JURISPRUDENTIAL ANALYSIS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - VISHWA BHUSHAN
INTRODUCTION
The term “Sustainable development” was used at the time of Cocoyoc Declaration on Environment and Development in the early 1970s. since then it has become the trade mark of international organizations dedicated to achieving environmentally benign or beneficial development.[1]:-
Michael Redcliff
However the concept of sustainable development is much older than the word itself is. It finds place in Vedic Rituals, Buddhist texts, Jaina philosophy, Western Naturalist tradition, in the Philosophical life-concept of Aurbindo and Ideal-life concept of Mahatma Gandhi.
Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for future generations. The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[2]
Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. As early as the 1970s “sustainability” was employed to describe an economy “in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems.”[3] Ecologists have pointed to The Limits to Growth, and presented the alternative of a “steady state economy”[4] in order to address environmental concerns.
The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and sociopolitical sustainability.
Scope and definitions
Development The concept has included notions of weak sustainability, strong sustainability and deep ecology. Sustainable development does not focus solely on environmental issues.
In 1987, the United Nations released the Brundtland Report, which defines sustainable development as ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’[5]
The United Nations 2005 World Summit Outcome Document refers to the “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” of sustainable development as economic development, social development, and environmental protection.[6]
Indigenous people have argued, through various international forums such as the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Convention on Biological Diversity, that there are four pillars of sustainable development, the fourth being cultural. The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001) further elaborates the concept by stating that “...cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature”; it becomes “one of the roots of development understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence”. In this vision, cultural diversity is the fourth policy area of sustainable development.
Economic Sustainability: Agenda 21 clearly identified information, integration, and participation as key building blocks to help countries achieve development that recognizes these interdependent pillars. It emphasizes that in sustainable everyone is a user and provider of information. It stresses the need to change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new approaches that involve cross-sectoral co-ordination and the integration of environmental and social concerns into all development processes. Furthermore, Agenda 21 emphasizes that broad public participation in decision making is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving sustainable development.[7]
According to Hasna, sustainability is a process which tells of a development of all aspects of human life affecting sustenance. It means resolving the conflict between the various competing goals, and involves the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity famously known as three dimensions (triple bottom line) with is the resultant vector being technology, hence it is a continually evolving process; the ‘journey’ (the process of achieving sustainability) is of course vitally important, but only as a means of getting to the destination (the desired future state). However,the ‘destination’ of sustainability is not a fixed place in the normal sense that we understand destination. Instead, it is a set of wishful characteristics of a future system.[8]
Green development is generally differentiated from sustainable development in that Green development prioritizes what its proponents consider to be environmental sustainability over economic and cultural considerations. Proponents of Sustainable Development argue that it provides a context in which to improve overall sustainability where cutting edge Green development is unattainable. For example, a cutting edge treatment plant with extremely high maintenance costs may not be sustainable in regions of the world with fewer financial resources. An environmentally ideal plant that is shut down due to bankruptcy is obviously less sustainable than one that is maintainable by the community, even if it is somewhat less effective from an environmental standpoint.
Some research activities start from this definition to argue that the environment is a combination of nature and culture. The Network of Excellence “Sustainable Development in a Diverse World”,[9] sponsored by the European Union, integrates multidisciplinary capacities and interprets cultural diversity as a key element of a new strategy for sustainable development.
Still other researchers view environmental and social challenges as opportunities for development action. This is particularly true in the concept of sustainable enterprise that frames these global needs as opportunities for private enterprise to provide innovative and entrepreneurial solutions. This view is now being taught at many business schools including the Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise at Cornell University and the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan
The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development lists the following areas as coming within the scope of sustainable development:[10]
Sustainable development is an eclectic concept, as a wide array of views fall under its umbrella. The concept has included notions of weak sustainability, strong sustainability and deep ecology. Different conceptions also reveal a strong tension between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. The concept remains weakly defined and contains a large amount of debate as to its precise definition.
During the last ten years, different organizations have tried to measure and monitor the proximity to what they consider sustainability by implementing what has been called sustainability metrics and indices[11].
