JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION OF THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Sasi K.G.

01. INTRODUCTION

The World Sumrr it on Sustainable Development is a coordinated international effort to .translate rhetoric into action for tackling poverty while sustaining environment. The Summit represents a major leap forward in the development of partnerships with the UN, Governments, Business and Civil Society corning together.

At the Summit, the UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan observed that, "till' model of development we are accustomed to have been fruitful for the few, but flawed for the many. A path to prosperity that ravages the environment and leaves a majority of humankind behind in squalor will soon prove to be a dead end road for everyone". He hoped that the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg would mark the opening of a new chapter of responsibility, partnerships and implementation.

His hopes did not fail because at the end of toe summit, the participating countries happily accepted the responsibility and commitment to sustainable development. The most interesting feature of the World Summit on Sustainable Development is that the participating countries not only accepted the commitments but also set targets and prescribed timetables for implementation of the Johannesburg plan. The Johannesburg Declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development is furnished below to feel the feelings of the participants.

02. A PATHWAY TO JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION

The evolution of basic human rights to Environmental and Developmental Human Rights have a great story to reveal. The evolution from personal rights to solidarity rights, especially those connected with the rights of the generations to come is a matter of great importance.

01. The Three Generations of Human Rights

Human rights can be broadly classified on five bases. They are:

Civil Human Rights

Political Human Rights

Economic Human Rights

Social and Cultural Human Rights

Development Oriented Human Rights

01. Civil and Political Rights

The seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries contributed and strengthened the civil and political rights, which assured civil and political liberties. The Civil and Political Human Rights are collectively known as ‘Liberty Oriented Human Rights’ because they provide, protect and guarantee individual liberty to an individual against the State and its agencies. Liberty rights also referred to as Blue Rights are the First Generation of Human Rights.

02. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The twentieth century contributed to the development and strengthening of economic, social and cultural rights and the rights of minorities as well. These rights aim at promotion of the economic and social security through economic and social upliftment of the weaker sections of the society. These rights are essential for dignity of personhood as well as for the full and free development of human personality in all possible directions. These rights ensure a minimum of economic welfare of the masses and their basic material needs, recognized by the society as essential to civilized living. The economic, social and cultural rights, including the rights of the minorities are collectively known as the “Security Oriented Human Rights” because these rights collectively provide and guarantee the essential security in the life of an individual. In the absence of these rights, the very existence of human beings would be in danger. These are also known as the “Second Generation of Human Rights”. They are also referred to as Red Rights or also as positive rights. These rights along with the Civil and Political Rights were declared by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and later were recognized by (1) the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and (2) the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in December 1966.

03. Collective/Solidarity Rights

The Development Oriented Human Rights are of a very recent origin in the late twentieth century. These rights enable an individual to participate in the process of all round development and include environmental rights that enable an individual to enjoy the absolutely free gifts of nature, namely, air, water, food and natural resources, free from pollution and contamination. These are known as the Third Generation of Human Rights or Green Rights. They are also called as Solidarity Rights, because their implementation depends upon international cooperation. Solidarity rights are of special importance to developing countries, because these countries want the creation of an international order that will guarantee to them the right to development, the right to disaster relief assistance, the right to peace and the right to good government. Rights for Citizens and for all persons. All human rights can be further classified into two distinct classes on the basis of the eligibility of individual, who can exercise them as under:

1. The rights for citizens and 2. The rights for all persons

Certain rights are conferred only on citizens. For eg. In the Indian constitution provisions in Articles 15, 16, 19 and 29 are limited to citizens. The remaining provisions in Part III of the Indian Constitution are applicable to citizens and aliens alike.

02. The Right to Development

The relationship between the processes of economic development and international human rights standards has been one of parallel and rarely intersecting tracks of international action. In the last decade of the 20th century, development thinking shifted from a growth-oriented model to the concept of human development as a process of enhancing human capabilities, and the intrinsic links between development and human rights began to be more readily acknowledged. Specifically, it has been proposed that if strategies of development and policies to implement human rights are united, they reinforce one another in processes of synergy and improvement of the human condition. Such is the premise of the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1986.

03. Environmental Rights as Human Rights

Choices made by governments and other actors that effect the environment, or that frame responses to environmental challenges, impact directly on the realization of human rights. The link between the environment and human rights has long been recognized. The Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm (1972), and to a lesser extent the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), show how the link between human rights and dignity and the environment was very prominent in the early stages of United Nations efforts to address environmental problems.

Since 1989, the Commission on Human Rights started to address environmental issues through resolutions on movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes (Resolution - 1989/42).  The Commission on Human Rights adopted its first resolution entitled Human rights and the environment in 1994 followed by a number of resolutions on the same subject matter in 1995 and 1996 (Res. 1994/65; Res. 1995/14; Res. 1996/13).

From 2002, the Year of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions on the environment that were entitled Human rights and the environment as part of sustainable development (Res. 2002/75; Res. 2003/71; Res. 2005/60).

04. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, or Stockholm Declaration, 1972

 

The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, or Stockholm Declaration, was adopted June 16, 1972 by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at the 21st plenary meeting as the first document in international environmental law to recognize the right to a healthy environment. In the declaration, the nations agreed to accept responsibility for any environmental effects caused by their actions.

India has ratified the Declaration on 13.01.2006 and the same has come into force w.e.f. 13.04.2006.

The Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment was adopted on the final day of the world’s first international conference on the human condition. This international gathering was held in Stockholm from 5-16 June 1972 (5 June became thereafter World Environment Day). Representatives from some 113 governments and agencies attended the conference. The result was an extensive work program for the future, a permanent headquarters in Nairobi, the creation of an environment fund, and the adoption of the Stockholm Declaration with its 26 principles.

The polluter-pays principle was affirmed at the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, and by the OECD in the same year. The principle was reaffirmed by the OECD in 1985. Since then a hybrid philosophy has emerged stressing the need for overall statutory pollution- control regulation and the setting of ceilings augmented by economic instruments to encourage abatement activities beyond the requirements of regulations, to yield a market in pollution credits.

01. Earth Charter

The environmental equivalent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a fundamental statement of principles that presents an ethical framework for guiding individuals, organizations and nations towards an improved quality of life and sustainable development. The idea of an Earth Charter was first proposed at the UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972, when it was recognized that global security and human development could not be divorced from national and global environmental concerns. In the early 1980s, the UN General Assembly adopted the World Charter for Nature, in itself a major advance in the articulation of fundamental principles. However, this charter did not deal adequately with social and economic concerns as embraced in the concept of sustainable development.

The Brundtland Commission report, Our Common Future (1987), reaffirmed the need for an integrated Earth Charter in which ecological objectives could be fully integrated with social and economic goals. Instead of a charter, however, at UNCED, 1992, the nations adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, again a major advance but still falling short of a comprehensive Earth Charter.

Following the Rio Conference, two NGOs, the Earth Council and the Green Cross International, with the support of the Netherlands government, joined forces with others to pursue the development of an Earth Charter. In 1997, an Earth Charter Commission, composed of 23 distinguished individuals from every continent, was created to oversee the development of a charter. It is anticipated that a final draft will be available in 2000 to be tabled in the UN General Assembly in 2002, being the review year for the Rio Summit.

05. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development or Rio Declaration 1992

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), known commonly as ‘Rio’, was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. It saw the adoption of an indicative policy framework intended to help achieve the goal of sustainable development in rich and poor countries alike, and afforded the foundations for agreements on climate change, forests and biodiversity.

India is a signatory to Rio Declaration.

Among the most important accomplishments of the Conference were the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, a set of 27 principles on the environment and development designed to promote international co-operation for sustainable development, and Agenda 21, a comprehensive programme of action covering all areas of the environment.

In examining the Rio Declaration, its goal is the establishment of a new and equitable global partnership through the creation of new levels of co-operation among States, key sectors of societies and peoples, working towards international agreements that respect the interests of all and that protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system.

There are several key principles to the Declaration. The concepts of sovereignty and responsibility are guaranteed in Principle 2, which holds: States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

The integral role of environmental protection is established in Principle 4, which states that in order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it. Further, the necessity for co-operation is recognised in Principle 7, which holds that States shall co-operate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities.

In examining the importance of the activities of companies, whether local or multinational, on the environment, emphasis is placed on production and consumption in Principle 8, which states that to achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies. Furthermore, international trade policies are of paramount importance, as outlined in Principle 12:

States should co-operate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to economic growth and sustainable development in all countries, to better address the problems of environmental degradation. Trade policy measures for environmental purposes should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade … Environmental measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on an international consensus.

Principle 13 establishes the concepts of liability and compensation in that States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage, and States shall also co-operate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.

The ‘polluter pays’ principle is emphasised in Principle 16, which holds:

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.

The importance of impact assessments is outlined in Principle 17, which states that:

Environmental impact assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority.

Finally, women, youth and indigenous peoples are seen as key parties in the Declaration in Principles 20, 21 and 22 respectively, which state that women have a vital role in environmental management and development, and their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

With the contemporary changes, the international agreements have sought to acquire a special source of reference for The Supreme Court of India while deciding cases and when it comes to the cases pertaining to environment, the International protocols on environment have a very special role to play especially when India is a signatory to such a protocol. It is basically because they tend to reflect the key government policies on important environmental issues. International environmental agreements guide the Indian policies in a way that they enable countries to work together to address vital environmental issues that are trans boundary or global in nature, such as sustainable development, air pollution, climate change, protection of the ozone layer, ocean pollution etc. Our domestic actions alone are often insufficient to protect our environment, our resources, and our health. We need to work with other countries to develop common solutions to international environmental problems that impact us directly. Moreover, it enables a country’s Court of Justice to ensure fairness by referring these protocols in the cases that arise.

Therefore, the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is one such international agreement to which India is a signatory and it is stated while dealing with environment related cases that our Indian Courts come across. This declaration defines the rights of the people to be involved in the development of their economies, and the responsibilities of human beings to safeguard the common environment. It builds upon the basic ideas concerning the attitudes of individuals and nations towards the environment and development, first identified at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (1972). The Rio Declaration states that long term economic progress is only ensured if it is linked with the protection of the environment. If this is to be achieved, then nations must establish a new global partnership involving governments, their people and the key sectors of society. Together human society must assemble international agreements that protect the global environment with responsible development.

There are a number of principles to the Rio Declaration. However, the most important principles laid down under this Declaration are inter generational equity(Principle 3), precautionary principle(Principle 15) and last but not the least the Polluter pays principle(Principle 16) which throw light on the concept of sustainable development and its utmost significance. These are as follows:

·                     Principle 3

The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.

·                     Principle 15

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

·                     Principle 16

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.

Thus, from the above it can be ascertained that the primary objective of this protocol is to ensure sustainable development. It also focuses on the imperative mutual need of economic development along with environmental preservation. This Rio declaration is very much in consonance with the Indian policies on environment which is evident from the fact that the Judiciary in India, more precisely, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have played an important role in preserving the doctrine of ‘Sustainable Development’ which as stated is the crux of this declaration.

The first case on which the apex court had applied the doctrine of ‘ Sustainable Development’ was Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v. Union of India [1996] 5 SCC 647. The Supreme Court, in the instant case acknowledged that the traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other, is no longer acceptable. Sustainable development is the answer. Some of the salient principles of “Sustainable Development” as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity. This Court observed that “the Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle are essential features of Sustainable Development. Nation’s progress largely depends on development, therefore, the development cannot be stopped, but we need to control it rationally. No government can cope with the problem of environmental repair by itself alone; peoples’ voluntary participation in environmental management is a must for sustainable development. There is a need to create environmental awareness which may be propagated through formal and informal education. We must scientifically assess the ecological impact of various developmental schemes. To meet the challenge of current environmental issues; the entire globe should be considered the proper arena for environmental adjustment. Unity of mankind is not just a dream of the enlightenment but a biophysical fact.”

