Fundamental changes in the attitude and mentality of humanity are necessary to change the reckless course of human progress and achieve sustainable development. The UN Conference on Environment and Development has been unable to develop the requisite educational information for this purpose. The Northern environment ministers know that the pursuit of endless consumption is escalating energy use and unsustainable demands on the planet's resources. The ministers from the South know their forests and fisheries are declining, that much of their soil is becoming less fertile every year, and that their copper, timber, fish and bananas are being sold at a fraction of their real value. Environmentalists have been advocating more public awareness prior to and since the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. Saving the rainforest requires understanding the causes of deforestation: avaricious logging companies and poor peasants searching for land. The rich in the North need a new frugalism to replace the mindless consumerism, while the poor in the South need new alternatives to escape from the poverty that forces them to destroy their environment. These changes in attitude could come from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the civil society. Governments cannot decree socially and politically sustainable development. Political pluralism indispensable within society means NGOs and community groups and responsive governments. Pluralisms of information means a wider range of newspapers and magazines and a wider spectrum of views in the media. Since 1989 there has been vigorous acceleration toward pluralism in the world powered by NGOs. The many voices of NGOs have generated the dramatic political changes of recent years. Alternative news agencies and research institutes must propagate information to elucidate sustainable development.
The Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development notes that after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro discussions about the environment and development will differ from those prior to the Summit. These discussions must now incorporate problems of developing countries, poverty, inequalities, flow of resources to developing countries, and terms of trade. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development consists of important tenets, but it must evolve into an Earth Charter to be endorsed on the 50th anniversary of the UN in 1965. The Summit's Plan of Action, Agenda 21, must also continue to evolve and, despite its shortcomings, is the most extensive and, if implemented, most effective international action ever approved by the international community. Financing the Agenda 21 initiatives remains to be decided. New possible sources of funding must be based n the polluter pays principle and may include new taxes, user charges, emission permits, and citizen funding. Even though the most serious problem in the 1990s is stabilization of atmospheric gases, the Rio agreement does not include targets or timetables. Governments must take united action immediately to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 60%. 1 nation has not yet approved the convention on biological diversity. Governments also need to move forward on conventions on decertification and deforestation. They need to incorporate the global objectives of Agenda 21 into their own national policies and practices. This must also be done at the global, regional, organizational, local, and individual levels. The global community must also begin technology capacity building. The participatory process should also include nongovernmental organizations. Population growth must also slow dramatically to achieve sustainable development. The various participatory levels must consider elimination of poverty.
Contrary to recent press reports, the issue of population growth has taken center stage in the negotiations preceding the Rio Earth Summit. While the press has reported that population issues have not been addressed, the North and South have disputed the related issues of population growth and consumption, and supporters and opponents of family planning have clashed over that issue. There is little question that the issue of population falls squarely into the summit's agenda. Northern countries have embraced the idea that sustainable development will require developing countries to make slow growth an urgent priority. Currently, 90% of world population growth is taking place in the poorer countries, and this growth is affecting the environment. But while developing countries have come to accept population as part of the environmental equation, they also argue that 80% of the world's resources are being consumed by only 20% of its people. Few in the North have acknowledged the impact of their wasteful consumption and production patterns on the environment. During the negotiation phase, the US delegation declared that US lifestyles were not negotiable. Another population issue that has attracted debate is family planning. Some delegations have objected to language calling for the universal access to family planning services or, as is the case with the Holy See delegation, to specific references to contraception. Also concerning population, representatives from nongovernmental organizations have raised related issues such as poverty and women's rights.
Women's issues have begun to receive full recognition as the world prepares for the Earth Summit, the result of intense lobbying on the part of women's groups. During the first preparatory meetings for the summit 2 years ago, women's concerns received little attention. But since then, women have succeeded in securing specific language that addresses women's concerns. Last November, over 1500 women from around the world gathered in Miami, Florida to discuss the environmental and development concerns of women. The result of the meeting was the Women's Action Agenda 21, an extensive document which, among other things, calls for the empowerment of women, controls on pesticide and toxic wastes (which are showing up in breast milk and drinking water), demilitarization, and an outright cancellation of Third World debt. Having adopted the agenda, the women brought these recommendations to government delegations, which are in charge of formulating UNCED policy documents. They also pressed governments to include more women in the delegations. During the next 2 preparatory meetings, the women's caucus succeeded in incorporating some of the agenda language into the draft of the Rio Declaration. Some to the most important victories includes language that calls for gender balance in the staff of any post-Summit institution that may be created, as well as language that calls for the effective participation of women in the knowledge-generation, decision-making, and management at all levels. While the message has gotten through, women still remain largely excluded from country delegations. Nonetheless, women have been empowered by the UNCED process.
Interviewed by Development Forum, the director of UNCED's New York office, Jean-Claude Faby, who has been intimately involved in the negotiations preceding the Earth Summit, discusses his view of the process and expectations of global meeting. Faby explains that during the preparatory process, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have played an instrumental role. For example, women have raised issues concerning women, and their efforts are reflected in Agenda 21, the action plan of the Rio Declaration. Although describing the NGOs' critical assessment of the process as a health impatience, Faby notes that the issues to be confronted in Rio are some of the most complicated and vexing environmental and development problems facing the world community. Faby explains that the business community, an important player in the issues at hand, has also taken an active role in the negotiations. Faby acknowledges that the negotiations have witnessed a rift between North and South over the language of the document, a debate that will probably continue during the summit itself. Some of the issues of contention are military spending (a particularly concern of NGOs) and the North's high level of consumption, which the South insists must be addressed. Faby also discusses the issue of implementation and funding following the conclusion of the summit. Although implementation would require some $125 billion (a relatively modest figure), Faby expects that no neat funding package will emerge from Rio. In fact, funding will be one of the primary concerns of the Rio follow-up. Concerning the institutional follow-up of the summit, some are calling for the formation of a new institution, while others oppose such a move.