Sustainable development is said to set limits on the developing world. While current first world countries polluted significantly during their development, the same countries encourage third world countries to reduce pollution, which sometimes impedes growth. Some consider that the implementation of sustainable development would mean a reversion to pre-modern lifestyles.[12]
Others have criticized the overuse of the term:
“[The] word sustainable has been used in too many situations today, and ecological sustainability is one of those terms that confuse a lot of people. You hear about sustainable development, sustainable growth, sustainable economies, sustainable societies, sustainable agriculture. Everything is sustainable (Temple
Environmental sustainability
Environmental sustainability is the process of making sure current processes of interaction with the environment are pursued with the idea of keeping the environment as pristine as naturally possible based on ideal-seeking behavior.
An “unsustainable situation” occurs when natural capital (the sum total of nature’s resources) is used up faster than it can be replenished. Sustainability requires that human activity only uses nature’s resources at a rate at which they can be replenished naturally. Inherently the concept of sustainable development is intertwined with the concept of carrying capacity. Theoretically, the long-term result of environmental degradation is the inability to sustain human life. Such degradation on a global scale could imply extinction for humanity.
Consumption of renewable resources | State of environment Sustainability | |
More than nature’s ability to replenish | Environmental degradation | Not sustainable |
Equal to nature’s ability to replenish | Environmental equilibrium | Steady-state economy |
Less than nature’s ability to replenish | Environmental renewal | Environmentally sustainable |
The notion of capital in sustainable development
The sustainable development debate is based on the assumption that societies need to manage three types of capital (economic, social, and natural), which may be non-substitutable and whose consumption might be irreversible.[14] Daly (1991),[15] for example, points to the fact that natural capital can not necessarily be substituted by economic capital. While it is possible that we can find ways to replace some natural resources, it is much more unlikely that they will ever be able to replace eco-system services, such as the protection provided by the ozone layer, or the climate stabilizing function of the Amazonian forest. In fact natural capital, social capital and economic capital are often complementarities. A further obstacle to substitutability lies also in the multi-functionality of many natural resources. Forests, for example, do not only provide the raw material for paper (which can be substituted quite easily), but they also maintain biodiversity, regulate water flow, and absorb CO2. Another problem of natural and social capital deterioration lies in their partial irreversibility. The loss in biodiversity, for example, is often definite. The same can be true for cultural diversity. For example with globalisation advancing quickly the number of indigenous languages is dropping at alarming rates. Moreover, the depletion of natural and social capital may have non-linear consequences. Consumption of natural and social capital may have no observable impact until a certain threshold is reached. A lake can, for example, absorb nutrients for a long time while actually increasing its productivity. However, once a certain level of algae is reached lack of oxygen causes the lake’s ecosystem to break down all of a sudden.
Market failure
If the degradation of natural and social capital has such important consequence the question arises why action is not taken more systematically to alleviate it. Cohen and Winn (2007)[16] point to four types of market failure as possible explanations: First, while the benefits of natural or social capital depletion can usually be privatized the costs are often externalized (i.e. they are borne not by the party responsible but by society in general). Second, natural capital is often undervalued by society since we are not fully aware of the real cost of the depletion of natural capital. Information asymmetry is a third reason—often the link between cause and effect is obscured, making it difficult for actors to make informed choices. Cohen and Winn close with the realization that contrary to economic theory many firms are not perfect optimizers. They postulate that firms often do not optimize resource allocation because they are caught in a “business as usual” mentality.
The business case for sustainable development
The most broadly accepted criterion for corporate sustainability constitutes a firm’s efficient use of natural capital. This eco-efficiency is usually calculated as the economic value added by a firm in relation to its aggregated ecological impact.[17] This idea has been popularised by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) under the following definition: “Eco-efficiency is achieved by the delivery of competitively-priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life-cycle to a level at least in line with the earth’s carrying capacity.” (DeSimone and Popoff, 1997: 47)[18]
Similar to the eco-efficiency concept but so far less explored is the second criterion for corporate sustainability. Socio-efficiency[19] describes the relation between a firm’s value added and its social impact. Whereas, it can be assumed that most corporate impacts on the environment are negative (apart from rare exceptions such as the planting of trees) this is not true for social impacts. These can be either positive (e.g. corporate giving, creation of employment) or negative (e.g. work accidents, mobbing of employees, human rights abuses). Depending on the type of impact socio-efficiency thus either tries to minimize negative social impacts (i.e. accidents per value added) or maximise positive social impacts (i.e. donations per value added) in relation to the value added.
