Biodiversity Treaty has many loop- holes and caveats. It may not change the way international research and commerce are conducted in the im- mediate future, but it is a radical con- cept-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 19- 21, which provide for the financial mechanism of compensation and technology transfer. (The United States may still sign the agreement;

20 Environ. So. Technal., VoI. 27. No. 1. 1993

it has one more year to do so.) Even- tually, the United States may he forced to sign the agreement if US. companies lose access to biological resources in other countries as a re- sult of not participating.

For now, some issues of patent law that are different among Japan, the European Economic Commu- nity, and the United States need to

be resolved, but the treaty's princi- ple is an important one. It is a semi- nal agreement and, some would say, it is socially just.

From a utilitarian viewpoint alone, a need exists for the preserva- tion of species: they are our biologi- cal resource for the twenty-first cen- tury. 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 Pa- cific yew tree. E. 0. Wilson, Har- vard University, estimates that 100,000 species become extinct every year, hut this is a crude esti- mate because we do not know how many species exist (41. Currently, 1.4 million 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 his- tory. Its cause is habitat destruction [rain forest clearing as well as agri- cultural and commercial develop- ment) that occurs as our population and technology grow more perva- sive. Most species live in the trop- ics; consequently, rain forest clear- ing is of par t icular concern. Approximately 0.5% of the forests are cleared each year (41. If this causes 50% of species to become extinct, the rate of species extinc- tion 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 and animals to live; humans have be- come that powerful an influence on Earth (51.

In his book Earth in the Balance, Albert Gore states that the central organizing principle of govern- ments in future years must he the environment. This may be an over- statement, but that is not to say it will not he an important principle, and the Earth Summit proves it.

Protecting the environment estab- lishes a framework for global coop- eration because it is the one concept that clearly interconnects all na- tions. It offers one of the rare in- stances in which the developing countries have what the developed countries want, namely, tropical forests for genetic resources and for sequestering CO, emissions. Devel- oped 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. Further- more, it lays out a plan in which the developing countries must use transfer payments for the sustain- able development of their environ- ment and to better their peoples' liv- ing conditions.

Agenda 21 Agenda 21 is an 800-page envi-

ronmental action plan for the twen- ty-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 specific requests - 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

Because 01 ouf large network 01 U S distribulors i n every malor metropolitan area we ti11 and ship most orders within 48 hours

1 m - 7 7 5 1

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

Fax (817) 451-8349 1-800-433-7751

CIRCLE 5 ON READER SERVICE CAR0

from global environmental impact statements to womenk rights in sus- tainable development to financial mechanisms for transfer payments from developed countries to devel- oping countries. Agenda 2 1 was meant to be the vehicle that assured preservation of forests, decreased poverty and equitability among na- tions, and provided safe drinking water and sanitation for the 1-2 hil- lion people of the world who are in need. In addition to the lack of seri- ous discussion on population con- trol, it was the biggest disappoint- ment of the summit.

The problem stems from a short- age of development capital in a time of worldwide recession. It is esti- m a t e d t h a t t h e 115 projects i n Agenda 21 would require $125 bil- lion in funding. The Global Envi- ronmental Facility, operated by the World Bank a n d other organiza- tions, is the funding agency for sus- tainable development projects in developing countries, but it is woe- fully underfunded. Currently it con- tains $1.3 billion for all projects. To p u t t h a t i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e amount spent on the Alaskan oil spill cleanup from 1989 to 1992 was in 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 devel- oped countries to devote a larger portion of their gross national prod- u c t [GNPI for Agenda 21 . 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 as- sistance, and the United States is allocating only about 0.21% (6). Fund ing levels mus 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 un -

precedented meeting. I t set broad new principles, which emphasize the importance of sustainable de- velopment and environmental con- servation, for how we should gov- ern ourselves into the twenty-first century. A framework was laid for greenhouse gas control, forest pres- ervation, sustainable development ofbiotic resources, and many other topics. Funding for the ambitious action plan remains problematic. Nonetheless , a n impor t an t eco-

nomic and 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 countr ies wan 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 those f u n d s for t he sus t a inab le deve lopmen t of t he i r resources a n d for t h e bet terment of the i r people.

L professor of Civil A and Environmental

Engineering at the University of Iowa and was a Dartici- pant at the bNCED Meeting in Rio de janeiro through the United Nations As- ~ ~~~~

sociufion-lonn llivision. He is on asso- ciate editor oJ ES&T. He received his Ph.D. in Environmental Health Engi- neering from the University of Texas at Austin.

Acknowledgments The author thanks his collaborators at the Center for Global and Regional Re- search. the University of Iowa: Burns Weston and Geoffrey Palmer of the Col- lege of Law, University of Iowa; and the United Nations Association-Iowa Divi- sion. Dorothy Paul, director. Helpful comments came from reviews by Tho- mas Drennen and Duane Chapman, Cor- nell 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 Inter- national Development. No endorsement by the granting agency should be in- ferred.

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. National Academy of Science. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming; National Academy Press: Washing- ton. DC, 1991.

I41 Mann. C. C. Science 1991. 2,53(5201), 736-38.

I51 Saute. M. E. Science 1991.2,53(5021). 744-50.

16) Pronk. I.: Haq, M. Sustainable Devel- opment-From Concept Io Action: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ministry of Development Cooperation: The Hague. The Netherlands. 1992.

(3)

22 Environ. Sci. Technol., Val. 27. No. 1. 1993