But at the same time it would be unwise to hold that the courts always favour environment without giving any significance to the development aspect when dispute arises between environment and development.

In M.C.Mehta v. Union Of India [1991] 2 SCC 137 the Supreme Court issued directions towards the closing of mechanical stone crushing activities in and around Delhi, which was declared by WHO as the third most polluted city in the world. However it realised the importance of stone crushing and issued directions for allotment of sites in the new ‘crushing zone’ set up at village Pali in the state of Haryana. Thus, it is quite obvious that the courts give equal importance to both ecology and development while dealing with the cases of environmental degradation.

However, considering the today’s scenario the Indian judiciary till today refer to the international agreements and declarations related to environment while deciding cases which involve the conflict between development and environmental concerns. In a very recent Supreme Court judgements, where two public interest litigation petitions were filed against the arbitrary, illegal and purported action in building up projects on the part of the respondents resulting in environmental pollution and destruction of ecological balance of the environment. It was submitted by the petitioners that the writ petition has been filed for protecting the ecological balance and to prevent environmental pollution in respect of the said water area and lands adjoining to the said water area for the benefit of the public of the locality and also for protecting illegal conversion of the said land of water area by way of changing the nature and character and mode of use the said water area and existing canals which operates as the drainage system in respect of Hoogly and as well as reservoir during the rainy season. The respondents, however, have taken the plea that the actions taken by the Government were in pursuance of urgent needs of development. The debate between the developmental and economic needs and that of the environment is an enduring one, since if environment is destroyed for any purpose without a compelling developmental cause, it will most probably run foul of the executive and judicial safeguards. However, this Court has often faced situations where the needs of environmental protection have been pitched against the demands of economic development. In response to this difficulty, policy makers and judicial bodies across the world have produced the concept of ‘sustainable development’. This concept, as defined in the 1987 report of the world Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report) defines it as ‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs’. Subsequently the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, passed during the Earth Summit at 1992, to which also India is a party, adopts the notion of sustainable development. Principle 4 of the declaration states:

In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.”

Thus, treating the principle of sustainable development as a fundamental concept of Indian law, it was opined that the development of the doctrine of sustainable development indeed is a welcome feature but while emphasizing the need of ecological impact, a delicate balance between it and the necessity for development must be struck. Whereas it is not possible to ignore inter- generational interest, it is also not possible to ignore the dire need which the society urgently requires.” Henceforth, the Court held that the respondents have to ensure that no water logging takes place in the area in question and appropriate canals and/or drainage are provided so that no inconvenience is caused to the local inhabitants and the petitions were disposed off.

In another case, Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry Of Environment & Forest  WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 180 OF 2011 on 18 April, 2013, where Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC), a State of Orissa Undertaking, has approached this Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) dated 24.8.2010 rejecting the Stage-II forest clearance for diversion of 660.749 hectares of forest land for mining of bauxite ore in Lanjigarh Bauxite Mines in Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa and also for other consequential reliefs. With reference to the International protocols on environment, the Court opined that Apart from giving legitimacy to the cultural rights by 1957 Convention, the Convention on the Biological Diversity (CBA) adopted at the Earth Summit (1992) highlighted necessity to preserve and maintain knowledge , innovation and practices of the local communities relevant for conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity, India is a signatory to CBA. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Agenda 21 and Forestry principle also encourage the promotion of customary practices conducive to conservation. The necessity to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources have also been recognized by United Nations in the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. STs and other TFDs residing in the Scheduled Areas have a right to maintain their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands. Thus, the Court felt that the State has got a duty to recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interest so that they can effectively participate in achieving sustainable development.

In another most recent case, G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India & Ors. S.L.P. (C) No.32013 of 2012 on 6 May, 2013, where appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents of Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to the setting up of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and its commissioning. The nature of potential adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adds to fears and unrest. In the instant case, apart from the Rio Declaration the Stockholm Conference was referred too in a manner saying that The Stockholm Conference not only brought into focus the human rights approach to the problem of environmental protection but also recognized the linkage between the development and environment from which the concept of sustainable development has emerged. The Conference noticed that while man is both creature and moulder of this environment, rapid advances in science and technology had invested man with the potent power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale. The benefits of development and opportunity to enhance quality of life, if wrongly or carelessly used, man could do incalculable harm to human beings and to the environment. The responsibility of the people to protect and improve the environment for the present and the future generations was also recognized. Later the Rio Declaration 1992 re-stated the principles of Stockholm Conference and high-lighted the importance of intensifying the efforts at the global, regional and national levels to protect and improve environment along with development. Following the Stockholm Conference the second landmark on environmental protection and development was United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), 1992 (Rio Summit). The Conference was held at Rio (Brazil) in the year 1992 which addressed the twin problems of environment and development. Rio declaration sets out general non-binding commands for sustainable development i.e. human beings who are at the centre of sustainable development concerns have to exercise their right to healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. The Rio Conference also high-lighted the principle of inter generational equity. Principles like precautionary principle so as to prevent the environmental degradation and the principle of polluter pays. i.e. to bear the cost of pollution with due regard to public interest were high-lighted. The Conference resulted in conclusion of a treaty on climate change with a general recognition of the importance of curbing emission of green house gases, another treaty on bio-diversity aiming at the preservation of flora and fauna was also concluded.

The Rio Conference also adopted Agenda 21. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) following the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 created a Commission on Sustainable Development under the United Nations Economic and Social Council to ensure the effective implementation at the local, national, regional and international levels of what had been agreed at the Rio Conference, to ensure follow up of Rio Summit, to enhance adequate international, scientific and technological cooperation to catalyse inter-governmental decision making capacity to ensure regular and effective reporting on the Agenda 21 and at the national, regional and global levels. Thus, the Court held that each and every aspect of the matter shall be overseen, including the safety of the plant, impact on environment, quality of various components and systems in the plant before commissioning of the plant. A report to that effect be filed before this Court before commissioning of the plant and the appeals were accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.

Above all, going through the aforementioned judgements of the Supreme Court of India, it is evidently observed that the international protocols or declarations have a huge impact on the Indian policies and cases as they automatically come into the picture the moment the environmental matters are raised in the Courts because they complement the Indian environmental laws to a great extent and also provide a wider angle to look at such environment related cases thereby, widening our horizons towards the same.

03. JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION OF THE WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 2002

01. Preliminary

During the period of 26 August – 4 September 2002, 82 Heads of State and Government, thirty Vice-Presidents and Deputy Prime Ministers, 74 ministers, royalty and other senior officials came together with thousands of official representatives (from diverse governments agencies and intergovernmental organizations) and observers from civil society, academia, the scientific community, local communities, and the private sector at the Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD).

In addition to the more than 20,000 participants who registered for the official summit, thousands of others from all over the world participated in many parallel events organized in the course of the ten days that the WSSD convened as well as during the week that preceded the official meeting.

World Summit on Sustainable Development pronounced the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development on 4 September 2002. The Summit, having met in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 26 August to 4 September 2002,

1. Adopted the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, which is annexed to the present resolution;

2. Recommended to the General Assembly that it endorse the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development as adopted by the Summit.

02. The Main Contents of the Declaration

The analysis and conclusions have been written with the IISD’s key policy interests and ‘Strategic Priorities 2000-2005’ in mind1. A detailed summary of the commitments from Johannesburg is set out in Annex I. The IISD advances policy recommendations on:

• International trade and investment

• Economic policy

• Climate Change

• Measurement and indicators of sustainable development, and

• Natural resource management

In some sections the paragraph numbers (#) from the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation are provided at the end of cited paragraphs.

01. The Summit Outcome

The WSSD produced three types of outcomes: a. a political declaration now known as the ‘Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development’; the ‘Johannesburg Plan of Implementation’, a 65-page document restating existing targets e.g. Millennium Declaration Goals and a limited number of new commitments; and ‘Type II’ non-negotiated, partnership commitments by governments and other stakeholders, including business and non governmental organizations.

One hundred Heads of State and Government who attended the WSSD agreed the political declaration. Delays in completing negotiations on the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation left little time for full and effective consultations on the content of the declaration. A few notable references include the following:

- Recognition that the deep fault line that divides human society between rich and poor poses a major threat to global security and stability;

- Recognition that globalization has added a new dimension to the challenges of sustainable development, with the benefits and costs of globalization unevenly distributed;

- Recognition that a lack of action to fundamentally change the lives of those who suffer the consequences of global disparities may lead the poor of the world to lose confidence in democratic systems;

- A call on developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the internationally agreed ODA targets (0.7% of GNP for ODA);

- Support for the emergence of stronger regional groupings and alliances, such as the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) to promote sustainable development;

- Recognition of the private sector’s duty to contribute to the evolution of equitable and sustainable communities and societies; and the need for private sector corporations to enforce corporate accountability within a transparent and stable regulatory environment;

- Recognition of the need for strengthened and improved governance at all levels, for the effective implementation of Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of

Implementation;

- Recognition of the need for more effective, democratic and accountable international and multilateral institutions;

- A commitment to monitor progress at regular intervals towards the achievement of sustainable development goals and objectives;

02. Final Text

Agreed paragraphs in the chapter on protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development refer to actions at all levels. The chapeau of this section agrees to reverse the current trend in natural resource degradation where possible. In relation to water resources, the Plan of Implementation contains the following key commitments:

- launch a programme of actions to achieve safe drinking water and sanitation goals;

-mobilize international and domestic financial resources, transfer technology, promote best practices and support capacity building;

- promote and provide new and additional financial resources and innovative technologies to implement Chapter 18 of Agenda 21; and

- develop integrated water resource management and water efficiency plans by 2005;

In relation to oceans, the Plan of Implementation contains the following key commitments:
- where possible, maintain or restore depleted fish stocks to maximum sustainable yield levels not later than 2015;

- eliminate subsidies contributing to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity;
- implement the Ramsar Convention;

- implement the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities; and

- establish a regular process under the UN for global reporting and assessment for the state of the marine environment by 2004.

On air pollution, the Plan of Implementation agrees to improve access by developing countries to alternatives to ozone-depleting substances by 2010.

On desertification, the Plan of Implementation calls on the GEF to designate land degradation as a focal area of GEF and to consider making GEF a financial mechanism for the CCD.

In relation to biodiversity, the Plan of Implementation contains the following key commitments:

- achieve by 2010 a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss; and

- negotiate an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources.

On forests, the Plan of Implementation commits to take immediate action on domestic forest law enforcement and illegal international trade in forest production.

In relation to mining, the Plan of Implementation supports efforts to address the environmental, economic, health and social impacts of mining, minerals and metals and calls for fostering sustainable mining practices.

03. Sustainable development in a globalizing world

Discussions on this chapter focused on the characteristics of globalization and corporate responsibility. In the discussion on characterizing globalization, the US offered text from the outcome of the UN Special Session on Children. The EU cautioned that the WSSD would fail to meet the expectations of its constituencies if it did not include a current assessment of globalization. The G-77/China also pressed for the use of agreed language from World Summit on Social Development +5. The EU and the G-77/China supported the introduction of new text on corporate responsibility. The text was discussed at length in an informal contact group, where an interpretive statement was agreed, in an attempt to ensure that follow-up actions would be conducted within existing agreements. This was contested by Ethiopia, Norway and others at the final meeting of the Main Committee.

04. Health and sustainable development

Most paragraphs in this chapter were agreed to at PrepCom IV. Disagreement persisted, however, on whether a paragraph referring to strengthening the capacity of health-care systems to deliver basic health services to all, consistent with national laws and cultural and religious values (47), had been agreed. At the closing Plenary of PrepCom IV Canada with Australia, the EU, Sweden, and Switzerland noted that contrary to the indication in the draft Plan of Implementation, paragraph 47 had not been agreed. Canada proposed introducing the phrase, "and in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms" into the text. The Canadian statement was recorded in a note by the Secretariat (A/CONF.199/CRP.1).