Both eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency are concerned primarily with increasing economic sustainability. In this process they instrumentalize both natural and social capital aiming to benefit from win-win situations. However, as Dyllick and Hockerts[19] point out the business case alone will not be sufficient to realise sustainable development. They point towards eco-effectiveness, socio-effectiveness, sufficiency, and eco-equity as four criteria that need to be met if sustainable development is to be reached.
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Since Rio , progress in the development and implementation of international law has been uneven. As United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan noted in his report for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) preparatory process, ‘the international legal framework supporting sustainable development’ has been ‘amplified’ by a significant number of new conventions and protocols since UNCED, but their effective implementation is lagging behind.[20] The new legal instruments he referred to are mostly MEAs. Another major legal development since Rio has been the establishment of the WTO, and the consolidation and expansion of the multilateral trading system as a result of the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round.
The WTO’s work programme will indicate the direction to be followed but the WSSD acknowledges the need for efforts to ensure the ‘integrity’ of both MEAs and multilateral trade rules. Although the subordination of international environmental law to international trade law is ostensibly avoided in the PoI, the imbalances in the WSSD’s approach to the implementation and development of international law ‘in the field of sustainable development’ are likely to result in a de facto primacy of international trade law. Effectively the principle of integration appears to function only in one direction.[21]
This is why Marc Pallemaerts pointed out in his masterly Article towards the danger that ‘international environmental law runs the risk of being reduced to mere appendage of international development law, and subordinated to economic rationality.’[22]
THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
In Indian Legal Framework, the concept of sustainable development has been incorporated gradually by statutory enactments, constitutional amendments and exemplary innovative judicial response. An Prof. Gurdip Singh Notes[23] – ‘Initially, there was no provision in the constitution of India
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v State of UP[25], Supreme Court was faced with the problem of the mining activities in the limestone quarries in Dehradun-Mussoorie area. This was the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance and brought into sharp focus the conflict between development and conservation. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for reconciling development and conservation in the larger interest of the country.
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Actions v Union of India[26], Supreme Court upheld the liability of the polluter to defray costs of remedial measures and directed the Central Government to determine amount required for remedial measures which would be paid by the chemical manufacturing companies. The Supreme Court observed that the ‘polluter pays principle’ was universally accepted as sound principle and went on to apply the principle to hold the chemical manufacturing companies liable to bear the financial costs of preventing and remedying the damage caused by pollution. However, the Court did not rule on the issue of compensation to the victims of pollution and focused on ecological remediation measures alone.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India[27], it was found that a number of tanneries in Tamil Nadu discharged untreated effluents into agricultural fields, roadsides, water-ways and open lands. The Supreme Court held that the concept of ‘sustainable development’ was accepted as a part of the customary international law to strike a balance between ecology and development. It was further held that the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter pays principle’ constituted essential features of ‘sustainable development’. Justice Kuldip Singh referred to international environmental law and stated that the ‘precautionary principle’, the ‘polluter pays principle’ and the special concept of onus of proof have merged and governs the law of our country. As is clear from articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution and that in fact various environmental statutes, such as Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the other statutes, incorporate these concepts impliedly. In view of the constitutional and statutory provisions, the Supreme Court held that the ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘polluter pays principle’ are a part of environmental law in India. The Supreme Court further held that even otherwise ‘precautionary principle’ and ‘polluter pays principle’ are part of customary international law and therefore, part of Indian domestic law.
In AP Pollution Control Board v MV Nayudu[28], the Supreme Court affirmed that ‘precautionary principle’ is a part of Indian environmental law.
In Narmada Bachao Andolan v Union of India[29], Supreme Court balanced environmental and developmental imperatives and in the balancing process introduced new dimension in ‘precautionary principle’ by way of interpretation.
The Supreme Court held that the ‘precautionary principle’ and the corresponding burden of proof on the person who wants to change the status quo will ordinarily apply in a case of polluting or other project or industry, where the extent of damage likely to be inflicted is not known. On the other hand, where the effect on ecology or environment of setting up an industry is known, what has to be seen is that if the environment is likely to suffer, then what mitigative steps can be taken to set off the same. Merely because there will be a change is no reason to presume that there will be ecological disaster. It is where the effect of project is known the principle of sustainable development would come into play, which will ensure that the mitigative steps are and can be taken to preserve the ecological balance. Sustainable development means what type or extent of development can take place which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.
