Five years ago, when some 118 heads of state and government adopted Agenda 21, a global

program for environmental protection and economic development, at the first "Earth Summit" in
Rio de Janeiro, it was greeted with big headlines and diplomatic congratulations. This year, when
53 heads of state and government gathered for an "Earth Summit +5" meeting in New York to
assess the progress made since Rio, the outcome was much more sobering. Many government
officials themselves said that the promise of Rio to create a new spirit of international
cooperation to promote "sustainable development" had not been fulfilled, and many
commentators flatly called the meeting a failure. However, some participants and observers saw
in the results of the June 23-27 meeting reason to hope that new strength for future action can be
drawn from the crisis. This is an opportunity for nongovernmental organizations to come to the
rescue, said Malaysian Ambassador Razali Ismail, who chaired the New York summit in his
capacity as president of the U.N. General Assembly. "I think clearly the role of NGOs is to
revisit this document, see what is missing, and then go back to the grassroots and push and
agitate for a more sincere, honest implementation of all aspects of Rio. Representatives of non-
governmental organizations, who were also very disappointed that the summit failed to resolve a
number of important environmental issues, also took it upon themselves to work harder. "I am
going home not only with a lot of hope, but also with a lot of strength to continue the work," said
Chief Bisi Ogunleye of the Nigerian Countrywomen's Association. "Because I am now firmly
convinced that people can save the world, not governments. Now it is up to civil society to save
the planet." Unsustainable development .When it was adopted five years ago, Agenda 21 sought
to address a wide range of challenges, from the threat of global warming and depletion of natural
resources to the erosion of the ozone layer and loss of biodiversity. Agenda 21 also linked these
challenges to people's needs and discussed the link between environment and development to
address the problems of overpopulation, overconsumption, and the growing gap between rich
and poor. In this process, the term "sustainable development" came to epitomize the world's
desire to both protect the environment and improve the material well-being of its people.
Although there have been positive developments, such as a steady increase in global food
production, a slowdown in population growth, and a number of regional improvements in
environmental quality, many of the trends and problems faced by leaders in Rio have remained
unabated or even worsened. Among other things, nations have been unable to agree on how
quickly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a major cause of global warming, and how to protect
the world's forests, which continue to disappear. (See "In Greece, NGOs organize diplomatic
event to protect forests" in this issue.) Aside from such details, perhaps the most serious
shortcoming in meeting the expectations of Agenda 21 was the failure of the North (the so-called
"developed" nations) to deliver on its commitment to increase financial and technical assistance
to the South (also known as "developing" countries) so that the South can enjoy the benefits of
development without causing the same level of pollution and environmental damage that
Northern countries have caused during their development. Unlike other recent UN summits,
governments failed to agree on a joint political declaration on the general direction of future
action. "The failure to produce a political declaration reflects the crisis of credibility and trust
and goodwill between rich and poor nations, between North and South," said Martin Khor,
director of the Third World Network, an NGO coalition. "The pact [in Rio] was that the North
would change its development model and provide aid, and that the South would change its own
development patterns so that it would not go down the path of high energy consumption. But the
aid provided by the North did not go up. It went down." Still, some said the atmosphere of
commitment that surrounded the summit was