At the WSSD, Canada raised the issue in both the Vienna and Johannesburg settings. The US, the G-77/China and the Holy See noted that the paragraph had been agreed to and should not be reopened, while Canada referred to the note by the Secretariat and sought to reopen the text. Canada stressed that the proposed text is carefully designed to be in conformity with current human rights language, and finds reflection in internationally agreed documents, such as the outcome of the Special Session on Children. The EU, Hungary, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Mexico and Switzerland supported the Canadian position. Delegates discussed: the procedural propriety of reopening an issue indicated as agreed; the risk of delegates reopening other agreed issues; and the appropriate fora in which to raise the issue in.

Prior to the final Main Committee meeting Canada circulated its original proposal on paragraph 47, and a related proposal on paragraph 6(d). Paragraph 6(d) on promoting women's access and participation in decision-making, eliminating violence and discrimination, and improving their status, health and economic welfare had been agreed ad referendum at PrepCom IV. Canada proposed introducing the language relating to the delivery of basic "health services" to all, consistent with national laws and cultural and religious values "and in conformity with all human rights and fundamental freedoms" in paragraph 6(d). After intense informal consultations, Chair Salim convened the Main Committee and presented a "package." Paragraph 6(d) was presented without the proposed Canadian amendment. Paragraph 47 was amended such that it would deliver "health-care services" rather than "health services," which would be "in conformity with human rights and fundamental freedoms, consistent with national laws and cultural and religious values." Related paragraph 58(a) in Chapter VIII (Sustainable Development for Africa) was amended such that it would promote "equitable access to health-care services" rather than "health-care and services." The package was adopted as presented.

In the closing Plenary, the US introduced an interpretative statement recording its view that the language relating to health-care services could not in any way be interpreted as supporting abortion. The Holy See, supported by numerous countries, stressed the inviolability of human life, while others highlighted the lack of gender sensitivity in the draft Plan of Implementation.

In the closing Plenary, the US introduced an interpretative statement recording its view that the language relating to health-care services could not in any way be interpreted as supporting abortion. The Holy See, supported by numerous countries, stressed the inviolability of human life, while others highlighted the lack of gender sensitivity in the draft Plan of Implementation.

05. Sustainable development of small island states (SIDS)

This chapter addresses the sustainable development challenges faced by SIDS.
Final Text: The chapter recognizes the special needs of SIDS and calls for action in the following areas:
- national and regional implementation with adequate financial resources, including through GEF focal areas;

- technology transfer and assistance for capacity building;

sustainable fisheries management and strengthening regional fisheries management organizations;

- supporting development and implementation of, inter alia, work programmes on marine and coastal biological diversity;

- freshwater programmes;

- development of community-based initiatives on sustainable tourism by 2004;

comprehensive hazard and risk management, disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness, and relief from the consequences of disasters, extreme weather events and other emergencies;

- operationalization of economic, social and environmental vulnerability indices and related indicators;
- mobilization of adequate resources and partnerships to address adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, sea-level rise and climate variability;

capacity building and institutional arrangements to implement intellectual property regimes;

- supporting the availability of adequate, affordable and environmentally-sound energy services and new efforts on energy supply and services by 2004;

a comprehensive review of the implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS in 2004; and

- a request to the General Assembly to consider convening an international meeting for the sustainable development of SIDS.

06. Sustainable development for Africa

This chapter addresses the sustainable development challenges faced by African countries.

The chapter affirms the international community's commitment to support sustainable development in Africa, through addressing the special challenges taking concrete actions to implement Agenda 21 in Africa, within the framework of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). The chapter highlights, inter alia,

- supporting programmes and partnerships to ensure universal energy access to at least 35% of the African population within 20 years;

- mobilizing resources to address Africa's adaptation to the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, climate variability and the development of national climate change strategies;
- supporting the sustainable use, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of Africa's genetic resources;

- promoting technology development and diffusion; supporting land tenure;

 - increasing capacity to achieve internationally-agreed development goals related to education, hunger and food security;

- bridging the digital divide and creating opportunities including access to infrastructure and technology transfer and application;

- supporting sustainable tourism;

- strengthening health care systems mobilizing financial support to make available necessary drugs and technology in a sustainable and affordable manner to control communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and diseases caused by poverty.

In terms of other regions, chapter 8bis recognizes initiatives at the regional, subregional and trans-regional level to promote sustainable development.

07. Sustainable Development in Latin America and the Caribbean

Actions in this section target actions to address biodiversity, water resources, vulnerabilities and sustainable cities, social aspects (including health and poverty), economic aspects (including energy) and institutional arrangements (including capacity building, indicators and participation of civil society) and encouraged actions that foster South-South cooperation.

08. Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific

The text calls for action in the following areas: capacity building for sustainable development; poverty reduction; cleaner production and sustainable energy; land management and biodiversity conservation; protection and management of and access to freshwater resources; oceans, coastal and marine resources and sustainable development of SIDS; and atmosphere and climate change.

09. Sustainable Development in the West Asia Region

The text endorses the following areas for further action: poverty alleviation; debt relief; and sustainable management of natural resources, including, inter alia, integrated water resources management, implementation of programmes to combat desertification, integrated coastal zone management, and land and water pollution control.

10. Sustainable Development in the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Region

In order to address the three pillars of sustainable development in a mutually-reinforcing way, the region identified its priority actions in paragraphs 32-46 of a ministerial statement.

11. Means of implementation

This chapter contains sections on finance, trade, technology transfer, capacity building and education.

In debate on proposed text, the G-77/China felt that the balance achieved in Bali had been lost. They asked for the re-introduction of text from the Monterrey Consensus on: external debt; effective participation of developing countries in trade negotiations; tariffs; and the development dimension in trade negotiations.

In the finance discussion, there was disagreement over a reference to the Rio Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the introductory paragraph. The G-77/China objected to references to governance in a paragraph on mobilizing resources and described the notion of "sound macroeconomic policy" as subjective. The US and Japan objected to a proposed role for the UN Secretary-General in monitoring ODA.

In the trade section, much of the discussion reflected diverging views on the wisdom of going beyond agreed language, notably in the Doha Ministerial Declaration. For example, delegates disagreed on whether they should "work towards," "strongly encourage" or "commit" themselves to the objective of providing duty-free and quota-free access for exports from all least developed countries.

The EU noted that they had serious problems with text on reducing or phasing out environmentally-harmful and/or trade-distorting subsidies. The US introduced alternative text, welcomed by the EU, which called for the completion of the Doha Work Programme on subsidies.

There was prolonged debate on references to the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment, with a number of delegations wary of acknowledging a hierarchy in which trade would take precedence over the environment. Australia, with support from the US, preferred the insertion of text ensuring WTO compatibility of any trade or trade-related activities; while the EU responded by stating that its concerns grew with every new reference to the WTO in the relevant paragraph. The G-77/China rejected an EU proposal to include language on Sustainability Impact Assessments. The G-77/China called unsuccessfully for text on the establishment of an international "mechanism" to stabilize market prices for coping with the volatility of commodity prices and declining terms of trade.

12. Institutional framework for sustainable development

The contact group addressed the most contentious issues, remaining from the preparatory process.

The question of domestic good governance put the G-77 and China at odds with developed countries, plaguing negotiations from the start. It was finally resolved through a package deal, offsetting the domestic aspect against the international trade and finance-related element of governance.

The chapter's introduction states that an effective institutional framework for sustainable development at all levels is based on the "full implementation" of Agenda 21, WSSD outcomes, and other internationally-agreed development goals. It outlines objectives, including strengthening coherence, coordination, monitoring and increasing effectiveness and efficiency within and outside the UN system, enhancing participation, and strengthening capacities, especially in developing countries.

In the section on the international level, the chapter calls for: integrating sustainable development goals in the policies, work programmes and operational guidelines of UN agencies and international trade and finance institutions, "within their mandates"; strengthening collaboration within the UN system; implementing decisions on international environmental governance adopted by the UNEP Governing Council and inviting the UN General Assembly to address the issue of universal membership of the Governing Council; promoting good governance at the international level; and committing to the ideals of the UN and strengthening the UN and other multilateral institutions.

The chapter also calls for the UN General Assembly to adopt sustainable development as the key element of the overarching framework for UN activities.

The section on ECOSOC reaffirms its role in overseeing system-wide coordination and integration of the three pillars of sustainable development in the UN, and, inter alia, ensuring that there is a "close link" between its role in the follow-up of the Summit and to the Monterrey Consensus, "in a sustained and coordinated manner."

The chapter calls for enhancing the role of the CSD, including reviewing progress in the implementation of Agenda 21, addressing new challenges, and limiting the number of themes addressed in each session. The CSD should serve as a focal point for discussion of partnerships, consider more effective use of national reports and regional experiences, and exchange and promote best practices. It should also consider the scheduling and duration of intersessional meetings, while the practical modalities of CSD work programmes will be taken up at its next session.

The section on international institutions notes that their strengthening is an evolutionary process. It stresses the need to enhance coordination among them in implementing Agenda 21, WSSD outcomes, the sustainable development aspects of the Millennium Declaration, the Monterrey Consensus and the Doha Ministerial Declaration. It requests the UN Secretary-General to promote system-wide coordination by utilizing the UN System Chief Executives Board. It also emphasizes the need to support UNDP's Capacity 21 programme and to strengthening cooperation among UNEP and other UN bodies, the specialized agencies, Bretton Woods Institutions and the WTO. It calls for streamlining the sustainable development meetings calendar, reducing the number of meetings in favour of implementation, and making greater use of information technologies.

The section on institutional arrangements at the regional level calls for the regional commissions to enhance their capacity, encourages multi-stakeholder participation, partnerships, and support for regional programmes.

The section on institutional frameworks at the national level notes that States should strengthen existing mechanisms, formulate strategies for sustainable development immediately and "begin their implementation by 2005," promote public participation and access to information, policy formulation and decision-making, promote the establishment of sustainable development councils, enhance national institutional arrangements for sustainable development, and the role and capacity of local authorities.

The last section calls for enhancing partnerships, including all major groups, acknowledges the "consideration being given to the possible relationship between environment and human rights, including the right to development," and urges youth participation.

13. Political Declaration

The Johannesburg Declaration was discussed in informal consultations during the second week of the Summit. The "elements" of the declaration drafted at the Bali PrepCom were developed into a 69-paragraph text and circulated by the South Africans among several delegations and groups. On Monday, 2 September, it was formally tabled as an official document (A/ CONF.199/L.6), which later underwent two revisions. The completed text was issued in the final hours of the Summit as A/ CONF.199/L.6/Rev.2 with a corrigendum (Corr.1).

The South Africans sought views from delegations, and a large number of comments were conveyed, many noting that the initial draft Declaration was unnecessarily long and contained excessive detail. Delegates also commented on substantive items central to the negotiation of the Plan of Implementation. The pace of completing the Plan affected the timing of tabling the draft declaration, since the authors were striving for a text in a parallel drafting process, which would reflect maximum consensus and complement the Plan. Severe time constraints precluded negotiating the text, thus leaving the final product to the discretion of the host country. Delegates also agreed to address the Johannesburg Declaration in Plenary to avoid duplication of discussion in the Main Committee.

A crucial closed meeting of key players was held in the morning of 4 September, under South African chairmanship, to provide final input to the evolving text. However, at 6:00 pm in the closing session of the Conference, several delegations undertook a last-minute attempt to introduce amendments reflecting strongly held views. At 7:40 pm the President presented the consensus to the Plenary, and the Declaration was adopted unanimously.

"The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development" is a three-page, six-section document. It reaffirms, "from this continent, the cradle of humanity," a commitment to sustainable development and building a humane, equitable and caring global society cognizant of the need for human dignity for all. It emphasizes the three pillars of sustainable development at all levels and a common resolve to eradicate poverty, change consumption and production patterns, and protect and manage the natural resource base. After tracing the road from Stockholm to Rio to Johannesburg, it addresses it present challenges, such as the deepening fault line between rich and the poor, biodiversity depletion, desertification, pollution, the benefits and costs of globalization, and the loss of confidence in democratic systems.