The construction of a dam would undoubtedly result in the change of environment but it would not be correct to presume that the construction of a large dam like Sardar Sarovar would result in ecological disaster. India has 40 years experience in the construction of dams. The experience does not show that the construction of a large dam is not cost effective or leads to ecological or environmental degradation. On the contrary, there has been ecological upgradation with the construction of large dams. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that precautionary principle would be inapplicable in the present case the project would neither violate the mandate of article 21 of the Constitution nor sustainable development.
In popular CNG litigation entitled MC Mehta v Union of India
In MC Mehta Vs. Union of India[31], Supreme Court affirmed that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full enjoyment of life. The court emphatically stated :
“Development and protection of environment are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimizing adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, development has to go on because one can not lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck.”
The Court also insisted on the application of precautionary and polluter pays principles and observed:
“If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest. In case of doubt, however, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.”
In N.D. Jayal v Union of India[32], The court stated:
“The adherence to sustainable development is sine qua non for the maintenance of the symbiotic balance between the rights to environment and development. The right to environment is a fundamental right. On the other hand, right to development is also one. Here right to sustainable development can not be singled out. Therefore, the concept of sustainable development is to be treated as an integral part of ‘life’ under Article 21. The weighty concepts like intergenerational equity, public trust doctrine and precautionary principle which have been declared as inseparable ingredients of our environmental jurisprudence, could only be nurtured by ensuring sustainable development.”
In Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. Bombay Environmental Action Group[33] involving town planning, public interest litigation was initiated questioning the validity of building regulations. The Supreme Court felt that in the process of encouraging development the environment gets sidelined. However, with a major threat to environment, such as climate change, depletion of natural resources, the eutrophication of water system and biodiversity and global warming, the need to protect the environment has become a priority. At the same time, it is also necessary to promote development.
The Supreme Court expressed conviction and approved the approach of Indian Judiciary which has time and again recognized sustainable development as a fundamental concept of Indian law. The court reaffirmed after referring to Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the constitution that sustainable development alongwith its essential components or part of the constitutional law. Accordingly, it was held that environmental considerations in town planning laws have got the upper hand in the matter of interpretation of the town planning provisions.
In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Others[34], the petitioners initiated public interest litigation alleging that two water tanks, namely, Avilala tank and Peruru tank situated in the suburbs of Tirupathi town, a world renowned popular pilgrim centre, were alienated by the government in favour of some governmental agencies for construction of houses. It was submitted that the Government was under constitutional obligation to protect the environment. The tanks in question were public property and, therefore, could not be diverted for the purpose of construction of houses to a section of people. The contention of the Government was that in 1984 itself the tank bed become barren and there was no water supply to the tank. The Government submitted that the tanks in question could not any more be maintained in their original form.
The Supreme Court directed the Government to constitute a committee of experts for the purpose of submitting a report on the question whether the two tanks could be utilized for water harvesting. The expert committee submitted its detailed inspection report stating that the tanks could not be revived in their original form. The committee recommended certain steps to be taken for ecological restoration, namely, construction of percolation tank, rooftop rain water harvesting, and artificial recharge for increasing the ground water level.
Thus the Supreme Court directed the Government to: (i) completely ban abstraction of ground water; (ii) each house already constructed to provide structure for rooftop rain water harvesting and (iii) steps should be taken for revival of tanks with artificial recharge.
In Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board v. C. Kenchappa[35], Supreme Court treated Stockholm
There has been an interesting judicial pilgrimage in India to achieve sustainable development. The judicial decisions in India have clearly laid down that sustainable development is basic human right enforceable under Article 21 of the constitution of India which guarantees fundamental right to life and personal liberty. To achieve sustainable development, the judiciary in India has gone to the extent of treating ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ as part of domestic law in India
Critique of the concept of sustainable development
The concept of “Sustainable Development” raises several critiques at different levels.
