In the current debate there are widely divergent views on how to assess the results of the Rio Conference. While most politicians underline the importance of having gathered so many heads of State and government together to discuss on development and the state of environment, green people are generally dissatisfied, since the convention on climate change has been watered down and the convention on biodiversity has been seriously undermined by the refusal of the US to sign it. Furthermore, no binding decision has been taken on forest conservation.

A balanced judgement requires a clear understanding of the fact that, first of all, Rio is not the conclusion, but only the beginning of a process. As such, the results already achieved are important, but are not the end of the story. In any case, it must be stressed that during the Rio process some relevant progress in respect of environmental protection and sustainable management of natural resources was made:

- there is now a larger awareness of the importance of global environmental issues. A new phase of environmental policy has been started, under which domestic environmental goods are not the only ones designed for protection but global commons are recognised as not belonging to any particular country, but to the world as a whole and to future generations as well;

- an effective policy for protecting global commons is realisable only by a world government; but since such a government does not yet exist, the only practicable and reasonable way forward is to establish common rules for a sustainable management of these resources through multilateral environmental agreements;

- a fair redistribution of income world-wide is generally recognised as a pre-requisite for promoting multilateral solutions to global environmental problems. No effective step forward in the field of environment could be achieved if the problem of poverty is not addressed in a radical way.

It is quite clear that the Rio decisions represent only a very limited step forward in all these domains. But these limits do not surprise the federalists. Multilateral environmental agreements are the fruit of intergovernmental cooperation, but this can only be successful if an enlightened world leadership, deeply committed to achieving these goals exists, and if a convergence of the 'raison d'état' of the countries concerned can be realised.

This did not happen in Rio. The limitation of the American leadership have been exposed, in the environment field paticularly in respect of the treaty on biodiversity, but also on the development issue, since the United States have appearesingularly incapable of building up new relations with the developing countries.

On this occasion the limits of the new world order following the fall of the communist regimes have also come clearly to the fore. The US enjoys uncontested military leadership, but is still one of the most indebted countries and is unable, in contrast to what happened after the second World War, to take world global interests into account in its foreign policy.

The European Community has thus a decisive responsibility in shaping the future of the world in the field of growth and environment. In Rio it could have played this role more effectively if: a) the proposal for a carbon/energy tax had already been adopted by the Council, showing the European determination to pursue the goal of stabilising CO2 emissions at the 1990 level, improving energy efficiency and promoting fiscal reform in a way more favourable towards the environment; b) the Delors-II package had been approved, making more money available for aid and transfers of technology in favour of developing countries.

These political achievements having been missed, the EC has lost the opportunity for assuming a world leadership in Rio. But the reasons of this failure lie also in the fact that the EC is currently unable to develop an effective foreign policy - as is confirmed every day by the dreadful events of what used to be Yugoslavia- because its institutions are too weak and fall short of democratic accountability. This is even more obvious when environmental and fiscal issues are at stake, since in these fields an unanimous vote is required and the decision-making process is consequently slow and ineffective.

Following the results of the Danish referendum a strong drive -promoted by the British government- has emerged to water down further the European institutions, transforming the European Union into a widespread free trade area with very loose political links. This kind of "pragmatic" policy must be firmly contested, showing to the European people that only a really democratic - that is a federal- Union, enshrining the principle of subsidiarity, will be able to play a decisive role at world level and to face the real challenges of promoting protection of the environment, the growth of economically backward countries and a new and progressive world order. The first step in the direction of achieving this federal vocation of the European Union should be undertaken by the Parliament, proceeding rapidly to the approval of a draft constitution on the basis of the Colombo Report, that should be discussed by a new session of the Conference of the Parliaments of the European Community before the European elections in

1994.

This is the lesson that should be drawn from Rio, a lost occasion for addressing global environmental problems and helping poor countries to engage in a process of growth favourable to the environment. Europe is unable to play a role of leadership in the world since it lacks a true democratic setting. After the Danish vote the approval of the Maastricht Treaty is necessary, but no longer sufficient. More Europe is needed, but this means also a more democratic, that is a federal Europe.