The Declaration also stresses the importance of human solidarity and urges the promotion of dialogue and cooperation among the world's civilizations. It welcomes decisions on targets, timetables and partnerships to improve access to clean water, sanitation, energy, health care, food and to protect biodiversity. It highlights the need for access to financial resources, opening of markets and technology transfer. It reaffirms pledges to address threats posed by foreign occupation and armed conflict, corruption, terrorism and intolerance in all forms, and to combat communicable and chronic diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

The document stresses women's empowerment and emancipation, and the vital role of indigenous peoples. It recommits support to achieving Millennium Development Goals, increase ODA, regional initiatives such as NEPAD, and the requirements of SIDS and LDCs. It emphasizes the need for better employment opportunities, and for the private sector to enforce corporate accountability.

The Declaration reaffirms all countries' commitment to the UN Charter and international law, calls for strengthening multilateralism and pledges to an inclusive process involving all major groups.  

14. The Declaration

The declaration is reproduced below.

“From our Origins to the Future

1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa from 2-4 September 2002, reaffirm our commitment to sustainable development.

2. We commit ourselves to build a humane, equitable and caring global society cognizant of the need for human dignity for all.

3. At the beginning of this Summit, the children of the world spoke to us in a simple yet clear voice that- the future belongs to them, and accordingly challenged all of us to ensure that through our actions they will inherit a world free of the indignity and indecency occasioned by poverty, environmental degradation and patterns of unsustainable development.

4. As part of our response to these children, who represent our collective future, all of us, coming from every corner of the world, informed by different life experiences, are united and moved by a deeply-felt sense that we urgently need to create a new and brighter world of hope

5. Accordingly, we assume a collective responsibility to advance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development - economic development, social development and environmental protection - at local, national, regional and global levels.

6. From this Continent, the Cradle of Humanity we declare, through the Plan of Implementation and this Declaration, our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life and to our children.

7. Recognizing that humankind is at a crossroad, we have united in a common resolve to make a determined effort to respond positively to the need to produce a practical and visible plan that should bring about poverty eradication and human development.

From Stockholm to Rio de Janeiro to Johannesburg

8. Thirty years ago, in Stockholm, we agreed on the urgent need to respond to the problem of environmental deterioration. Ten years ago, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro, we agreed that the protection of the environment, and social and economic development are fundamental to sustainable development, based on the Rio Principles. To achieve such development, we adopted the global programme, Agenda 21, and the Rio Declaration, to which we reaffirm our commitment. The Rio Summit was a significant milestone that set a new agenda for sustainable development.

9. Between Rio and Johannesburg the world's nations met in several major conferences under the guidance of the United Nations, including the Monterrey Conference on Finance for Development, as well as the Doha Ministerial Conference. These conferences defined for the world a comprehensive vision for the future of humanity.

10. At the Johannesburg Summit we achieved much in bringing together a rich tapestry of peoples and views in a constructive search for a common path, towards a world that respects and implements the vision of sustainable development. Johannesburg also confirmed that significant progress has been made towards achieving a global consensus and partnership amongst all the people of our planet

The Challenges we Face

11. We recognize that poverty eradication, changing consumption and production patterns, an protecting and managing the natural resource base for economic and social development are overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for sustainable development.

12. The deep fault line that divides human society between the rich and the poor and the ever-increasing gap between the developed and developing worlds pose a major threat to global prosperity, security and stability.

13. The global environment continues to suffer. Loss of bio diversity continues, fish stocks continue to be depleted, desertification claims more and more fertile land, the adverse effects of climate change are already evident, natural disasters are more frequent and more devastating and developing countries more vulnerable, and air, water and marine pollution continue to rob millions of a decent life.

14. Globalization has added a new dimension to these challenges. The rapid integration of markets, mobility of capital and significant increases in investment flows around the world have opened new challenges and opportunities for the pursuit of sustainable development. But the benefits and costs of globalization are unevenly distributed, with developing countries facing special difficulties in meeting this challenge.

15. We risk the entrenchment of these global disparities and unless we act in a manner that fundamentally changes their lives, the poor of the world may lose confidence in their representatives and the democratic systems to which we remain committed, seeing their representatives as nothing more than sounding brass or tinkling cymbals.

Our Commitment to Sustainable Development

16. We are determined to ensure that our rich diversity, which is our collective strength, will be used for constructive partnership for change and for the achievement of the common goal of sustainable development.

17. Recognizing the importance of building human solidarity, we urge the promotion of dialogue and cooperation among the world's civilizations and peoples, irrespective of race, disabilities, religion, language, culture and tradition.

18. We welcome the Johannesburg Summit focus on the indivisibility of human dignity and are resolved through decisions on targets, timetables and partnerships to speedily increase access to basic requirements such as clean water, sanitation, adequate shelter, energy, health care, food security and the protection of bio-diversity. At the same time, we will work together to assist one another to have access to financial resources, benefit from the opening of markets, ensure capacity building, use modern technology to bring about development, and make sure that there is technology transfer, human resource development, education and training to banish forever underdevelopment.

19. We reaffirm our pledge to place particular focus on, and give priority attention to, the fight against the worldwide conditions that pose severe threats to the sustainable development of our people. Among these conditions are: chronic hunger; malnutrition; foreign occupation; armed conflicts; illicit drug problems; organized crime; corruption; natural disasters; illicit arms trafficking; trafficking in persons; terrorism; intolerance and incitement to racial, ethnic, religious and other hatreds; xenophobia; and endemic, communicable and chronic diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

20. We are committed to ensure that women's empowerment and emancipation, and gender equality are integrated in all activities encompassed within Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation

21. We recognize the reality that global society has the means and is endowed with the resources to address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development confronting all humanity. Together we will take extra steps to ensure that these available resources are used to the benefit of humanity.

22. In this regard, to contribute to the achievement of our development goals and targets, we urge developed countries that have not done so to make concrete efforts towards the internationally agreed levels of Official Development Assistance.

23. We welcome and support the emergence of stronger regional groupings and alliances, such as the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), to promote regional cooperation, improved international co-operation and promote sustainable development.

24. We shall continue to pay special attention to the developmental needs of Small Island Developing States and the Least Developed Countries.

25. We reaffirm the vital role of the indigenous peoples in sustainable development.

26. We recognize sustainable development requires a long-term perspective and broad-based participation in policy formulation, decision making and implementation at all levels. As social partners we will continue to work for stable partnerships with all major groups respecting the independent, important roles of each of these.

27. We agree that in pursuit of their legitimate activities the private sector, both large and small companies, have a duty to contribute to the evolution of equitable and sustainable communities and societies.

28. We also agree to provide assistance to increase income generating employment opportunities, taking into account the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

29. We agree that there is a need for private sector corporations to enforce corporate accountability. This should take place within a transparent and stable regulatory environment.

30. We undertake to strengthen and improve governance at all levels, for the effective implementation of Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

Multilateralism is the Future

31. To achieve our goals of sustainable development, we need more effective, democratic and accountable international and multilateral institutions.

32. We reaffirm our commitment to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter and international law as well as the strengthening of multilateralism. We support the leadership role of the United Nations as the most universal and representative organization in the world, which is best, placed to promote sustainable development.

33. We further commit ourselves to monitor progress at regular intervals towards the achievement of our sustainable development goals and objectives.

Making it Happen!

34. We are in agreement that this must be an inclusive process, involving all the major groups and governments that participated in the historic Johannesburg Summit.

35. We commit ourselves to act together, united by a common determination to save our planet, promote human development and achieve universal prosperity and peace.

36. We commit ourselves to the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and to expedite the achievement of the time-bound, socio-economic and environmental targets contained therein.

37. From the African continent, the Cradle of Humankind, we solemnly pledge to the peoples of the world, and the generations that will surely inherit this earth, that we are determined to ensure that our collective hope for sustainable development is realized.

We express our deepest gratitude to the people and the Government of South Africa for their generous hospitality and excellent arrangements made for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.”

The declaration is annexed by a Plan of Implementation too.

03. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development

The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, negotiated by governments, sets out in more detail the action that needs to be taken in specific areas, including gaps in implementation of Agenda 21 but also introducing new action themes such as globalisation and corporate accountability. The main commitments agreed in the Plan of Implementation are:

- Halving the number of people lacking access to basic sanitation by 2015;

- Minimising the harmful effects on health and the environment from the production and use of chemicals by 2020;

- Halting the decline in fish stocks and restoring them to sustainable levels by 2015;

- Reducing the loss of biodiversity by 2010;

- Increasing ‘substantially’ the use of renewable energies in global energy consumption; and

- Setting up a ten-year framework for programmes on sustainable consumption and production.

01. Type II Commitments by governments and other stakeholders

Type II Commitments by governments and other stakeholders to a broad range of partnership activities and initiatives that will implement sustainable development at the national, regional and international level. Over 220 partnerships (with US$235 million in resources) were identified in advance of the Summit and around 60 partnerships were announced during the Summit, including major initiatives by the US, Japan, UK, Germany, France and the EU. For example, the European Union announced its ‘Water for Life’ initiative that will seek to engage partners to meet goals for water and sanitation, primarily in Africa and Central Asia. During a press conference on 3 September, the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, conceded, however, that the US$1.4 billion allocation for water and sanitation schemes was not ‘new money’. He added that the European Union intended to increase its allocation of funds towards these areas. One partnership initiative drew more attention than most, when Greenpeace teamed up with the business and industry lobby group, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, to call on the public and private sectors to step up action to combat climate change risks.

The return of the partnership debate – first launched at UNCED in 1992 – has provided the private sector with an opportunity to present itself as part of the solution to the problem of implementation. In the run up to the Summit, industry lobby groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce and Business Action for Sustainable Development, with the support of the United States, urged the adoption of public-private partnerships between UN agencies, governments, companies and NGOs[i]. This development is essentially recognition of the facts on the ground for many organisations already engaged in joint implementation approaches with the participation of the private sector, NGOs and governments at national and local level. However, the debate also taps into concerns linked to the debate on globalisation, corporate accountability and governance. Tariq Banuri[ii] has described the growing importance of global public policy networks (GPPN) that have emerged over the last decade in response to widening gaps in policy making created by globalisation, trade liberalisation and the information revolution. He believes that such networks can contribute to thinking about gaps which have opened up in areas such as policy delivery and ethics.

02. Corporate Responsibility and Accountability

Governments agreed at the Summit to actively promote corporate responsibility and accountability, based on the Rio Principles, and to support continuous improvement in corporate practices in all countries.

03. Monitoring Outcomes

Following decisions taken at the Summit, the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) will enjoy an enhanced role in reviewing and monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and fostering coherence of implementation, initiatives and partnerships. The UNDP will continue to monitor implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. Jeffrey Sachs, the Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on the Implementation of the Goals, told a press conference in Johannesburg4 that the international community was seriously off track in addressing hunger, disease, and environmental degradation for dozens of countries.

04. On the CSD’s role, the Plan of Implementation states

Although the role, functions and mandate of the Commission as set out in relevant parts of Agenda 21 and adopted in General Assembly resolution 47/191 continue to be relevant, the Commission needs to be strengthened, taking into account the role of relevant institutions and organizations. An enhanced role of the Commission should include reviewing and monitoring progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and fostering coherence of implementation, initiatives and partnerships.

Governments agreed at the Summit to enhance partnerships between governmental and non-governmental actors, including major groups and volunteer organisations, on programmes and activities for the achievement of sustainable development at all levels. The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) will serve as a focal point for the discussion of partnerships that promote sustainable development, including sharing lessons learned, progress made and best practices. In addition, the regional commissions of the United Nations, in collaboration with other regional and sub-regional bodies, were given a mandate to promote multi-stakeholder participation and encourage partnerships to support the implementation of Agenda 21 at the regional and sub-regional levels.  