Purpose
Various writers have commented on the population control agenda that seems to underlie the concept of sustainable development. Maria Sophia Aguirre writes:[36]
“Sustainable development is a policy approach that has gained quite a lot of popularity in recent years, especially in international circles. By attaching a specific interpretation to sustainability, population control policies have become the overriding approach to development, thus becoming the primary tool used to “promote” economic development in developing countries and to protect the environment.”
Mary Jo Anderson suggests that the real purpose of sustainable development is to contain and limit economic development in developing countries, and in so doing control population growth.[37] It is suggested that this is the reason the main focus of most programs is still on low-income agriculture. Joan Veon, a businesswoman and international reporter, who covered 64 global meetings on sustainable development, posits that:[38]
“Sustainable development has continued to evolve as that of protecting the world’s resources while its true agenda is to control the world’s resources. It should be noted that Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure needed to manage, count, and control all of the world’s assets.”
Consequences
John Baden[39] reckons that the notion of sustainable development is dangerous because the consequences are proceedings with unknown effects or potentially dangerous. He writes: “In economy like in ecology, the interdependence rules applies. Isolated actions are impossible. A policy which is not enough carefully thought will carry along various perverse and adverse effects for the ecology as much as for the economy. Many suggestions to save our environment and to promote a model of ‘sustainable development’ risk indeed leading to reverse effects.”[40] Moreover, he evokes the bounds of the public action which are underlined by the public choice theory: quest by the politics of their own interests, lobby pressure, partial disclosure etc. He develops his critique by noting the vagueness of the expression, which can cover anything: It is a gateway to interventionist proceedings which can be against the principle of freedom and without proven efficacy. Against this notion, he is a proponent of private property to impel the producers and the consumers to save the natural resources. According to Baden , “the improvement of environment quality depends on the market economy and the existence of legitimate and protected property rights.” They enable the effective practice of personal responsibility and the development of mechanisms to protect the environment. The State can in this context “create conditions which encourage the people to save the environment.”[41]
Vagueness of the term
The term of “sustainable development” is criticized because of its vagueness. For example, Jean-Marc Jancovici[42] or the philosopher Luc Ferry[43] express this view. The latter writes about sustainable development: “I know that this term is obligatory, but I find it also absurd, or rather so vague that it says nothing.” Luc Ferry adds that the term is trivial by a proof by contradiction: “who would like to be a proponent of an “untenable development! Of course no one! [..] The term is more charming than meaningful. [..] Everything must be done so that it does not turn into a Russian-type administrative planning with ill effects.”
Basis
Sylvie Brunel, French geographer and specialist of the Third World , develops in A qui profite le développement durable (Who benefits from sustainable development?) (2008) a critique of the basis of sustainable development, with its binary vision of the world, can be compared to the Christian vision of Good and Evil, a idealized nature where the human being is an animal like the others or even an alien. Nature – as Rousseau thought – is better than the human being. It is a parasite, harmful for the nature. But the human is the one who protects the biodiversity, where normally only the strong survive.[44]
Moreover, she thinks that the ideas of sustainable development can hide a will to protectionism from the developed country to impede the development of the other countries. For Sylvie Brunel, the sustainable development serves as a pretext for the protectionism and “I have the feeling about sustainable development that it is perfectly helping out the capitalism”.[45]
“De-growth”
The proponents of the de-growth reckon that the term of sustainable development is an oxymoron. According to them, on a planet where 20% of the population consumes 80% of the natural resources, a sustainable development cannot be possible for this 20%: “According to the origin of the concept of sustainable development, a development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, the right term for the developed countries should be a sustainable de-growth”.[46]
Sustainable development in economics
The Venn diagram of sustainable development shown above has many versions,[47] but was first used by economist Edward Barbier (1987)[48]. However, Pearce, Barbier and Markandya (1989)[49] criticized the Venn approach due to the intractability of operationalizing separate indices of economic, environmental, and social sustainability and somehow combining them. They also noted that the Venn approach was inconsistent with the Brundtland Commission Report, which emphasized the interlinkages between economic development, environmental degradation, and population pressure instead of three objectives. Economists have since focused on viewing the economy and the environment as a single interlinked system with a unified valuation methodology (Hamilton 1999[50], Dasgupta 2007[51]). Intergenerational equity can be incorporated into this approach, as has become common in economic valuations of climate change economics (Heal, 2009)[52]. Ruling out discrimination against future generations and allowing for the possibility of renewable alternatives to petro-chemicals and other non-renewable resources, efficient policies are compatible with increasing human welfare, eventually reaching a golden-rule steady state (Ayong le Kama, 2001[53] and Endress et al.2005[54]). Thus the three pillars of sustainable development are interlinkages, intergenerational equity, and dynamic efficiency (Stavins, et al 2003).[55]
Arrow et al. (2004)[56] and other economists (e.g. Asheim, 1999[57] and Pezzey, 1989[58] and 1997[59]) have advocated a form of the weak criterion for sustainable development – the requirement than the wealth of a society, including human-capital, knowledge-capital and natural-capital (as well as produced capital) not decline over time. Others, including Barbier 2007,[60] continue to contend that strong sustainability – non-depletion of essential forms of natural capital – may be appropriate
Appraisal & Suggestions
Going through al the legal/social and economic aspects of sustainable development briefly throughout the work, we find two sided picture reality. One of converted efforts by world community and real concerns, on the other hand there are also critics of the very concept itself. Even those who accept the face of problem sometimes arguably put more reliance upon trade and economics, without assessing the crucial role of environmental upgradation even for commerce.
