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;
- 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 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;
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;
- 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;
- 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
No comments:
Post a Comment