The Plan of Implementation, negotiated over a period of 8 months and eventually adopted by governments has 11 principal sections.

These are:

1. Introduction

2. Poverty eradication

3. Changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production

4. Protecting and managing the natural resource base of economic and social development

5. Sustainable development in a globalizing world

6. Health and sustainable development

7. Sustainable development of small island developing states

8. Sustainable development for Africa

9. Other regional initiatives

10. Means of implementation

11. Institutional framework for sustainable development

Annex I and Annex II of this report describe highlights of the political declaration and summarize the principal sections of the Plan of Implementation, respectively

05. The Plan of Implementation

This section introduces a number of key sections together with the relevant abstracts from the Plan of Implementation where it addresses:

- Sanitation

- Renewable energy

- Biodiversity

- Sustainable Consumption and Production

- Subsidies

- Fisheries, and

- Chemicals.

06. Sanitation

The UN 2002 Human Development Report has estimated that 1.1 billion people lacked access to safe drinking water in 2000, and twice that number did not have adequate sanitation. Agreement on the inclusion of a target on sanitation was reached after the United States gave up its opposition in return for blocking targets on renewable energy. The Plan of Implementation states:

The provision of clean drinking water and adequate sanitation is necessary to protect human health and the environment. In this respect, we agree to halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water (as outlined in the Millennium Declaration) and the proportion of people who do not have access to basic sanitation, which would include actions at all levels to:

(a) Develop and implement efficient household sanitation systems;

(b) Improve sanitation in public institutions, especially schools;

(c) Promote safe hygiene practices

(d) Promote education and outreach focused on children, as agents of behavioural change;

(e) Promote affordable and socially and culturally acceptable technologies and practices;

(f) Develop innovative financing and partnership mechanisms;

(g) Integrate sanitation into water resources management strategies.(#7)

07. Renewable Energy

One of the biggest disappointments of the WSSD was the defeat of proposals from the European Union and Brazil for the world’s first global renewable energy target. A key factor in the defeat of proposals for targets was a decision by South African Environment Minister, Valli Moosa, to allow the G-77/China representative to draft a ‘compromise’ proposal, which did not include targets. This text was taken up as the basis for negotiation and the EU was unable to reintroduce its proposals. With the defeat of the proposals, the EU announced that it would seek to put together a coalition of willing regions to adopt their own renewable energy target. A number of regions have already adopted regional targets for the development of renewable energy sources, including Latin America and the Caribbean. The Plan of Implementation calls for an increase in the renewable energy share of energy resources and recognizes the role of national and voluntary regional targets:

Diversify energy supply by developing advanced, cleaner, more efficient, affordable and cost-effective energy technologies, including fossil fuel technologies and renewable energy technologies, hydro included, and their transfer to developing countries on concessional terms as mutually agreed. With a sense of urgency, substantially increase the global share of renewable energy sources with the objective of increasing its contribution to total energy supply, recognizing the role of national and voluntary regional targets as well as initiatives, where they exist, and ensuring that energy policies are supportive to developing countries’ efforts to eradicate poverty, and regularly evaluate available data to review progress to this end. (#19 (e))

08. Biodiversity

Biodiversity loss: The Draft plan coming out of the Bali PrepCom contained two options for language on biodiversity loss. One refereed to actions required to put instruments in place to “stop” biodiversity loss. A second, weaker option was adopted in Johannesburg. It refers to “achieving a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss”:

A more efficient and coherent implementation of the three objectives of the Convention and the achievement by 2010 of a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity will require the provision of new and additional financial and technical resources to developing countries (42).

Benefit sharing: At its sixth meeting, in The Hague, in April 2002, access and benefit-sharing (ABS) was one of the priority themes addressed by the COP of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The outcomes of COP-6 on ABS are included in decision VI/24. There was agreement on the adoption of the Bonn guidelines on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their utilization[iii].

The COP also decided to reconvene an Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing to advise the Conference of the Parties. The Conference of the Parties also considered in decision VI/24 B other complementary approaches to the Bonn guidelines in view of assisting Parties with the implementation of the access and benefit-sharing provisions of the Convention, such as the development of an action plan for capacity-building. In order to further develop elements of this Action Plan for Capacity-building for access and benefit sharing, the COP decided to convene an Open-ended Expert Workshop.

Biodiversity and benefit sharing in the Plan of Implementation: The Plan also contains language on benefit sharing:

Promote the wide implementation of and continued work on the Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising out of their Utilization of the Convention, as an input to assist Parties to the Convention when developing and drafting legislative, administrative or policy measures on access and benefit-sharing, and contract and other arrangements under mutually agreed terms for access and benefit-sharing (42.N);

Negotiate within the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing in mind the Bonn Guidelines, an international regime to promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (42.O).

This formulation was opposed by some countries initially because it was felt that the Bonn Guidelines should be allowed to bed down.

09. Sustainable Consumption and Production

One of the Cinderella themes from Agenda 21, action on sustainable consumption and production, has been slow in coming and received little new momentum at the WSSD. The Plan of Implementation states:

Encourage and promote the development of a 10-year framework of programmes in support of regional and national initiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production to promote social and economic development within the carrying capacity of ecosystems by addressing and, where appropriate, delinking economic growth and environmental degradation through improving efficiency and sustainability in the use of resources and production processes, and reducing resource degradation, pollution and waste.(#10)

10. Subsidies

Progress on the removal of the European Union’s subsidies was one of the objectives of the host Government of South Africa (Bond,2002:1). Little progress, apart from an aspirational reference in the Plan of Implementation, was achieved.

Doha and subsidies: Fulfil, without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations, the commitment for comprehensive negotiations initiated under article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture as referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, aiming at substantial improvements in market access, reductions of with a view to phasing out all forms of export subsidies, and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support, while agreeing that the provisions for special and differential treatment for developing countries shall be an integral part of all elements of the negotiations and shall be embodied in the schedules of concession and commitments and, as appropriate, in the rules and disciplines to be negotiated, so as to be operationally effective and to enable developing countries to effectively take account of their development needs, including food security and rural development(86.C).12

Support the completion of the work programme of the Doha Ministerial Declaration on subsidies so as to promote sustainable development and enhance the environment, and encourage reform of subsidies that have considerable negative effects on the environment and are incompatible with sustainable development (91.B).

11. Fisheries

The Plan of Implementation includes a target on the recovery of fish stocks: To achieve sustainable fisheries, the following actions are required at all levels: (a) Maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015 (30).

Fisheries & subsidies: Eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to over-capacity, while completing the efforts undertaken at WTO to clarify and improve its disciplines on fisheries subsidies, taking into account the importance of this sector to developing countries (30.F)

12. Chemicals

At the International Forum on Chemical Safety III Meeting in Bahia, Brazil, in October 2000 the participants identified where tasks had been completed or where progress was still ongoing to accomplish the intent of Chapter 19 of Agenda 21. On this basis, a strategy and priorities for addressing future issues up to Forum IV (expected in 2005 or 2006) were agreed on, set out in the Bahia Declaration on Chemical Safety and in the Priorities for Action Beyond 2000. The Plan of Implementation states:

Renew the commitment, as advanced in Agenda 21, to sound management of chemicals throughout their life cycle and of hazardous wastes for sustainable development and for the protection of human health and the environment, inter alia, aiming to achieve by 2020 that chemicals are used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment, using transparent science-based risk assessment procedures and science-based risk management procedures, taking into account the precautionary approach, as set out in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and support developing countries in strengthening their capacity for the sound management of chemicals and hazardous wastes by providing technical and financial assistance13 (22)

Further develop a strategic approach to international chemicals management based on the Bahia Declaration and Priorities for Action beyond 2000 of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) by 2005, and urge that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), IFCS, other international organizations dealing with chemical management, and other relevant international organizations and actors closely cooperate in this regard, as appropriate (22.B).

04. EFFECTS OF JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION

01. Successes of Johannesburg Declaration

The successes in the official summit include decisions: adopting a sanitation target; recognizing the rights and roles of communities; promoting corporate responsibility and accountability; reaffirming the principle of access to information, participation and justice; incorporating ethics into the implementation of Agenda 21; acceptance of the need to delink economic growth from environmental degradation; and the launching of some key initiatives and partnerships on sustainable development.

01. The Sanitation Target

The most important of the successes in WSSD (because it is the most concrete) is the adoption of the new target on basic sanitation. If indeed the proportion of people now without access to basic sanitation is halved by 2015, this would not be a trivial outcome.

Achieving this target would make a difference in the lives of millions of the world’s poor, especially those of children suffering or dying from diseases resulting from lack of basic sanitation services.

What is sad, however, about the negotiations leading to this target, acknowledged by many as clearly achievable, is that it was opposed throughout most of the negotiations by a few powerful countries. This gave the impression that the health of millions was being held hostage to gain a political advantage over another set of negotiations, in particular, that of the negotiations on targets for renewable energy. While there is no evidence that there was a trade-off between these issues, the perception that such a trade-off was being considered became a source of cynicism and tainted politically the achievement of the sanitation target.

02. The Rights of Communities

The unequivocal recognition of community-based natural resource management, including the reaffirmation of the vital role of indigenous peoples in sustainable development, throughout the Plan of Implementation is also an important success in the WSSD. What is even more remarkable is that this recognition, actively promoted by many stakeholders, was agreed upon as early as Bali and without major dissent from governments. This includes:

1. The recognition and support for community-based forest management systems to ensure their full and effective participation in sustainable forest management;

2. The commitment to develop policies and ways and means to improve access by indigenous people and their communities to economic activities and the recognition that traditional and direct dependence on renewable resources and ecosystems continues to be essential to the cultural, economic and physical well-being of indigenous people and their communities;

3. The commitment to provide access to agricultural resources for people living in poverty, especially women and indigenous communities, and promote land tenure arrangements that recognize and protect indigenous and common property resource management systems;

4. The commitment to promote rural community participation in developing and utilizing renewable energy technologies to meet their daily energy needs;

5. The decision to encourage the dissemination and use of traditional and indigenous knowledge for the mitigation of the impact of disasters and to promote community-based disaster management;

6. The promotion of initiatives which promote community-based sustainable use of biodiversity;

7. The acknowledgement that the participation of stakeholders, including local and indigenous communities, is important for mining to be consistent with sustainable development;

8. The promotion of community-based initiatives on sustainable tourism;

9. The recognition of the necessity of programs for capacity building and support for local and community level programs, among others, that focus on meeting the challenges of globalization;

10. The promotion of the preservation, development and use of effective traditional medicine knowledge and practices and recognizing indigenous and local communities as custodians of traditional knowledge and practice;

11. The promotion of the full participation and involvement of mountain communities in decisions that affect them; and,

12. The recognition of the rights of local and indigenous communities who are holders of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices.

03. Corporate Responsibility and Accountability

The decision on corporate responsibility and accountability is an important achievement. While falling short of the demand by many NGOs for governments to negotiate a binding convention on corporate accountability and liability, the decision to promote corporate responsibility and accountability, based on the Rio principles, through, among other things, “the full development and effective implementation of intergovernmental agreements and measures,” is an important step forward.

This decision may actually result in future intergovernmental processes that deal explicitly with this important issue and could actually result in a meaningful international agreement. The small opening provided by the WSSD is so important that it motivated the United States delegation to provide an interpretation, not shared by many governments, that “intergovernmental agreements” refer only to existing agreements and not to the development of new instruments.

04. Access to Information, Participation and Justice

The Plan of Implementation commits governments to ensure access, at the national level, to environmental information and judicial and administrative proceedings in environmental matters, as well as public participation in decision-making. This reaffirmation of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration is an important success achieved in the WSSD especially if the resources to implement this commitment are made available.