International environmental law and human rights jurisprudence converge in proclaiming sustainable development as fundamental, central and basic human right. No State has ever denied the existence of right to sustainable development which is, undoubtedly, an essential part of right to life. However, there are two global institutions to ensure sustainable development, namely, U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development and W.T.O. Committee on Trade and Environment. Unfortunately, there are no linkages between these two bodies which are working in different directions.
Inter-generational equity demands that planetary rights and obligations must be codified. States must be aware of the planetary rights and obligations so that they may evolve and employ means to render sustainability to development which generates resources for the protection and preservation of the environment.
The Plan of Implementation adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held at Johannesburg Summit in 2002 called upon all countries to promote sustainable development at the national level by inter alia enacting and enforcing clear and effective laws that support sustainable development. The Plan also called upon all countries to promote sustainable consumption and production patterns, with the developed countries taking the lead and with all countries benefiting from the process, taking into account the principle of common but differentiated responsibility – a principle which underlines technology transfer and funding mechanism of international environmental protection agreements. The North-South partnership built on the basis of principle of common but differentiated responsibilities shall take the mankind to the path of sustainable development. What the mankind needs is to eradicate poverty and build capacities for change in a world order premised on sustainability, equity, prosperity and security for all.
So, there is always, and presently moreover a need of a pragmatic and practical approach. Specially it has to be seen that the effect of Global Economic Slowdown do not revert back the whole process carried so far.
However changed attitude of United States under Obama Administration and acceptance of reality to some extent by Developed World in Ponzan (Polland) recently is surely a ray of hope, to be raised further.
[1] Michael Redcliff ; “Sustainable Development : Exploring the Contradictions”, 32 (1987)
[2]United Nations. 1987.”Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.” General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987. Retrieved: 2007-04-12 ;
Smith, Charles; Rees, Gareth (1998). Economic Development, 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Macmillan. ISBN 0333722280
[3] Stivers, R. 1976. The Sustainable Society: Ethics and Economic Growth. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
[4] Daly, H. E. 1973. Towards a Steady State Economy. San Francisco: Freeman. Daly, H. E. 1991. Steady-State Economics (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
[5] Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development
[6] 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, World Health Organization, 15 September 2005
[7] Will Allen. 2007.”Learning for Sustainability: Sustainable Development.”
[8] Hasna, A. M. (2007). “Dimensions of sustainability”. Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Development: Energy, Environment, and Health 2 (1): 47–57.
[9] SUS.DIV
[10] United Nations Division for sustainable Development. Documents: Sustainable Development Issues Retrieved: 2007-05-12
[11] Boulanger, P. M. (2008) “Sustainable development indicators: a scientific challenge, a democratic issue”. S.A.P.I.EN.S. 1 (1)
[12] a b What Is Sustainable Development?
[13] Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2): 130-141
[14] Daly, H. E. 1973. Towards a Steady State Economy. San Francisco: Freeman.
[15] Cohen, B. & Winn, M. I. 2007. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1): 29-49.
[16] Schaltegger, S. & Sturm, A. 1998. Eco-Efficiency by Eco-Controlling. Zürich: vdf.
