How to continue material development but avoid destroying the living condition in this planet is one of the perennial problems of our time. The climatic changes attempted over the last few years made the Earth Summit on Sustainable Development a significant event. But the outcome of the Summit was limited when compared to what is required.

  The non-attendance of President Bush due to the pressure from conservative lobbyists and violent demonstrations before the Summit were some bad notes in the beginning, but the participation of 12,625 delegates, NGO’s, media persons and 190 government representatives made the Summit a success. In the absence of an agenda, the delegates concentrated on five issues proposed by Kofi Annan: water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. In 1992, the Rio Earth Summit provided the grand vision to link economic and environmental issues together. The main task of negotiations was to translate the agenda set by the Rio Summit into a time bound action plan.

  The keynote speech by the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, calling for greater solidarity with the world’s poor, set the ball rolling. The achievements of these negotiations were individual commitments to conserve the Earth, rather than collective measures being finalised. The US announced partnership packages that include about $ 10 billion in pledges to alleviate poverty, fight hunger, increase access to fresh water and clean energy, and promote health care and education. The United Kingdom raised its commitment of development aid to Africa to one billion pounds a year by 2006, and its overall levels of assistance to all countries by 50 percent. During the Earth Summit, the United Nations received submissions from 17 biodiversity partnerships between governments, non-governmental organisations and international groups, with $ 100 million in financial resources to support actions throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America and Caribbean. The announcements made by China, Russia and Canada on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol- the international agreement to limit the emission of greenhouse gases- isolated the US on this issue. This will enable the enforcement of the Protocol on Climate Change, even without the ratification of the US. 

  It the collective level, the delegates agreed to launch a global network of ten sustainable energy centres through the United Nations Environmental Programme that will help promote research and the transfer of green and cleaner energy technologies to the developing world. The agreement connecting health care to developmental issues is significant for developing countries. It made access to health care a requisite for basic human rights. Another significant attainment was establishing the target of reducing to half the number of people - 1.2 billion - who lack access to safe water and sanitation. But the most commendable achievement of this Summit was putting sustainable development back on the international agenda and into global consciousness, through larger participation by social activists and an agreement on a Plan of Action to alleviate poverty and conserve the Earth’s natural resources.

  Despite this success, the environmental organisations consider the Summit as ‘a triumph for greed and self interest, a tragedy for poor people and the environment’. The most important reason is the inability of developed and developing countries to reach an agreement on targets and timetables for the installation of renewable energy. The US, the largest user of global resources and cause of environmental damage, opposed the targets as unrealistic and arbitrary. The Summit also missed an opportunity to address key global challenges like constructing a legally binding framework for corporate accountability and shielding international environmental agreements from the WTO rules. On the contrary, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation subordinates every enforceable agreement to the WTO provisions. Commitments to financial assistance were very low, compared to the promises made by leaders. The conference was unsuccessful in terms of raising current aid from rich nations-which is about US $ 54 billion a year- to ensure the goals of halving poverty and providing civic facilities to the 2 billion people on this planet. The targets for minimizing the harmful effects from chemicals by 2020 and a pledge to halt the decline in fish stocks by 2015 were ignored. 

  It is true that we cannot expect some miraculous outcome from such mega summits. In fact, neither activists nor politicians were optimistic about it. Only the developing energy crisis and increasing weather related disasters across the globe raised hopes about an Action Plan being framed. But the world leaders again displayed their commitment to trade related interests than environmental sustainability. The ideological divisions among the environmentalists made the path of politicians easier. Unless the debate over sustainable development abandons an extremist ideological agenda and comes up with practical solutions, these gatherings are bound to end in exhibitions of public relations and political manipulations.