Related to this is the wide acceptance of and support for the Partnership on Principle 10, an initiative led and promoted by a coalition of civil society organizations from all over the world, by governments and other stakeholders.

05. The Importance of Ethics

Another success in the WSSD is the acknowledgement of the importance of ethics for sustainable development. In the Plan of Implementation, governments emphasized the need to consider ethics in the implementation of Agenda 21. This is the first time an explicit reference to ethics is made in any official U.N. environment and/or development document and thus breaks new ground. Although neither the Plan of Implementation nor the Political Declaration makes a reference to the Earth Charter, the incorporation of ethics into the sustainable development agenda provides an opening to those who believe that development and environment issues cannot be dealt with adequately unless governments, societies and communities acknowledge the critical role of ethical norms in making policy decisions.

06. Delinking Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation

The Plan of Implementation encourages and promotes the development of a 10-year framework of programs in support of regional and national initiatives to accelerate the shift towards sustainable consumption and production to promote social and economic development within the carrying capacity of ecosystems. These initiatives are supposed to address and delink economic growth and environmental degradation through improving efficiency and sustainability in the use of resources and production processes, and reducing resource degradation, pollution and waste. This decision can, at least potentially, have enormous consequences in changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production if in fact the financial and technical resources to make this happen become available. Although the agreed text, with all the qualifications and reservations that governments made, is much weaker than what many stakeholders were promoting, the very acceptance of the idea that economic growth and environmental degradation needs to be delinked is an important step forward.

07. Partnerships and Initiatives

There were two types of commitments encouraged during the WSSD. Type I commitments refer to political or legal agreements among all governments, negotiated through the intergovernmental process, and consolidated in the Plan of Implementation.

Type II commitments, on the other hand, are voluntary partnerships to implement sustainable development among government, development or environmental organizations, industry and other actors. During the preparatory process for the WSSD, the politics of so-called Type II partnerships became one of the crucial issues for governments and other stakeholders alike. Concerns about partnerships focused on four themes:

1. Partnerships could be used as a substitute for intergovernmental commitments, thus allowing governments to abdicate responsibilities that are properly a function of the state and threatening multilateral negotiations and cooperation.

2. Some NGOs have expressed concern that corporations, in joining the Type II Partnerships, could use them to bring inappropriate corporate money and influence into the United Nations, and develop partnerships that would serve as “greenwash” or instruments to promote privatization.

3. The governance of the partnerships, including accountability mechanisms and provisions for transparency and monitoring, was unclear. NGOs and governments alike demanded that for partnerships to be recognized, they must include external monitoring, transparency, and accountability mechanisms.

4. Partnerships could be financed through existing Official Development Assistance flow, with no additional funding provided, and thus could actually divert existing and limited resources from those in need of them.

In Johannesburg, very little high-level attention was focused on partnerships for a number of reasons. First, governments and other stakeholders alike clearly realized that the stakes were much higher in the political negotiations and focusing attention on partnerships was an unwanted distraction. Second, despite the efforts to clarify guidelines and principles for partnerships, it appears that no criteria or decision making process on what should constitute a partnership was adopted by the United Nations. This led to the situation where almost any activity, project, program or initiative could proclaim itself a partnership for purposes of the WSSD. Third, most of the partnerships announced did not attract controversy because they were either intergovernmental in nature or promoted by academic/scientific organizations or civil society organizations, with few partnerships actively participated in by corporations.

Although the concept of Type II partnerships was controversial and, at least for the time being, has not acquired any legal or political status, there were important new initiatives and partnerships launched in Johannesburg.

The initiatives, among others, on sustainable agriculture (i.e. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Partnership Initiative,  Promoting Capacity Building for Sustainable Agriculture), water and sanitation (i.e.,  Partners for Water and Sanitation,  Pacific Umbrella Initiative: Pacific Strategies for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, and Regional Consultation on Sustainable Water Management), information for decision-making (i.e., Partnership for Principle 10), and a political partnership on renewable energy (announced by a coalition of regional groups and countries promoting a global renewable energy target, supported by a commitment of up to US$700 million by the European Union) are particularly significant.

02. Failures of Johannesburg Declaration

South Africa President Thabo Mbeki said in his opening address the summit was expected to adopt a practical programme to translate the dream of sustainable development into reality. Yet high expectations at the start of the summit turned into deep disappointment in the end. The 104 attending heads of state could not come to an agreement on firm targets to realise the principles set out at the 1992 Rio summit, to eliminate perverse subsidies in energy and agriculture, or to address man-made climate change. Many are now questioning whether the results from Johannesburg represent Rio plus 10, or Rio minus 20 in regressing to the state of affairs when the One Earth conference was held in Stockholm in 1972.

While many participants and observers have concluded that the outcomes of the WSSD are disappointing, the official outcomes of Johannesburg are certainly not a retreat from the gains achieved at the Earth Summit of 1992. Fears that the principle on common but differentiated responsibilities[iv] and the precautionary approach[v] would be rolled back were not realized. While these principles are reaffirmed in the Johannesburg outcomes, they have not however been advanced in any meaningful way. This stagnation is the heart of the problem. Governments in Johannesburg looked at the world, recognized that we are faced with immense development and environment problems, acknowledged that we need to do more to respond to these challenges, but then concluded with a weak outcome by ratifying existing efforts and approaches which have been found wanting.

The absence of new commitments and innovative thinking, particularly on global environmental issues and how they threaten development in all countries, is probably the most significant weakness of the Plan of Implementation. Stagnation is exemplified by the inadequate approach that governments took with respect to time bound targets and the challenges of globalization. It is also illustrated by their failure to break new ground in the two most important sections of the Plan – the sections on “Means of Implementation” and “Institutional Mechanisms.”

01. Inadequate Progress of Time-bound Targets

The Plan of Implementation is a political document and does not commit governments, in a legally binding way, to achieve its goals. Like Agenda 21, however, the Plan of Implementation is designed to guide development, financing, and investment decisions by governments, international organizations, and other stakeholders. In this sense, more ambitious and stronger sustainable development targets with firm time lines could have made a major difference in the years to come. However, the WSSD clearly failed to provide such targets.

While the focus on time-bound targets was refreshing, most of them (the UN Millennium Development Goals) have already been previously agreed upon in 2000 at the Millennium meeting of heads of state at the U.N. in New York, with the only new important targets being the areas of sanitation, fisheries and biodiversity. The failure to reach agreement on time-bound targets for increasing the contribution of renewable energy to the global energy mix was especially frustrating to many governments and other stakeholders. If incorporated, such targets would have been the only place in the Plan of Implementation where climate change was addressed in a meaningful way.

While the sanitation target of halving by 2015 the proportion of people who lack access to clean water or proper sanitation is an important achievement (discussed below), many question the meaningfulness of a 2010 target to achieve a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss in absence of accurate estimates of the existing rate of global loss. The fisheries target to maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield not later than 2015 is also controversial because it is based on the contentious concept of maximum sustainable yield.

02. Missed Opportunities

The Plan of Implementation has also been criticized for its failure to address in a meaningful way the new (post-Rio) challenges to sustainable development. The Plan gave unqualified ratification to the Monterrey agreements on financing and development and to the Doha processes for a new round of trade negotiations. With that ratification, the WSSD failed to give any signal on how development cooperation and expanding international trade could be directed to serve the goals of sustainable development.

While the Plan recognizes both the opportunities and challenges posed by globalization to sustainable development, governments did not provide any direction or guidance from a sustainable development perspective on how these opportunities could be maximized and how the challenges could be overcome. In this sense, Johannesburg was a missed opportunity for governments to give a face of sustainable development to globalization.

The inability of governments to agree on how to reform the existing global environmental governance system makes it unlikely that accountability for the decisions made in Johannesburg will be rigorous and meaningful. Indeed, the biggest gaps in and the weakest part of the Plan of Implementation can be found in its most important sections:  means of implementation (the financial resources and mechanisms needed to achieve the  identified goals of the plan) and institutional mechanisms (the monitoring and accountability system required). By not going beyond the current framework in these two areas crucial for monitoring and implementing commitments made, a recurrence of the failures of Rio appears inevitable.

03. The Intergovernmental Politics of Johannesburg

The politics of Johannesburg were complex. On one hand, the traditional divisions between North and South on key issues such as trade and development finance were evident. But on many other concerns, the North-South paradigm was not useful in understanding the dynamics among governments. The negotiations on a renewable energy target featured an alliance among the Latin Americans, the small island states, and the Europeans (particularly Norway) “against” a coalition involving oil producing states, the United States and a few other countries. The negotiations on biological diversity were not principally a North-South debate but for the first time highlighted the influence of a coalition of “mega-diverse” (the countries with the highest levels of biological diversity) developing countries.

What was also striking in Johannesburg and the overall WSSD process was the absence of leadership from developed countries in dealing with environmental issues, especially those which are global in nature such as climate change. While this had a positive consequence to the agenda of developing countries who wanted development issues to be the priority in the WSSD, this lack of leadership resulted in very weak objectives and actions on the major environmental issues. The United States, for example, was active and engaged in the process contrary to the expectations of many. However, its interventions were principally defensive - characterized by the avoidance of new multilateral commitments and in some cases hostility to proposals on global environmental problems. The role of the European Union was also a disappointment to many. Indeed, one of the low points of the official meeting was when its negotiators temporarily “withdrew” from the negotiating process on the excuse that all the contentious issues had to be elevated to the ministerial level. This was a tactic that many countries and NGOs criticized as unilateralist and unconstructive.

It was countries such as Norway (pushing for strong commitments on climate change, on development assistance, and many other issues), Brazil (which led the coalition for a renewable energy target) and Ethiopia (which played a crucial role in preventing the weakening of multilateral environmental agreements when it was proposed that such agreements be subordinated to the World Trade Organization) which provided leadership on environmental issues While leadership from new quarters was a welcome development (especially the respective roles of the developing counties mentioned), it is difficult to see how progress could be made on many environmental issues without the leadership of the richest and most powerful countries of the world. In this context, it does not come as a surprise that the Plan of Implementation is extremely weak on dealing with environmental challenges.

03. Highlights of Johannesburg Declaration

The following highlights of the summit are worth noticing.

1. Governments reaffirm their commitment to sustainable development and commit themselves to build a humane, equitable and caring global society cognizant of the need for human dignity of all. They also reaffirm their commitment to implement the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21.

2. Poverty eradication, changing consumption and production patterns, and the protection and management of the natural resource base for economic and social development are acknowledged as overarching objectives of, and essential requirements for sustainable development.

3. The divisions between rich and poor and increasing gap between the developed and developing worlds is recognized as a major threat to global prosperity, security and stability.

4. Problems related to the global environment are singled out: Loss of biodiversity; depletion of fish stocks; desertification; climate change; and air, water and marine pollution.

5. There is a recognition that globalization has added a new dimension to the challenge of sustainable development, acknowledging that while it has opened new challenges and opportunities for the pursuit of sustainable development, the benefits and costs of globalization are unevenly distributed and developing countries face special difficulties in meeting this challenge.

6. A particular focus on, and priority attention to, the fight against the worldwide conditions that pose severe threats to the sustainable development of our people is promised. These include: chronic hunger; malnutrition; foreign occupation; armed conflicts; illicit drug problems; organized crime; corruption; natural disasters; illicit arms trafficking; trafficking in persons; terrorism; intolerance and incitement to racial, ethnic, religious and other hatreds; xenophobia; and endemic, communicable and chronic diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

7. Women and indigenous peoples are especially mentioned in the political declaration, with governments committing to ensure that women’s empowerment and emancipation, and gender equality are integrated in all activities encompassed within Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and reaffirming the vital role of the indigenous peoples in sustainable development.

8. The reality that global society has the means and is endowed with the resources to address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development is recognized. Developed countries that have not done so are urged to make concrete efforts towards the internationally agreed levels of Official Development Assistance.