[17] DeSimone, L. & Popoff, F. 1997. Eco-efficiency: The business link to sustainable development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[18] a b Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2): 130-141.
[19] Aguirre, M.S., 2002. Sustainable development: why the focus on population? International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 29, 12: 923 - 945
[20] UN Doc E/CN.17/2002/PC.2/7 (19 Dec. 2001) Para 153.
[21] Marc Pallemaerts; ‘International Law and Sustainable Development : Any Progress in Johannesburg’, RECIEL (1) 2003
[22] Marc Pallemaerts; ‘International Environmental Law from Stockholm to Rio: Back to the Future?’, 1:3, RECIEL (1992) 245, at 254-266
[23] Prof. Gurdip Singh, ‘Human Right to sustainable development – An Indian Perspective’ Soochow Law, Vol.3, No.2, pp. 53-89 (2006).
[24] Ibid.
[25] All India
[26] All India
[27] All India
[28] All India Reporter 1999 Supreme Court 8122
[29] All India Reporter 2000 Supreme Court 3751
[30] All India
[31] (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 118
[32] (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 362
[33] (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 434
[34] (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 549
[35] Judgment dated May 12, 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 7405 of 2000
[36] Anderson, M.J., 2002. Sustainable development, WFF Voices Online Edition Vol. XVII, 1.
[37] Sustainable development, Agenda 21 and Prince Charles
[38] chairman of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE)
[39] ] L’économie politique du développement durable, John Baden, document de l’ICREI
[40] L’économie politique du développement durable », John Baden, document de l’ICREI
[41] À quoi sert le développement durable ?
[42] Protéger l’espèce humaine contre elle-même », entretien avec Luc Ferry dans la Revue des Deux Mondes, octobre-novembre 2007, pp.75-79
[43] Les enjeux internationaux », entretien avec Sylvie Brunel sur France Culture, 11 juin 2008
[44] Bruno Clémentin et Vincent Cheynet, Contre le développement durable
[45] http://computingforsustainability.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/visualising-sustainability/ Visualising Sustainability. Posted by Samuel Mann under Computing for Sustainability, visualisingsustainability
[46] Barbier, E.,1987. The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2):101-110
[47] Pearce, D., A. Markandya and E. Barbier,1989. Blueprint for a green economy, Earthscan, London, Great Britain
[48] Hamilton, K., and M. Clemens,1999. Genuine savings rates in developing countries. World Bank Econ Review, 13(2):333–56
[49] Pearce, D., A. Markandya and E. Barbier,1989. Blueprint for a green economy, Earthscan, London, Great Britain
[50] Hamilton, K., and M. Clemens,1999. Genuine savings rates in developing countries. World Bank Econ Review, 13(2):333–56
[51] Dasgupta, P. 2007. The idea of sustainable development,Sustainability Science, 2(1):5-11
[52] Heal, G., 2009. Climate Economics: A Meta-Review and Some Suggestions for Future Research, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(1):4-21
[53]Ayong Le Kama, 2001 A .D. Ayong Le Kama, Sustainable growth renewable resources, and pollution, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25:1911–1918
[54] Endress,L., J. Roumasset, and T. Zhou. 2005. Sustainable Growth with Environmental Spillovers,”Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,” 58(4):527-547,
[55] Stavins, R., A. Wagner, G. Wagner Interpreting Sustainability in Economic Terms: Dynamic Efficiency Plus Intergenerational Equity, Economic Letters, 79:339-343
[56] Arrow KJ, P. Dasgupta, L. Goulder, G Daily, PR Ehrlich, GM Heal, S Levin, K-G Maler, S Schneider, DA Starrett, B Walker. 2004. Are we consuming too much? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(3):147–172
[57] Asheim, G. 1999. Economic analysis of sustainability. In: W.M. Lafferty and O. Langhalle, Editors, Towards Sustainable Development, St. Martins Press, New York, p. 159
[58] Pezzey, J. 1989. Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development, Environmental department Working Paper No. 15, World Bank.
[59] Pezzey, J. (1997). “Sustainability constraints versus ‘optimality’ versus intertemporal concern, and axioms versus data”. Land Economics 73 (4): 448–466. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3147239. Retrieved 2009-06-16.
