Making Things Happen in Rio

By Thomas E. Lovejoy THOMAS E. LOVEJOY is assistant secretary for external affairs at the Smithsonian Institution.

This planet -- once described by Lewis Thomas as "hanging there in space and obviously alive" -- is showing disturbing vital signs. The symptoms include accelerating deforestation and loss of species, and growing atmospheric pollution by greenhouse gases and the ozone-eating chlorofluorocarbons (CFCS). The full list is familiar. The causes are rooted in our growing numbers and the complexities of society's interaction with the natural world upon which we depend.

This week the largest international meeting in history, let alone just on the subject of the environment, will convene in Rio de Janeiro, replete with 100 heads of state and a cast of tens of thousands. Some would assert that just having the meeting represents progress, but there is every reason to wish for and expect more. Fortunately, it is no longer possible that it will be naught but an environmental Woodstock or an enormous black hole for diplomatic talent and energy. With a last-minute flurry of negotiation possible, it is as yet unclear how much progress will be made with earth's daunting problems.

The difficulty with the issues is not only their scale and urgency but also the way in which all that is wrong or perceived wrong with the world can in some way be linked with environment. It is not surprising to see old issues such as North-South inequities arise in new guises. Now the debates are about who is responsible, who pays and how much, as well as access to resources whether natural or intellectual. There is an urgent need to move beyond finger pointing. The truth is that almost no nation is environmentally innocent, and all countries -- whatever the extent of their responsibility -- have a vested interest in solving the problems.

No organism can exist without affecting its environment. Lions dine on gazelles. A growing tree will shade out sun-loving herbaceous plants. All organisms excrete wastes. So the question facing the Earth Summit and humanity in general is not whether to affect the environment or not, but in what ways.

The need is not just for restraint but also for creativity. There are opportunities for economic growth that bear the environment in mind. There is money to be made in efficient use of resources and in new technologies that make it possible. This intriguing and encouraging message -- that environmental sensitivity is an essential element of competitiveness -- comes from the Business Council for Sustainable Development, which includes CEOS of many prominent corporations.

An interesting piece of sustainable development is already emerging unheralded from the intersection of biotechnology and biological diversity. Pharmaceutical companies already reap huge sales from this or that wild and wonderful molecule discovered in the natural variety of plant and animal life. Natural or genetically enhanced organisms aid with environmental cleanup. A CFC-eating bacterium was recently found in sediments of the Potomac River. A basic laboratory for biotechnology and diagnostic medicine uses a heat- resistant enzyme derived from a bacterium native to Yellowstone hot springs. Upward of nearly $100 billion of annual economic activity is generated at this intersection of biotechnology and biological diversity. The potential is staggering, and it is easily sustainable because it is usually not necessary to destroy the biological resource to benefit from the particular desired molecule.

Ironically, at the very moment that biotechnology is opening the door on an era during which humanity can benefit from biological diversity as never before, and when that potential is an important segment of the sustainable development that the world requires, various activities, particularly habitat destruction, are elevating species extinctions to something like 1,000 times the normal rate. The choice is therefore not between economic activity and environmental luxury, as some have viewed biological conservation, but rather between maximum and diminished potential for economic return. Joint ventures in tropical nations to which they bring their genetic capital, and companies in industrialized nations bring technological capital, would provide serious incentives to protect biological diversity.

The Earth Summit has been billed as the environmental crossroads for humanity. Indeed, many are concerned that environmental problems are so large that they soon may pass a point where anything significant can be done. Of all problems none is more irreversible than the extinction problem; every time a , species is lost unnecessarily, a 3.5 billion-year lineage comes to a halt.

It is hard to assess how much can actually be achieved at Rio. But it is clear that there will be plenty to do afterward, and it is not too soon to think about how new strategies might be most effectively pursued. Certainly we cannot depend on periodic mechanisms like the Earth Summit, which manage to be both ponderous and convulsive at the same time. There is a need for an interim continuing structure like the Security Council within the United Nations. An alternative might be a voluntary mechanism like the Group of Seven meetings, but one that includes some of the major developing nations and would therefore be more likely to produce recommendations acceptable to the broader sweep of countries. Looking beyond Rio should not get in the way of achieving as much as possible at the Earth Summit, but a focus on the future is a critical piece of the agenda.