Conclusions

53. Was Rio a success, or just a spectacle, with little to show after the big bang? It is too early to provide proper answers to these questions, as many of the processes described above are just beginning to take place. Nevertheless, some points can be made:

57.  The question of "new, and additional" financial resources to be made available for bringing countries (especially developing countries) on a sustainable development path has also been far from satisfactory. While the $120 billion price tag of Agenda 21 was only indicative, the period since Rio seems to show that even previous levels of development assistance are not being kept up. Some argue that the coincidence of the Earth Summit with hard economic times in the industrialized countries is the main culprit. One wonders, however. Money seems to be available, but not for this purpose. Maybe Rio brought was a major watershed on how the international community decides development assistance should operate? Recent signals from the UN's development programmes seem to indicate that a major rethinking of the development process, and its funding, will have to be undertaken.

58.  Also, much of the essentially political concentration on the (non)availability of large additional sums of development assistance have distracted people from looking at much more fundamental issues, such as the fact that many of the sustainable development directions proposed (i.e., in Agenda 21) would cost less money overall than the traditional models. Thus, the "incremental costs" in many cases could turn out to be negative! The (environmental-)economic theories and practices, however, need to be looked at much more, before these can be accepted widely.

59.  An other area where Agenda 21, and indeed all the other agreements from Rio are disappointing is the question of national sovereignty. National sovereignty is being eroded daily, if not by transnational corporations (i.e., economic development), then by governments or other political interests (i.e., development), or by neighbouring industries (people, e.g., transboundary pollution). At the same time, instead of new, imaginative ways to deal with the issues, the countries "reaffirm" their sovereign rights to do actions with their "national resources". The individual nation states have not yet grown up to the realities of the 21st century.

60.  For the question of this consultation: "Sustainable Growth: A contradiction in Terms?" what answer does Rio bring us? In my view, UNCED made the case for the need for sustained growth well into the future -- a growth that increasingly incorporates the environmental externalities that have been excluded for so long. Without that sustained growth, the plight of the developing countries cannot be improved, and neither can the situation of the industrialized countries be improved. At the same time, Agenda 21, as well as the other Rio agreements, make it clear that this "growth" cannot be the same kind of growth that the world has had in the past. Unfortunately, Agenda 21 did not go far in specifying what that different kind of growth may look like. Much more work will be needed in that area.

61.  As a final remark, it should be said that as an event, Rio was certainly successful. As a process, as far as the preparatory process is concerned, its success is also clear. Now that the conference is over, the follow-up process will be as successful as we make it. This consultation should contribute to that success!

page 1 - 2 - 3 - 4