| I
came away from the Earth Summit (United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development) in Rio
de Janeiro 10 years ago in the belief that I had
just witnessed a world-shaking event. The heads
of state of all the nations of the world had unanimously
agreed on a formula called sustainable development
and a design of implementation called Agenda 21
that would, I believed, stop the continuing destruction
of our environment while simultaneously advancing
economic development.
As
someone who has spent most of his adult life in the
resolution of conflicts, I saw sustainable development
as a creative resolution of the most critical conflict
the world was facing: the clash between environmental
protection and economic development. We must have
both; and sustainable development told us that we
could have both.
At what will be the largest meeting the UN
ever held--even larger than the 1992 Earth
Summit--the nations of the world will be meeting
again, this time in Johannesburg, South Africa,
at what is now called the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, to review what has happened since
Rio and decide where to go from here. But this
time, they will face the indisputable fact
that conditions they sought in Rio to correct
have not only not improved; they have actually
gotten exceedingly worse.
In a comprehensive
review of what has happened since Rio, Barry
James of the International
Herald Tribune reported recently, that "today,
80 countries have lower per capita incomes
than they did at the time of the Rio conference.
Threats are higher than ever to natural resources
such as forests, fish, and clean water and
air. The richest one-fifth of mankind--including
wealthy minorities in poor countries consume
energy and resources at such a high rate that
providing a comparable lifestyle to the rest
of the world's population would require the
resources of four planets the size of Earth." And
he continued with a litany of equally disturbing
facts.
Secretary General
Kofi A. Annan of the United Nations, agrees
that the results since Rio
are disappointing, particularly in the light
of strong global economic growth during the
1990s. "In some respects conditions are
worse than they were 10 years ago," he
said in a report earlier this year. Annan also
said that the approach to development is piecemeal,
that the environment is threatened by unsustainable
patterns of consumption and production, and
that international aid is both insufficient
and declining.
Perhaps the most incisive description and
analysis of the desperate state of the world
is contained in the recently published book
entitled The Future of Life by Professor Edward
O. Wilson of Harvard University. He is not
only the eminent author of two Pulitzer Price-winning
books, On Human Nature (1978) and The Ants
(1990) but many other groundbreaking works
as well. The Future of Life should be read
by everyone in attendance at the World Summit
if they are not yet fully convinced how bad
things are.
The serious
deterioration since Rio has led some people
to question the value of United
Nations international conferences. Barry James,
for example, said that the record of the past
10 years contains little to suggest that the
Johannesburg meeting will significantly improve
things. In a letter not long ago to the Editor
of the New York Times, Richard Holbrooke, former
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, wrote
about what he said were the reasons so many
people have expressed concern about special
United Nations Conferences. Here's how he described
them: "Thousands of people gather, spending
millions, even tens of millions of dollars.
They preach to the converted, hash over longstanding
differences, and pass empty and grandiose resolutions."
As much as I admire Richard Holbrooke, I must
strongly disagree with his view of UN international
conferences. Holbrooke is as aware as any of
us about the consequences of the conflict between
environmental protection and indiscriminate
development, literally survival of life on
our planet as we know it. He has been in the
center of the battle in one capacity or another
for years. In place of international conferences,
Holbrooke would have the issues addressed by
the Security Council and at meetings at United
Nations headquarters in New York.
But that overlooks the world-wide educational
value of the UN international conferences.
Important as are the meetings in New York,
they are hardly sufficient to enable the peoples
of the world to realize that the Earth's resources
are being destroyed at an alarming rate and
that something drastic has to be done to stop
the destruction. It took the destruction of
the World Trade Center last September 11 to
wake us up to the menace of terrorism. In terms
of human lives and resource destruction, the
damage the World Summit will address is even
more severe.
Yes, the issues addressed at UN conferences
have been discussed before and grandiose resolutions
have been passed and left dormant. But the
people who will be attending the World Summit
on Sustainable Development are not simply the
converted. They include some 3,000 representatives
of the media who will be hearing the diverse
views of 5,000 delegates from 189 countries
and more than 45,000 NGOs from all over the
world including not simply the converted but
business, labor, and special interest organizations
as well.
There are, of course, limits to what international
conferences sponsored by the United Nations
can achieve. But the conferences can serve
the critical purpose in focusing international
attention on the problems the world faces.
Barry James would not have written his penetrating
report if the World Summit was not about to
take place.
The key initial steps in conflict resolution,
I have found, are 1) defining the issues in
dispute; 2) gathering the relevant facts; 3)
identifying the ultimate decision makers; and
4) finding common ground for decision making.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development
is a major forum in which those criteria can
be advanced.
The main issues
are not hard to define. "The
central problem of the new century," according
to Professor Wilson, "is how to raise
poor to a decent standard of living worldwide
while preserving as much of the rest of life
as possible. Both the needy poor and vanishing
biological diversity are concentrated in the
developing countries. The poor, some 800 million
of whom live without sanitation, clean water,
and adequate food, have little chance to advance
in a devastated environment. Conversely, the
natural environments where most biodiversity
hangs on cannot survive the press of land-hungry
people with nowhere else to go."