9. Broad-based participation in policy formulation, decision-making and implementation at all levels and stable partnerships with all major groups respecting the independent, important roles of each of these is promised.

10. There is agreement on the need for private sector corporations to enforce corporate accountability which should take place within a transparent and stable regulatory environment.

11. There is a commitment to undertake to strengthen and improve governance at all levels, for the effective implementation of Agenda 21, the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.

12. Governments recognize that the achievement of the goals of sustainable development require more effective, democratic and accountable international and multilateral institutions.

13. Governments commit to implement the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and to expedite the achievement of its time-bound, socio-economic and environmental targets.

05. DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SINCE STOCKHOLM

01. Sustainable Development

In the international sphere, Sustainable Development as a concept came to be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite shape by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its report called Our Common Future. The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and as such the report is popularly known as Brundtland Report.

Sustainable Development as defined by the Brundtland Report means Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. The Sustainable Development, therefore, is a balancing concept between ecology and development, has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the international law jurists. Some of the salient principles of Sustainable Development, as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and Cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries.

‘Sustainable development’ has been an enormously influential concept in environmental law since at least the early 1980s. The World Commission on Environment and Development published the seminal work on sustainable development, Our Common Future (more commonly known as the ‘Brundtland Report’, after its chair) in 1987.[vi]

The Brundtland Report identified critical objectives for environment and development policies reflected in the concept of sustainable development:

_ reviving growth and changing its quality;

_ meeting essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water and sanitation;

_ ensuring a sustainable level of population;

_ conserving and enhancing the resource base;

_ reorienting technology and managing risk; and

_ merging environment and economics in decision-making.

The Brundtland Report has been built on at an international level, most prominently by the United Nations Convention on Environment and Development (the famous Rio Earth Conference) in 1992, and more recently by the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.[vii] Sustainable development is now extraordinarily widely accepted and supported across the world. We begin this chapter by discussing the evolution of sustainable development through international law. The most widely quoted ‘definition’ of sustainable development comes from the Brundtland Report, according to which sustainable development is development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (pp. 8 and 43). The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development provides an alternative in its reference to ‘the interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars of sustainable development – economic development, social development and environmental protection’ (para. 5), although this three-pillared approach is an evolution of earlier approaches, rather than a break with the past.

Sustainable development has clearly entered the political and academic mainstream, and those interested in environmental law cannot afford to ignore questions of sustainable development. Sustainable development is, however, not without its environmental critics.

The concept of sustainable development does imply limits – not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities. But technology and social organization can be both managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic growth’

While the operationalisation of "sustainable development" as a concrete policy goal still has to be achieved, some ingredients without doubt are of common understanding:

• emissions and immissions have to be limited to the carrying capacity of the environment;

• in future, primarily renewable resources should be used;

• the use of renewable resources must not be faster than the renewal rate;

• the total stock of non-renewable resources must not be depleted – technologies will need to use renewable resources or substitutes to replace non-renewable resources as they are used up.

Agenda 21 proposes two programmes relating to business and industry - one on cleaner production, the other on responsible entrepreneurship. The programme to develop responsible entrepreneurship concentrates on the development of enterprises that are managed in line with the principles of sustainable development and calls for an intensification of R&D for cleaner technologies and a cyclic economy. The latter is the main point of the cleaner production programme which aims to increase the efficiency with which natural resources are utilised, by moving towards processes which generate less waste and increase the recycling and re-use of process wastes. Cleaner production technologies are viewed as being distinct from 'clean-up' processes which are applied end-of-pipe and often simply transfer pollution from one environmental medium to another. The goal of environmentally sustainable development requires a wide range of complementary policies to support investment in new environmentally benign technologies and the rapid diffusion of successful applications. The most comprehensive approach to formulate a coherent policy towards environmental sustainability can be found in the various "green plans" (Johnson 1995). Green plans are long term environmental strategies which replace traditional single-issue policies through a workable plan for environmental prosperity. A successful green plan is comprehensive: it aims at considering all aspects of the environment and is developed through consultation with all relevant actors in society.

02. The Evolution of Sustainable Development in International Law

An unabashedly anthropocentric concept (see also the extract from Emmenegger and Tschentscher in the Preface to Part I, pp. 2–3), sustainable development attempts to reconcile human objectives that might otherwise be thought to compete. Its origins are usually identified in the Stockholm conference of 1972[viii], which sought to emphasise links between human development and environmental protection. It was the 1987 Brundtland Report, however, that really captured the imagination. This Report from a United Nations (UN) commission is best viewed in its international context. It explored the possibility of reconciling demands for development from developing countries with demands for environmental protection, primarily from rich industrialised countries.[ix] The ‘no-growth’ response to environmental degradation had been rejected, especially by developing countries. And tension around the injustice of leaving human beings in abject poverty in order to protect the environment was compounded by, and drew attention to, a similar tension (less easily justified) within wealthy nations: ‘the compulsion to drive up the GNP had turned many into cheerful enemies of nature’[x]. Arguably the greatest success of the Brundtland Report was to bring many formerly opposing positions, particularly growth / environmental protection, into agreement around the same ideas. It is an extraordinarily optimistic piece of work. The major legal contribution to sustainable development following Stockholm and Brundtland came at the Rio conference in 1992. This conference produced several important legal outputs, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and ‘Agenda 21’, which provided detail on the implementation of sustainable development, monitored by the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. For current purposes, its most significant agreement was the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The Rio Declaration sets out many of the enduring features of sustainable development, including some of the key environmental principles that underlie environmental law,[xi] as well as the instruments to be deployed to achieve sustainable development.[xii]

06. SOME CASELAWS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. & Ors Appeal (civil) 1251 of 2006 Supreme Court observed, “In response to this difficulty, policy makers and judicial bodies across the world have produced the concept of "sustainable development". This concept, as defined in the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report) defines it as "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs". Returning to the Stockholm Convention, a support of such a notion can be found in Paragraph 13, which states: 

"In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and thus to improve the environment, States should adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to their development planning so as to ensure that development is compatible with the need to protect and improve environment for the benefit of their population. " Subsequently the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, passed during the Earth Summit at 1992, to which also India is a party, adopts the notion of sustainable development. Principle 4 of the declaration states:

"In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it."

This court in the case of Essar Oil v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, 2004 (2) SCC 392, Para 27 held, "This, therefore, is the sole aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all development is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in population together with the consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forests, filling up of lakes and the pollution of water resources and the very air that we breathe. However there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other. "

Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 281, Para 31, said: "While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environmental destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other developments. Both development and environment should go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of the environment."

The concept of sustainable development also finds support in the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case), (1997) 2 SCC 653, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ganesh Wood Products,(1995) 3 SCC 363 and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2002) 10 SCC 664. In light of the above discussions, it seems fit to hold that merely asserting an intention for development will not be enough to sanction the destruction of local ecological resources.

This doctrine, though in existence from Roman times, was enunciated in its modern form by the US Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad Company v. People of the State of Illinois 146 US 537 (1892) where the Court held, “The bed or soil of navigable waters is held by the people of the State in their character as sovereign, in trust for public uses for which they are adapted. The state holds the title to the bed of navigable waters upon a public trust, and no alienation or disposition of such property by the State, which does not recognize and is not in execution of this trust is permissible.

Further the principle of "Inter-Generational Equity" has also been adopted while determining cases involving environmental issues. Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu & Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 718 in paragraph 53 held as under, "The principle of inter-generational equity is of recent origin. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration refers to it in principles 1 and 2. In this context, the environment is viewed more as a resource basis for the survival of the present and future generations.

Principle 1 - Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present and future generations Principle 2  The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate."

Supreme Court of India, in N.D. Jayal And Anr v. Union Of India And Ors Writ Petition (civil)  295 of 1992 held that Sustainable development means what type or extent of development can take place which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.

In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, [1996] 5 SCC 647, and in M C Mehta v. Union of India, [2002] 4 SCC 356, it was observed that the balance between environmental protection and developmental activities could only be maintained by strictly following the principle of' sustainable development.' This is a development strategy that caters the needs of the present without negotiating the ability of upcoming generations to satisfy their needs.

Supreme Court of India, in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India & Ors in I.A. No. 1967 in I.A. No. 1785 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 held that it is quite obvious that on the principle of sustainable development, no mining activity can be carried out without remedial measures taking place. For this purpose, it is necessary that environment impact assessment is done and the applications dealt with before any mining activity can be permitted…………….so long as it is possible to undertake mining operations on the sustainable development principle, the Court should not impose complete ban on mining as it generates revenue for the State…………Environment and ecology are national assets. They are subject to inter-generational equity. Time has now come to suspend all mining in the above Area on Sustainable Development Principle which is part of Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.”

Madras High Court in M/S. Ramgopal Estates Pvt. Ltd v. The State of Tamil Nadu https://indiankanoon.org/doc/985034 held that “before proceeding further, a sharp and detailed reference on the concept of sustainable development is inevitable.

(i) The Stockholm Conference of 1972 refers to the inter-generational equity Principles 1 and 2.

Principle 1: Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for the present and future generations.

Principle 2: The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, lands, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of the present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.

(ii) Several international conventions and treaties have recognised the above principles and, in fact, several imaginative proposals have been submitted including the locus standi of individuals or groups to take out actions as representatives of future generations, or appointing an ombudsman to take care of the rights of the future against the present.

(iii) The inadequacies of science result from identification of adverse effects of a hazard and then working backwards to find the causes. Secondly, clinical tests are performed, particularly where toxins are involved, on animals and not on humans, that is to say, are based on animal studies or short-term cell-testing. Thirdly, conclusions based on epidemiological studies are flawed by the scientists inability to control or even accurately assess past exposure of the subjects. Moreover, these studies do not permit the scientist to isolate the effects of the substance of concern. It is the above uncertainty of science in the environmental context, that has led international conferences to formulate new legal theories and rules of evidence. The uncertainty of scientific proof and its changing frontiers from time to time has led to great changes in environmental concepts during the period between the Stockholm Conference of 1972 and the Rio Conference of 1992.

(iv) The principle of precaution involves the anticipation of environmental harm and taking measures to avoid it or to choose the least environmentally harmful activity. It is based on scientific uncertainty. Environmental protection should not only aim at protecting health, property and economic interest but also protect the environment for its own sake. Precautionary duties must not only be triggered by the suspicion of concrete danger but also by (justified) concern or risk potential. The precautionary principle was recommended by the UNEP Governing Council (1989). However, summing up the legal status of the precautionary principle, one commentator characterized the principle as still evolving, for though it is accepted as part of the international customary law, the consequences of its application in any potential situation will be influenced by the circumstances of each case.

(v) The traditional concept that development and ecology are opposed to each other is no longer acceptable. Sustainable Development is the answer. In the international sphere, Sustainable Development as a concept came to be known for the first time in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. Thereafter, in 1987 the concept was given a definite shape by the World Commission on Environment and Development in its report called Our Common Future. The Commission was chaired by the then Prime Minister of Norway, Ms G.H. Brundtland and as such the report is popularly known as Brundtland Report.

(vi) In 1991 the World Conservation Union, United Nations Environment Programme and Worldwide Fund for Nature, jointly came out with a document called Caring for the Earth which is a strategy for sustainable living. Finally, came the Earth Summit held in June 1992 at Rio which saw the largest gathering of world leaders ever in the history  deliberating and chalking out a blueprint for the survival of the planet. Among the tangible achievements of the Rio Conference was the signing of two conventions, one on biological diversity and another on climate change. These conventions were signed by 153 nations. The delegates also approved by consensus three non-binding documents namely, a Statement on Forestry Principles, a declaration of principles on environmental policy and development initiatives and Agenda 21, a programme of action into the next century in areas like poverty, population and pollution.

