Pursuing The Principles Of Rio

June 20, 1992

As the most colossal event of its kind ever held, the expectations for the just-concluded Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro were huge. But in terms of what it substantively accomplished, the results won`t be known for years, perhaps for decades.

Much will depend on the commitment of the nations that signed the summit`s various treaties and resolutions, especially the developing nations that had the most to gain from the gathering and have farthest to go in attaining desired environmental standards.

There is no guarantee that the rhetoric expelled at the summit will be matched with effort, even on the two agreements that are binding. The rest are general statements of principles, often as ambiguous as might be expected of compromises meant to satisfy the conflicting interests of 178 nations.

Yet in terms of principles, the summit was a success. It established that a wide range of environmental problems demand worldwide attention and cooperation. And it underscored that economic development and environmental protection must go hand in hand to ensure that progress does not come at the price of wasted natural resources and ecological systems.

The United States was treated as an outcast at the summit for not embracing all the major objectives, as some of its allies did reluctantly. President Bush may have been too strident in defending this, yet American positions were more clear-eyed than obstructionist, perhaps more honest than some others.

The U.S. signed the global warming treaty after insisting that it establish only goals, not specific targets, to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Yet the U.S. did agree to a provision to strengthen the accord if there is scientific evidence that the threat of climate change is more serious than is known now, and worth the cost to correct.

The U.S. refused to sign the biodiversity treaty calling for more protection of animal and plant species and more research on extracting uses from tropical flora and fauna. Yet this still can be an effective document, and there is optimism that the U.S. may eventually sign it if it is stripped of language that could threaten the American biotechnology industry.

There was historic agreement that industrialized nations should provide more financial aid and technology to developing nations to help them build their economies while guarding the environment. While agreeing with the principle, the U.S. refused to accept the goal that this aid should be 0.7 percent of the rich nations` gross national products-something its allies agreed to while admitting they don`t know when they can keep the promise. The U.S. course is the wiser one because of the potentially huge expense and the uncertainty of such aid being used for its intended purposes in unstable countries.

If the U.S. had any triumphs, it was in pushing for a general statement of principles calling for better management of the world`s great forests, with the possibility of its being turned into a binding treaty later. It wasn`t easy because of objections from developing countries that don`t want meddling in their affairs. This was little noted while the delegates were busy clobbering the United States, but it is a measure of the distance between Rio and the new world it envisions.