The facts are
available but they have to be gathered and
assessed. The United Nations is
a main source of relevant information and the
World Summit can expand their currency. And
it is critical that the true facts become known.
As a mentor of mine once said, you can't argue
about a fact, you can only be ignorant of it.
People have to be convinced of their accuracy
and that frequently requires repetition at
the highest levels. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which the elder
President Bush signed in Rio and the United
States Senate unanimously ratified in 1994,
specifically stated at the very beginning of
the Convention, which is still in full force
and effect though lacking targets and timetables,
that the Parties to the Convention were "Concerned
that human activities have been substantially
increasing the atmospheric concentration of
greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance
the natural greenhouse effect, and that this
will result on average in an additional warming
of the Earth's surface and atmosphere and may
adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind."
But there are scientists, though decreasing
in number, and politicians, including the son
of the elder President Bush, who continue to
question the facts. The World Summit on Sustainable
Development will not end debate on the facts.
But it will help immeasurably to reduce ignorance
of them.
Identifying the ultimate decision makers points
directly to the nations of the world and their
leaders, particularly the leaders of developed
countries. They are in the best position to
provide guidance on the principal issues the
world faces. The World Summit will be a forum
in which the leaders will be called upon to
stand up and be counted. By itself, the Summit
will not be definitive. But it is surely an
exceedingly useful showcase. Will the United
States, the world's leading power, continue
to oppose virtually all of the nations of the
world on the targets and timetables of the
Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush has
said that the Protocol is fatally flawed. It
may be flawed and if so, it should be corrected.
But to say that it is fatally flawed is to
say that the introduction of any and all targets
or timetables are not negotiable, a position
the increasing flow of greenhouse gases brings
sharply into question.
Simultaneously, the United States is seeking
support from the rest of the world on the war
against terrorism. These aspects of the issues
the world faces will undoubtedly be aired at
the World Summit. They may not be resolved
but the discussions can point the way to solutions.
A frequent
response from developed countries asked to
provide poverty assistance -- "We'll
provide help when they eliminate the corruption
and get their house in order." -- may
be challenged as an evasion The World Summit
is an appropriate forum in which the validity
of such a response can be examined in the presence
of thousands of delegates, journalists and
NGOs.
I also see the leaders of industry as key
decision makers. Many of them, but not nearly
most, have come to understand the seriousness
of what is at stake. There is the Business
Coalition on Sustainable Development and the
recently created Center on Environmental Leadership
in Business, a division of Conservation International
funded by a $25 million grant from the Ford
Motor Company. But business is understandably
motivated mainly by the bottom line. After
all, businesses exist to make money and they
can't long endure if they don't. I do not believe
we will obtain industry's compliance without
satisfying hardheaded businessmen that environmental
leadership is in their best interest and that
it can even be profitable.
With the support
of the Center on Environmental Leadership
in Business, a Conference on Biodiversity
and Sustainable Tourism is scheduled to take
place at the Punta Cana Resort & Club in
the Dominican Republic on September 27-30.
The conference is premised on an aphorism gaining
prominence, namely that you (an individual
or an organization) can DO WELL WHILE DOING
GOOD. It is specifically applicable, in connection
with our conference on biodiversity conservation
and sustainable tourism for Chief Executives
of tourist and travel businesses. Logically,
they should want to preserve the biodiversity
of the region that attracts people to their
resorts. But they are certain to cut corners
if they see the cost of environmental protection
diminishing their bottom line.
Under the title
of the conference, "Making
Biodiversity Work for Your Business," with
the subtitle, "Increasing Profitability
While Protecting the Environment," we
have included the following key reasons why
Chief Executives should attend our conference:
- Understand how becoming a leader in responsible
tourism development can lead to reduced costs
and increased profitability.
- Learn ways to create business value through
environmental stewardship.
- Discuss how to protect your business from
th e financial risks associated with environmental
degradation.
- Hear from successful colleagues that are
pioneering good environmental practices and
seeing good rates of return on their investments.
- Network with other Caribbean tourism leaders
and renowned scientists and conservations.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development
in particular and other international conferences
as well are important part of a global educational
undertaking that can generate the world support
for action our world in challenge now requires.
Professor Wilson concludes his book on The
Future of Life on an optimistic note, which,
he claims, is shared by many thoughtful people
from all walks of life, and we must devoutly
hope he is right.
"Adequate resources exist," he points
out, and "Those who control them have
many reasons to achieve that goal, not least
their own security." In the end, he added, "success
or failure will come down to an ethical decision,
one on which those now living will be defined
and judged for generations to come." We
must devoutly hope that he is right in concluding
that "A civilization able to envision
God and to embark on the colonization of space
will surely find the way to save the integrity
of this planet and the magnificent life it
harbors."
The World Summit on Sustainable development
can surely help us find the way to save the
integrity of this planet.
(Editor's Note: Theodore W. Kheel, one of
the most eminent lawyers and mediators in the
world, is publisher emeritus of Earthtimes.
He helped found the publication in 1991.)
| 
