The one unambiguous success in the summit's plan of action. Leaders agreed to halve by 2015 the number of people - 2.4 billion - without basic sanitation, after an isolated United States dropped dogged opposition to setting the target. If implemented, this could do much to reduce the 2 million deaths a year, mainly of children, caused by drinking contaminated water. In fact, the world had already agreed at an earlier summit to cut by half the number of people without safe drinking water.

Score 10/10

The big disappointment of the summit. The US and Opec would not endorse a target for renewable energy. They killed off a Brazilian proposal backed by the rest of Latin America and other developing and developed countries to quadruple the world's use of clean energy to 1per cent increase over the decade. The summit did at least discuss energy: the US and Opec stopped previous meetings addressing it.

Score: 1/10

The summit agreed that the Global Environment Facility, the world's main funding mechanism for global environmental problems, should be allowed to finance the fight against desertification which threatens one third of the world's land area. It undertook to rebuild fish stocks "where possible" by 2015, but critics believe this may undermine existing agreements. It refused to phase out agricultural subsidies or to support organic and fair trade products, and left the door open for GM crops.

Score: 3/10

The plan hinted at action to tackle the greatest extinction of species since the dinosaurs died out, by obliquely referring to "the achievement by 2010 of a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity". But this wording is much weaker than an undertaking "to stop and reverse the current alarming biodiversity loss" which the world's governments agreed only last April. The summit took a step backwards - and no one expects anything much to be done anyway.

Score: 0/10

The summit agreed a weaker text than expected, promising to "encourage and promote" a 10-year programme to combat over-consumption in rich countries, rather than to actually set it up. The EU pressed for action, but the US, Canada, Australia and Japan vigorously resisted. Proposals to support labelling of environmentally friendly goods were defeated. But the action plan does say that countries must develop better policies on consumption and production.

Score: 3/10

Suprisingly headway was made, mainly due to pressure groups, who forced it on to the agenda. Governments accepted that binding rules could be developed to govern the behaviour of multinational companies. The US resisted tooth and claw, and tried various ploys to exempt itself, even after the matter was settled. But the plan of action stops short of setting a timetable for the regulations, or even firmly saying that they should be introduced.

Score: 4/10

[]