(vii) Earlier, the concept was based on the assimilative capacity rule as revealed from Principle 6 of the Stockholm Declaration of the U.N. Conference on Human Environment, 1972. The said principle assumed that science could provide policy-makers with the information and means necessary to avoid encroaching upon the capacity of the environment to assimilate impacts and it presumed that relevant technical expertise would be available when environmental harm was predicted and there would be sufficient time to act in order to avoid such harm. But in the 11th Principle of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution on World Charter for Nature, 1982, the emphasis shifted to the precautionary principle, and this was reiterated in the Rio Conference of 1992 in its Principle 15.

Principle 15.In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for proposing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

(viii) During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio Sustainable Development has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems. Sustainable Development as defined by the Brundtland Report means Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. The Sustainable Development, therefore, is a balancing concept between ecology and development, has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the international law jurists. Some of the salient principles of Sustainable Development, as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and Cooperate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries.”

In the case of Research Foundation for Science Technology National Resource Policy v. Union of India and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 510 a Division Bench of Supreme Court has held that "precautionary principle" is a part of the concept of sustainable development.” Paragraphs 16 and 43 of the said judgment, are as follows:

“16. The legal position regarding applicability of the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle which are part of the concept of sustainable development in our country is now well settled. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 a three-Judge Bench of this Court, after referring to the principles evolved in various international conferences and to the concept of "sustainable development", inter alia, held that the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle have now emerged and govern the law in our country, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A( g ) of our Constitution and that, in fact, in the various environmental statutes including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, these concepts are already implied. These principles have been held to have become part of our law. Further, it was observed in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case that these principles are accepted as part of the customary international law and hence there should be no difficulty in accepting them as part of our domestic law. Reference may also be made to the decision in the case of A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718 where, after referring to the principles noticed in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case the same have been explained in more detail with a view to enable the courts and the tribunals or environmental authorities to properly apply the said principles in the matters which come before them. In this decision, it has also been observed that the principle of good governance is an accepted principle of international and domestic laws. It comprises of the rule of law, effective State institutions, transparency and accountability and public affairs, respect for human rights and the meaningful participation of citizens in the political process of their countries and in the decisions affecting their lives. Reference has also been made to Article 7 of the draft approved by the Working Group of the International Law Commission in 1996 on "Prevention of Transboundary Damage from Hazardous Activities" to include the need for the State to take necessary "legislative, administrative and other actions" to implement the duty of prevention of environmental harm. Environmental concerns have been placed on the same pedestal as human rights concerns, both being traced to Article 21 of the Constitution. It is the duty of this Court to render justice by taking all aspects into consideration. It has also been observed that with a view to ensure that there is neither danger to the environment nor to the ecology and, at the same time, ensuring sustainable development, the court can refer scientific and technical aspects for an investigation and opinion to expert bodies. The provisions of a covenant which elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, can be relied upon by courts as facets of those fundamental rights and hence enforceable as such (see People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 433. The Basel Convention, it cannot be doubted, effectuates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. The right to information and community participation for protection of environment and human health is also a right which flows from Article 21. The Government and authorities have, thus to motivate the public participation. These well-enshrined principles have been kept in view by us while examining and determining various aspects and facets of the problems in issue and the permissible remedies.

…………..

43. Another aspect which deserves to be noticed is about the effect of ship-breaking activity covered by TOR (14). We are not suggesting discontinuing of ship- breaking activity but it deserves to be strictly and properly regulated. When the ship arrives at a port for breaking, the authorities concerned have to be vigilant about the hazardous waste which may be generated if appropriate timely action by various agencies, in particular, the Maritime Board and SPCB are not taken. The major ship-breaking activity in India is at Alang in the State of Gujarat and, therefore, the Gujarat Maritime Board and Gujarat SPCB have to be alive to the consequences of the appropriate steps to be taken before the breaking activities start. According to the recommendations of HPC, the Inter-Ministerial Committee comprising Ministry of Surface Transport, Ministry of Steel, Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment should be constituted with the involvement of labour and environment organisations and representatives of the ship-breaking industries.”

The concept of "balance" under the principle of proportionality applicable in the case of sustainable development is lucidly explained by Pasayat, J. in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 10 SCC 606 vide para 35 which reads as under:

"35. It cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests. Where the commercial venture or enterprise would bring in results which are far more useful for the people, difficulty of a small number of people has to be bypassed. The comparative hardships have to be balanced and the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the people has to get primacy over comparatively lesser hardship."

Kerala High Court in Thilakan v. Circle Inspector Of Police And Ors AIR 2008 Ker 48, 2007 (3) KLJ 509 observed that, “During the two decades from Stockholm to Rio, 'Sustainable Development has come to be accepted as a viable concept to eradicate poverty and improve the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the supporting ecosystems. 'Sustainable Development' as defined by the Brundtland Report means 'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. We have no hesitation in holding that 'Sustainable Development' as a balancing concept between ecology and development has been accepted as a part of the customary international law though its salient features have yet to be finalised by the inter -national law jurists.

Some of the salient principles of 'Sustainable Development' as culled out from Brundtland Report and other international documents, are Inter-Generational Equity, Use and Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Obligation to Assist and Co-operate, Eradication of Poverty and Financial Assistance to the developing countries. We are, however, of the view that The Precautionary Principle' and The Polluter Pays Principle' are essential features of 'Sustainable Development'. The 'Precautionary Principle' in the context of the municipal law - means:

(i) Environmental measures - by the State Government and the statutory authorities - must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation.

(ii) Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

(iii) The 'onus of proof is on the actor or the developer/industrialists to show that his action is environmentally benign.

The Polluter Pays Principle has been held to be a sound principle by this Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, 1996 (5) SCC 281 (p. 246, para 65) observed, “.we are of the opinion that any principle evolved in this behalf should be simple, practical and suited to the conditions obtaining in this country. “

In view of the above and other judgments, the concept of "sustainable development" and the doctrines of "polluter pays" and "precautionary principle" are now part of our environmental law. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to decent environment. See the decisions in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal , Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana , Chamali Singh v. State of U.P. , State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. , M.D. Dayal v. Union of India and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India .

Supreme Court of India in Karnataka Industrial Areas v. Sri C. Kenchappa & Ors in Appeal (civil) 7405 of 2000 held that “Professor Michael von Hauff of the Institute for Economics and Economic Policy, University of Kaiserlantern, Germany, in his article "The Contribution of Environmental Management Systems to Sustainable Development: Relevance of the Environmental Management and Audit Scheme" aptly observed that, "it is remarkable that India was the first country in the world to enshrine environmental protection as a state goal in its Constitution".

P. Sands in his celebrated book `International Law in the field of Sustainable Development" mentioned that the sustainable development requires the States to ensure that they develop and use their natural resources in ` a manner which is sustainable. According to him, sustainable development has four objectives:

First, it refers to a commitment to preserve natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

Second, sustainable development refers to appropriate standards for the exploitation of natural resources based upon harvests or use (examples include use which is "sustainable," "prudent," or "rational," or "wise" or "appropriate") .

Third, yet other agreements require an "equitable" use of natural resources, suggesting that the use by any State must take account of the needs of other States and people.

And a fourth category of agreements require that environmental considerations be integrated into economic and other development plans, programmes, and projects, and that the development needs are taken into account in applying environmental objectives.

Bombay High Court in Goa Foundation and Ors. v. State Of Goa Through Secretary 2001 (3) BomCR 813 observed, “In the Rio Declaration, principle 1, recognised that human beings are a centre of concern for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Principle 3 enunciated the principle of 'sustainable development'. The principle states that the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations. In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part and cannot be considered in isolation from it. As principle 15 it was declared that in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by the State where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. The principles enunciated at the Stockholm Convention and the Rio Declaration have been considered by the Apex Court as enforceable in the Municipal/Domestic courts.”

Therefore "Sustainable Development" is now recognised as a part of our Municipal law, involves the precautionary principle, the Polluter Pays Principle, the new burden of proof as set out and accepted in S. Jagannath (supra) and Inter-Generational Equity as now accepted in A.P. Pollution Control Board (supra).

Thus Indian Legal system has accepted the idea of sustainable development and talks about Stockholm and Rio Declarations and Brundtland Report in appreciation and upholds its binding nature, but very little is seen said on Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development.

07. CONCLUSION

From time immemorial mankind has known that everything brings a success and a failure alike and reasonable prudent man follows successes and avoids failures for further success and future guidance.

The absence of new commitments and innovative thinking was evident: ambitious and strong sustainable development targets with firm timeframes could have made a major difference but governments, for the most part, could not agree on new goals other than those already incorporated into the UN Millennium Declaration Goals and other prior agreements. The non-cooperation of United States and its supporters had weakened the language of the Declaration to a mere reaffirmation of already existing principles with a future target to be achieved in timeframe.

The successes of the official summit include decisions on a sanitation target, the recognition of the rights and roles of communities in natural resources management, the promotion of greater corporate responsibility and accountability, the reaffirmation of the principle of access, the incorporation of ethics into the implementation of Agenda 21, the acceptance of the need to delink economic growth from environmental degradation, and the launching of key initiatives and partnerships on sustainable development.

Johannesburg saw a face of global civil society that was neither singular nor homogenous, and to no one's surprise, only rarely did it speak in one voice. This diversity of voices and faces should be celebrated even as it poses the difficult challenge of finding common ground and forging common strategies. This lack of coherence was an important factor in limiting civil society engagement in the WSSD.

The story of Johannesburg is both inspiring and disturbing. Concrete gains were achieved in the official meeting. The diversity of voices and faces in the non-official summits should be celebrated. However, the divisions among governments, within civil society, and between governments and civil society will continue to be an obstacle for progress in dealing with development and environment concerns.

The interests of powerful humans have torn into two the first of the present living human beings and the second that of the human beings who are not yet born, but waiting in the womb of the future. Most human beings, being selfish people shall opt as first priority their own necessities than that of the future human being.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.                  Introduction to Environmental Law by S. Santhakumar, Published by Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, Second Edition reprint 2010

2.                  Environmental Protection, Law and Policy by Jane Holder and Maria Lee, Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Second Edition 2007

3.                  Theory and Practices on Innovating for Sustainable Development by Yoram Krozer, published by Springer International Publishing ,Switzerland, 2016

4.                  Innovation and sustainable development: lessons for innovation policies by Dr. Frieder Meyer Krahmer, published by Physica-Verlag Heidelberg, 1998

5.                  Dictionary of Environmental Law by Alan Gilpin, published by Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2000

6.                  Environmental Law, Edited by Dr. Anne-Marie Mooney Cotter, published by Cavendish Publishing Limited, London, 2004

7.                  https://indiankanoon.org

8.                  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp

9.                  http://judis.nic.in/judis_kerala/content.asp

10.              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

---

[i] Charles Secrett 2002, ‘The Politics of Radical Partnerships: Sustainable Development, Rights and Responsibilities’, in Words into Action, IIED, pp.37-47

[ii] Quoted in the ENB’s brief analysis of the seventh special session of the UNEP Governing Council (GC) and the third session of the Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GMEF-3) meeting held in Cartegena in February 2002

[iii] Further information on the Bonn guidelines is available at the CBD website: www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/benefit/bonn.asp.

[iv] Common but differentiated responsibilities” refers to the notion that developed countries, because of their historical role in causing global environmental problems and because of their access to financial and technological resources, should take the lead in responding to environmental concerns.

[v] The precautionary approach states that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing action

[vi] World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, 1987) (The Brundtland Report)

[vii] www.un.org/events/wssd/.

[viii] Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972

[ix] See the discussion in Lavanya Rajamani, ‘From Stockholm to Johannesburg: The Anatomy of Dissonance in the International Environmental Dialogue’ (2003) 12 Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 23

[x] Wolfgang Sachs, The Development Dictionary (Zed Books, 1992), p. 28

[xi] Especially Principle 15 on the precautionary principle (Ch. 1, pp. 18–31), and Principle 16 on the polluter pays principle (Ch. 1, pp. 36–7)

[xii] Especially Principle 17 on environmental assessment, on which see Ch. 14